Re: Storing partial responses

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
To: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>
Cc: <squid-dev@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: Storing partial responses

> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > If you want to support partial objects in the store, you're better off
> > having it implemented as part of the FS interface and allow different
> > FSes to support partial objects or not.
>
> I would say "it depends":
>
> - optional, per-FS support of partial objects may be better if
> performance is to be optimized
>
> - meta-level (i.e., key-based) FS-independent support of
> partial objects is better if the number of FS that support
> partial objects (soon) and code simplicity are to be
> optimized
>
> However, I suspect that the latter approach can provide comparable
> performance on some FSs long-term.
>
> Alex.
>
>
>

What about a mixed approach?
- meta level support for the global cases, the logic on caching, deciding what's needed upstream, and what downstream format to send
the response in (specifically a Content-Range or multipart/byteranges).
- register callbacks into the FS to perform FS routines such as storing the actual partial ranges. Then the FS can daisy chain them,
use sparse files, whatever takes the FS implementors fancy.
Received on Tue Dec 12 2000 - 18:01:38 MST