On 09/12/2016 09:38 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 7/09/2016 5:43 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 08:27 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> On 27/08/2016 12:32 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
v3.1 32% 38% 16% 48% 16+ 9%
v3.3 23% 31% 14% 42% 15% 8%
On 7/09/2016 5:43 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 08:27 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 27/08/2016 12:32 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
>>> v3.1 32% 38% 16% 48% 16+ 9%
>>> v3.3 23% 31% 14% 42% 15% 8%
>>> v3.5 11% 16% 12% 36% 7% 6%
>>> v4.0 11%
On 09/12/2016 07:25 AM, Kinkie wrote:
> > On 27/08/2016 12:32 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >> W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
> >> v3.1 32% 38% 16% 48% 16+ 9%
> >> v3.3 23% 31% 14% 42% 15% 8%
> >> v3.5 11% 16% 12% 36% 7% 6%
> >> v4.0 11% 15% 9% 30% 14% 5%
>
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Alex Rousskov <
rouss...@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 08:27 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> > On 27/08/2016 12:32 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >> W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
> >> v3.1 32% 38% 16% 48% 16+ 9%
> >> v3.3 23% 31% 14% 42% 15% 8%
>
On 09/06/2016 08:27 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 27/08/2016 12:32 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
>> v3.1 32% 38% 16% 48% 16+ 9%
>> v3.3 23% 31% 14% 42% 15% 8%
>> v3.5 11% 16% 12% 36% 7% 6%
>> v4.0 11% 15% 9% 30% 14% 5%
> That trend goes all the way
On 27/08/2016 12:32 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Factory ran a bunch of micro-level Polygraph tests, targeting
> several Squid subsystems: header parsing, connection management, and SSL
> (but no SslBump). We tested a few Squid versions going back to v3.1:
>
> W1 W2 W3