Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:06:03 -0600 From: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: davidg@Root.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why RFC1323 is disabled on freefall and freebsd.cdrom.com ? Message-ID: <199601291706.LAA02227@chrome.jdl.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:11:06 %2B0100." <199601291411.PAA05532@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ RFC 1323 TCP/IP VJ extensions... ] Apparently, Luigi Rizzo scribbled: > I don't question your word. I just want to point out that people > at unix.hensa.ac.uk (and wwwcache.hensa.ac.uk, a national web proxy) > say that they serve over 1 million web documents per day, so they > might have scalability and interoperability problems similar to > yours. > > Two differences, perhaps: > * www documents are often smaller than ftp, and just one per > connection, so it's hard to make a comparison of the traffic; > > * they mostly serve UK clients, so they might have a different view of > the world (read: thei might not have to deal with the same > brokenesses). wcarchive is currently one machine, serving both www and ftp requests, right? A classic approach to solving the problem of making forward progress yet maintaining backward compatibility for a while is to offer dual services. What are the chances of "splitting" wcarchive, for example, into two machines maybe along the www/ftp line and making one of them RFC 1323 aware while keeping the other unaware. Those who are willing/able to move into the future can do so. Certainly, it will be some degree of trouble and cause some headaches with the dual maintenance issues, but it might help to shed light on the general issue too. Anyway, just a thought. jdl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601291706.LAA02227>