[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not really going to re-enter this recurring fray, but it is
> amusing to note that web browsers open multiple connections at once
> in an effort to speed up their perceived performance. I don't see
> much push to stop that sort of greedy behaviour.
I do. HTTP 1.1 was proposed as a way to send all that data down a single
TCP link instead of opening a new connection for each object. HTTP 1.1
browsers may still open multiple links, but those links are "reused" not
opened and closed, to avoid the SYN, etc. overhead inherent in TCP. This
was well studied and put into practice.
> They also repeatedly fetch exactly the same data. Does anyone
> care to calculate how many times the exact same stream of bits, let's
> say the home page of amazon.com, has been sent down their connection
> over the last six months?
Yes. Read up on http://www.squid-cache.org/ ... a lot of major ISPs and
organisations run caching proxy servers, etc. to eliminate undue
bandwidth use. In house, we have a 25% hit rate on HTTP use.
> A greedy ant maybe, but rarely relevant compared to that
> 800lb gorilla/hydra combo, we call web-browsing.
And web browsing technology has changed to help ... now it might be 'our'
turn.
> As others have repeatedly said, if you're in that rare situation that
> demands something different, use it, or write it. qmail was never
> designed to meet every requirement out their and the author has made
> it abundantly clear which ones are important to him.
Understood.
