Re: squid as mirror

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, James R Grinter wrote:
> forcing a re-fetch; and is saving time on one single transfer (the
> pre-fetch versus the first client to request the file) really worth
> it?

It's worth it if the pre-fetch is running at 4am.

>
> Actually netscape.com reminds me of another problem: you can fetch
> documents from their servers using a variety of names:
> home.netscape.com (preferred?), www.netscape.com, www{n}.netscape.com,
> home.mcom.com (old browsers), www.mcom.com, etc... all affecting
> the efficiency of a cache. (They're not the only guilty party, though.)

I should have addressed this. The dedicated squid could take care of this
for everyone else by running a redirector tailor-made for its dedicated
domain. Everyone else sends their netscape.com and mcom.com requests to
the mirror squid, and it deals with the redirect, etc. This is what I
meant by the mirror squid being devoted to a particular domain. Instead
of everyone running a redirector and trying to optimize it, we split up
the work, so that I might create a redirector customized for
netscape.com, and you might make one for microsoft.com, etc. It's a
cooperative thing, so that no one has to create a massive redirector to
handle all the "guilty" sites.

BTW, I just downloaded wget. It sounds like it will do what I want it to
do as far as prefetching. Anyone like or dislike it? Know of other
options? Thanks.

Richard Hall
Network Services
University of Tennessee
Received on Tue Jan 14 1997 - 15:22:50 MST