Re: Features

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Donovan Baarda wrote:
>
[snip]
> > If squid could be hacked to store and forward compressed objects, you
> > would get both benefits with reduced CPU overhead. Just an idea...
> >
> > ABO
>
> Personally, I dont think that full object compression would be that hot..
> In a big cache it wouldnt be needed.. In a small cache, even with it,
> objects wont stay around long enough to do any good.. Remember, that
> compression is always more expensive then decompression..
>
> I think that link compression would be of a bigger advantage.. :)
>
storing the objects compressed and forwarding them without de-compressing
them to other proxys (or clients if they can handle it) gives the same
benefits as link compression with other benefits;

1) the object is only compressed once for the first direct fetch.

2) In a multi-level heirachy it is only compressed once and passed without
further compression or decompression between proxys.

3) the object is only decompressed before sending to the final client, or
even better, by the client itself.

3) reduced disk/memory usage

You said yourself that compression is more expensive than decompression.
Link compression requires that the object be compressed (and decompressed)
for each hit.

As for how you would implement it... I dunno :-)

ABO
------------------------------------------------------------------
finger abo@minkirri.apana.org.au for more info, including pgp key
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon Nov 24 1997 - 06:20:26 MST