Re: Suggestion

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Dancer wrote:
> > Indeed, our cache wasn't even half-full, but we're talking $560(AUS) [$430(US)] to
> > get it filled to the point it was when it spontaneously combusted, and it's effect on
[...]
> Is it _theoretically_ possible to have an agreement with other _local_
> caches to exchange cached data in case of crashes (or even periodically)?
[...]
> I understand that your neighbors are your competitors, but it is probably
> fearly easy to establish a fair trade with them (e.g., to keep a record of
> total volume of borrowed/loaned MBs of fresh objects??). It seems to be
> quite feasible to support such a "trade" in Squid...
>
> The same trade can be used by "edu" caches as well, I guess.

This depends on network topology; for example, most (all?) universities
in Australia are connected to regional academic/research networks which
are in turn connected to national networks/backbones/&c. In this
instance, intraregional traffic is considered "free" so most universities
connected to the same regional hub already exchange Squid traffic (it'd be
interesting to see the NSW RNO's traffic profile if peering was suddenly
stopped by its members!). This saves everyone many, many, ... many
hundreds of megabytes per day before traffic has to traverse the national
networks (where traffic charging kicks in).

If, however, your "neighbours" are connected by a network where traffic is
not "free", then you can't really benefit from this scheme (at least, not
as easily - depends on topology and costs).

Charges are (generally) per megabyte over here for permanent broadband
links (per byte, depending how many decimal places your calculator holds).

Cheers..

dave
Received on Tue Dec 09 1997 - 20:31:36 MST