Except that with BITS the user experience doesn't change. - Andreas
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:34:00 +0100, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > same for AJAX, but both are certainly gaining traction > > i guess the question revolves around your parenthetical remark > > many people seem to think it's necessary to hit servers with smaller, > but great numbered requests these days > > it's that "experience" thing i think > > ;) > > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:12:30 +0100, André Sala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> But the problem, it seems, with BITS is that it makes a substantial >>> number of webserver requests. If you look at your server log you >>> might think that BITS is hammering your bandwidth because of the high >>> number of requests. This is because it is making requests to the >>> server for small chunks of a file rather than one request for the >>> whole file itself. Once it has collected all of the bits of a file, >>> it marks it as being finished and makes the file available to the >>> user. >>> >>> >> >> Doesn't that create a substantial (and unnecessary) amount of overhead >> for >> the webserver to deal with? Why use this technology at all? >> >> - Andreas >> >> > > -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
