[31783] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Fri Oct 20 11:42:31 2000
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:35:52 -0400
From: Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001020113551.E539@ns1.arch.bellsouth.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <00c201c03aa6$cc786bc0$3d5cdcd1@hudes.org>; from Dana Hudes on Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:02:42AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I do indeed use the revenue to pay for bandwidth but the pictures, by and large
> (its a work in progress) have been tuned for file size; still takes time to decompress but hey,
> what can I do. Also the projected load vs. the bandwidth is such that I have a LOT more room left. The users get a reasaonbly large bitmap in a reasonably small file. ImageMagick is nifty set of programs. The problem I have is pirates who collect images and use them for other purposes.
> the pictures...well, I actually don't want them hanging around on the user's disk once the browser is no longer on the page.
> I haven't figured out how to make that happen other than expiration of 1 minute or something.
Dana,
isn't there a HUGE difference between piracy and transient storage? Intent
is one.
> You do point out that while I pay fixed cost for bandwidth (my server is behind a DSL circuit) others might use the technology to host where they pay for usage as it occurs. An quandary.
A quandry to which whoever pays can respond accordingly. Anything from
optimizing delivery of your site to cutting it off completely. Sure, that's
an extreme, but don't you agree?
--
Christian Kuhtz Architecture, BellSouth.net
<ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Atlanta, GA
"Speaking for myself only."
