As you and Sandy point out, it has more to do with software developer
properly understanding the limitations of the system and good
practices than a inherent problem with AJAX.  One of the practices
that can offset this in some situations is to forward cache multiple
groups of data that the user is most likely to use.

  -- Enric
  -======-
  http://www.cirne.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The server hardware largely determines how many simultaneous
> connections can be handled, so CPU, RAM, hard drive setup start to
> become big factors. Theres also options in webserver config files for
> how many simultaneous connections are allowed, and how many
> connections to database are allowed. Efficiency of server-side code,
> database queries etc really starts to get important.
> 
> A real busy forum which has hundreds of people browsing simultaneously
> is a classic example of something that can expose this problem, many
> years before AJAX came along.
> 
> I dont think AJAX in general will suffer from such problems, just
> certain uses of AJAX where the developers havent thought this stuff
> through properly. Where AJAX is used to respond to user pressing
> buttons, datagrids, stuff like that, I think things will balance out
> ok (more connections but less bandwidth used per request). Wheras its
> likely to be more problematic if AJAX is being used to automatically
> refresh data at a very high frequency. Still boils down to how many
> people are using the service simultaneously though.
> 
> I havent had much chance to do any AJAX stuff yet, so the above is not
> an opinion well-founded by real world experience.
> 
> Steve of Elbows
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" <enric@> wrote:
> >
> > Could you provide some references on this?  I'd be interested to know
> > the impact of connections.
> > 
> >   -- Enric 
> > 
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy <markus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > one would hope so, but unfortunately this can be a significant
> problem 
> > > AJAX apps: some servers are getting hammered with lots of small
> > requests.
> > > 
> > > think "number of connections" for a server.  in that case, size is
> not 
> > > really the issue.
> > > 
> > > Enric wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Also, AJAX retrieves less information overall (sometimes
> > > >significantly), since the page display data usually isn't sent.
> > > >
> > > > -- Enric
> > > >
> > > >--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
> > > ><ahpe01@> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >>Except that with BITS the user experience doesn't change.
> > > >>
> > > >>- Andreas
> > > >>
> > > >>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:34:00 +0100, Markus Sandy  
> > > >><markus@> 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 <andrensala@>
> > > >>>>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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > > My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
> > > 
> > > http://apperceptions.org
> > > http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
> > > http://node101.org
> > > http://spinflow.org
> > > http://wearethemedia.com
> > > http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com
> > > 
> > > aim/ichat: markus.sandy@
> > > msn: msandy@
> > > skype: msandy
> > > spin: markus@
> > >
> >
>






 
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/
 


Reply via email to