On Thursday 25 October 2001 13:49, you wrote: > In local.freenet, you wrote: > > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites > > as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or > > two archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert). > > Can you think up a reason why this isn't done with current webservers? > And do these reasons still hold for Freenet? (You want to retrieve them > monolithically, too, even though you only mention inserting above, right?)
Yes, I anticipated downloading the whole archive - I don't see how it could work otherwise. The disadvantage is obviously that not all the site data in a site archive might be needed to serve a given request and so some unnessessary data transfer would take place and also the latency of getting the initial page for a given site could increase. Presumably the added redundancy would improve the chances of receiving a complete site and might improve latency for receiving *all* of the site. The extra download work can be minimised by choosing granularities of archives depending on site structure - I wouldn't expect a site sharing a load of 600Mb ISO images to bundle them in a single archive with a couple of hundred kb of site HTML + graphics for example. I'm not proposing that we tar and gzip the whole of freenet :-) I'm happy to have a go at this if people think it might be useful. I can try some tests with konqueror (which can open websites inside .tar.gz transparently anyway) to see whether sites inserted this way seem more reliable. degs _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
