🚀 go-pugleaf

snip
>
>1.  While it's possible to screw up anything, I think it rare in
>practice that proxy cache would be worse than cache bypass -- transit
>capacity is a lot more expensive than cache capacity.  And I'm pretty
>sure that ISP's do measure and monitor cache performance.
>
>2.  I've seen little or no evidence of cases where proxy cache was
>actually worse than cache bypass -- have you?  

I have experienced it first hand.  It may be that they don't know how
to configure it, but when my ISP put in a forced proxy  (Cacheflow) my
browsing speeds slowed to a crawl (3-5K/sec) while I could download a
file at over T1 speed.  It also routinely sent old pages.  I sent them
enough proof of this and they took it off.  Speeds went back up.  They
put it back and now I'm getting old pages all the time again.  I can't
tell about the speed issue, because they also have a router problem
that has increased pings by about six times and I generally get 15%
packet loss by the time I leave their ATM cloud.  Speeds are slow, but
it may not be the proxy this time.   
>
>3.  As I noted in my prior reply, cache bypass is selfish and
>counterproductive, since it reduces efficiency to the detriment of other
>subscribers.

Forced cache inclusion under these circumstances is selfish and works
to the detriment of all subscribers.  Also, their cache is attached to
the same pipe I am, so there's no real chance for performance
improvement, unless I get a thrill from seeing expired/old pages
really fast.
>
>-- 
>Best regards,
>John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

Bubba