Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news From: Ken Bigelow <kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Apache and FreeBSD versions Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 13:22:52 +0000 Organization: Erol's Internet Services Lines: 97 Message-ID: <32C12AAC.D2D@www.play-hookey.com> References: <E2FwC0.4yy@nonexistent.com> <E2tw30.JKp@nonexistent.com> <32BD916C.4B5F@www.play-hookey.com> <32BF5674.2D0F@fred.net> <59nq1e$n14@node6.frontiernet.net> Reply-To: kbigelow@www.play-hookey.com NNTP-Posting-Host: kenjb05.play-hookey.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:33140 Dan Foster wrote: > > In article <32BF5674.2D0F@fred.net>, Roger Armstrong <mcurry@fred.net> wrote: > >Ken Bigelow wrote: > >> As for Squid, I've seen references to both it and CERN cache in my > >> agent_log file, but I haven't tried it, and so have no opinion. I figure > >> that my 33.6K dialup is the basic bottleneck on my system. Until I can > >> upgrade that to at least ISDN, any efforts I make to speed up the box > >> will have little practical effect. > > It might help you, even on a relatively 'low speed' net connection because > it becomes 'smarter' through caching and other optimizing technology, so > you don't have to clog as much of your pipe to the net with redundant data. > However, how much of a potential win this would be for you, I don't know. > Evaluation would probably give you your answer. Although, yes, I'll concede > that you can go ever so far before you run into that brick wall called > bandwidth... The eternal brick wall, indeed. But maybe I'm missing something here. My connection to my ISP is via 33.6K dialup, with some compression. In my logical fashion, I reason that if I cache my pages on my own server, they still have to go through that narrow pipe, for no net benefit. However, if my ISP caches my pages on *their* side of the pipe, this bottleneck would be avoided. I could also believe some improvement if my gateway box was not also my Web server. Then I could cache pages on the gateway and avoid having too much traffic on my local Ethernet. However, since my Web server *is* my gateway as well, I see no advantage in this case. Am I still missing something? > > >USR says they will make x2 firmware available to new purchasers of their > >modem lines, sometime in Jan. or Feb. Assuming that you seek out an ISP > > X2 is still a very much beta product. One of the nation's top 10 long > distance telco company's subsidiary - their ISP, doesn't even have the > X2 software in hand yet! What you are hearing is the marketing hype > USR is making. No offense intended to USR - I love the products, I like > the company... but I recognize marketing hype for what it is when I see it. > > >that uses USR modems for dialups, this could move you up to 56K. > > I have contacts with a large telco and various people, and my info is *very* > preliminary (ie I have yet to do much more reading), so keep that in mind. > > What I've heard: > X2 is nice, but not necessarily a panacea. Why? For one thing, it's > isosynchronous (ie 56k down, 33k up, or something to that effect). And > then it requires that switches between your serving CO and the CO that > serves the ISP is pure digital. There are a bunch of older analog > switches still out there. > > And then there is the matter of industry acceptance of the format used > for X2. USR has their own..Rockwell, Motorola, Lucent et al are all > playing with something else. Then the ITU-T is waiting for submissions > from those companies - but they could always reject it in favor of something > else. Why is this important? Anybody remember USR's HST format before > v.32 was standardized? :) > > Then there are some lawsuits pending that may affect the final outcome. > And so on. IOW.. lots still remains to be fleshed out before X2 can > truly be called a standardized technology in any form. > > X2 might be called more of a very temporary stopgap measure? Technology > to watch out would be ADSL... or the offerings from various cable > companies (again, their offerings are isosynchronous, too - but at least > bigger pipe overall than with X2). > > >On the other hand, Bell Atlantic is thrashing the ISDN waters pretty > >hard. They are now waiving the $125 installation charge. This could put > >you in a position where you could 1. find an ISP that would or could > >execute the ISDN dialup to your Web site for inbound calls (seems > >unlikely), or 2. plunge ahead and get the centrex ISDN. Maybe BellAtl > >has a pop reasonably close-by, and your mileage charges for centrex may > >be acceptable. > > Hmm. Mileage-based charges rather than per-minute charges? Hmm, interesting. > How would the two compare (ie CTX ISDN and mileage-based charges vs typical > residential ISDN offering and per-minute charges), any ideas? (Very curious > now ;-) ) I can only tell you that we recently installed 128K ISDN at work. The office is in Northwest DC and the ISP we use is in Alexandria, VA. I understand the charge is about $600 per month. However, if I go with an ISP closer to me, I may get it down to $200/mo. After Christmas I'll be checking the possibilities with a couple of local ISPs. Cheers, and Happy Holidays to all! -- Ken Are you interested in | byte-sized education | http://www.play-hookey.com over the Internet? |