> On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote: > > In local.freenet, you wrote: > > > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites > > > as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or > > > two archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert). > > > > Can you think up a reason why this isn't done with current webservers? > > And do these reasons still hold for Freenet? (You want to retrieve them > > monolithically, too, even though you only mention inserting above, right?) > > Yes, I anticipated downloading the whole archive - I don't see how it could > work otherwise. > > The disadvantage is obviously that not all the site data in a site archive > might be needed to serve a given request and so some unnessessary data > transfer would take place and also the latency of getting the initial page > for a given site could increase. Presumably the added redundancy would > improve the chances of receiving a complete site and might improve latency > for receiving *all* of the site.
It might be best to put pictures and such that appear on every page to be put in tarballs, while the individual pages are on their own (though preferably gziped). I can't think of a good excuse for not gzipping the individual pages, as long as clients support it transparently. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
