| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:29:31PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 21:57 +0200, Mark Kubacki wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Regarding functionality – there is still some room for more |
| 5 |
> > optimizations and more features. For example, if the local copy is no |
| 6 |
> > older than x seconds then there's no need to contact any remote |
| 7 |
> > server. Expect patches. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Mark, I did similar for the layman-2.0 code which has been running with |
| 11 |
> the header info for quite a while now. After it had been running for a |
| 12 |
> good amount of time I put in a request to infra for some usage stats. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The If-Modified-Since header does make a big difference for layman. |
| 15 |
> Now I just really need to make a good blog post with a few graphs of the |
| 16 |
> data. |
| 17 |
> You can view the results on this bug if your interested: |
| 18 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398465 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Brian, thanks for the stats and the pointer to layman. I guess we both |
| 22 |
see the opportunity to share some experiences and code. Layman can |
| 23 |
benefit from adding compression and I need to integrate your notices |
| 24 |
about Py2/Py3 compatibility. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If it is okay with Zac I will refactor and improve the URL-fetching some |
| 27 |
more. Following redirects, a proper auth-handler and 'identificator' |
| 28 |
comes to mind. You could copy the final handlers, then. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Portage's 'emerge' currently contacts remote hosts whenever it is run |
| 31 |
and this adds a noticeable delay. In the best case even the 304 (not |
| 32 |
modified) responses are avoid wherever possible. So in the end success |
| 33 |
of Portage's caching will not be measurable by a 200-to-304 ratio. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Mark |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
[1] http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/ticket/93 – discussion about unintuitive |
| 39 |
but valid handling of the If-Modified-Since header |
Archives