On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:18, Timm Murray wrote: > > 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. > > It might be best to put pictures and such that appear on every page to be > put in tarballs, while the individual pages are on their own (though > preferably gziped). I can't think of a good excuse for not gzipping the > individual pages, as long as clients support it transparently. That's the sort of thing I had in mind - the details would depend on the nature of the site.
What is the current status of splitfiles in Freenet? They're not redundant yet are they? but someone is working on it? > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
