On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:44:12 -0600, David wrote: > > I've tried it for about a week now, and honestly, I can't tell any > > difference. Besides, my conscience forbids me to send 30 request > > to a server in order to get one page. There's enough clogging the > > net already. But that's just me... > > This 'scheme' was proposed elsewhere last week to almost universal > condemnation. There are pieces in it that are worthwhile (like #3), but as > Kaj mentioned, there's a lot that's unethical as well: > > http://www.livejournal.com/community/linux/1065384.html
I read the whole page (without following each thread) and quite honestly, I didn't read any compelling arguments against it. If 10 people hit a page with 10 items on it, that's 100 items that have to be served. Whether those items are served in big bursts (as with pipelining) or little bursts (serving 10 items 10 times for 10 users without pipelining) the CPU and storage drives are going to work just as hard. The only difference will be the distribution of the used resources. Perhaps someone can do a better job of explaining the problem. But in the meantime, I've changed mine to 9. It's a huge difference in performance, and it's low enough not to be construed as a DOS attack. Miark
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
