🚀 go-pugleaf

I'm curious as to how well this would work in a slightly different
situation - a school. If you think about it, schools typically have a small
pipe leaving the building, and when students are engaged in research
activities on the 'net, they are typically going to the same set of sites
being recommended by their teacher at about the same time.

I work for a private high school, and while we haven't tried this, I've been
recommending it, and if given the opportunity would be really intrigued as
to how well it would, or wouldn't, work.

--mws

"John Navas" <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
news:hEUh6.2302$S25.19095@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [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/>