Dave,
We used the 25k object size for a short time back in 2012 until we had
resources to build a more advanced model (appendix A). I did a bunch of
captures of real web pages back in 2011 and compared the object size
statistics to models that I'd seen published. Lognormal didn't seem to be
*ex
Why is the DNS PLR so high? 1% is pretty depressing.
Also, it seems odd to eliminate 19% of the content retrieval because the tail
is fat and long rather than short. Wouldn't it be better to have 1000 servers?
On Friday, April 18, 2014 2:15pm, "Greg White" said:
> Dave,
>
> We used
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Greg White wrote:
> Dave,
>
> We used the 25k object size for a short time back in 2012 until we had
> resources to build a more advanced model (appendix A). I did a bunch of
> captures of real web pages back in 2011 and compared the object size
> statistics to m
> The specific thing I've been concerned about was not the probability of
> a dns loss, although as you note the consequences are huge -
> but the frequency and cost of a cache miss and the resulting fill.
>
> This is a very simple namebench test against the alexa top 1000:
>
> http://snapon.lab.bu
On 4/18/14, 1:05 PM, "Dave Taht" wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Greg White
>wrote:
>>
>> The choice of RTTs also came from the web traffic captures. I saw
>> RTTmin=16ms, RTTmean=53.8ms, RTTmax=134ms.
>
>Get a median?
Median value was 62ms.
>
>My own stats are probably quite skewed
