🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <3A87F6AA.EB02398@mynetwatchman.com>, Lawrence Baldwin
<baldwinlSPAMMENOT@mynetwatchman.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> 
>> With all due respect, that's oversimplified and based on assumptions
>> that aren't necessarily valid, depending on the particular proxy and its
>> configuration.  I've never seen a case where a properly configured
>> Cacheflow of appropriate size was slower than a non-cached connection.
>
>John, I'm talking about service provider proxy cache servers (located in
>their core network), not individual/private cache servers, such as I
>assume is your configuration.  

I was likewise talking about proxy at a service provider.  I do not have
a local cache (just a proxy for filtering of ads, web bugs, etc.).

>My whole point was that there are just so many variables, that there is
>no easy way to determine (without protocol analysis) if they are helping
>or hurting you.  Providers like subscribers to assume that
>"cache=good"...my other objective was to demonstrate that this is not
>unilaterally true.
>
>I wonder how many providers actually tested user experience (using
>analyzers) before deploying a caching strategy.  I think many also
>assumed that it can only help, not hurt you.

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?  OTOH, I have seen many
cases where bypassing the cache hurt performance.

3.  As I noted in my prior reply, cache bypass is selfish and
counterproductive, since it reduces efficiency to the detriment of other
subscribers.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>