by Mishagam <noemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nov 24, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:27:26 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>> 2. massive caching of popular files. Caching should also be able to
>>> take advantage of end-user disks for public use using digital
>>> signatures.
>> I have no idea what this means unless you're referring to something
like
>> BitTorrent.
>
> A bit-torrent like protocol may be part of it, but it requires more
> than that.
>
> See http://mindprod.com/project/bulkfiledistributor.html
In my experience, usually users internet speeds (using P2P) are much
lower than in good servers (like google), so caching at users HD doesn't
look very attractive. It is also incompatible with per GB paying systems
that will encourage compressed contents.
A most expected contents (which will gain most from caching), like
Google or CNN or Wikipedia, is probably cached already.
by Mishagam <noemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nov 24, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:27:26 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>> 2. massive caching of popular files. Caching should also be able to
>>> take advantage of end-user disks for public use using digital
>>> signatures.
>> I have no idea what this means unless you're referring to something
like
>> BitTorrent.
>
> A bit-torrent like protocol may be part of it, but it requires more
> than that.
>
> See http://mindprod.com/project/bulkfiledistributor.html
In my experience, usually users internet speeds (using P2P) are much
lower than in good servers (like google), so caching at users HD doesn't
look very attractive. It is also incompatible with per GB paying systems
that will encourage compressed contents.
A most expected contents (which will gain most from caching), like
Google or CNN or Wikipedia, is probably cached already.
by Mishagam <noemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nov 24, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:27:26 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>> 2. massive caching of popular files. Caching should also be able to
>>> take advantage of end-user disks for public use using digital
>>> signatures.
>> I have no idea what this means unless you're referring to something
like
>> BitTorrent.
>
> A bit-torrent like protocol may be part of it, but it requires more
> than that.
>
> See http://mindprod.com/project/bulkfiledistributor.html
In my experience, usually users internet speeds (using P2P) are much
lower than in good servers (like google), so caching at users HD doesn't
look very attractive. It is also incompatible with per GB paying systems
that will encourage compressed contents.
A most expected contents (which will gain most from caching), like
Google or CNN or Wikipedia, is probably cached already.
by Mishagam <noemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nov 24, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:27:26 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>> 2. massive caching of popular files. Caching should also be able to
>>> take advantage of end-user disks for public use using digital
>>> signatures.
>> I have no idea what this means unless you're referring to something
like
>> BitTorrent.
>
> A bit-torrent like protocol may be part of it, but it requires more
> than that.
>
> See http://mindprod.com/project/bulkfiledistributor.html
In my experience, usually users internet speeds (using P2P) are much
lower than in good servers (like google), so caching at users HD doesn't
look very attractive. It is also incompatible with per GB paying systems
that will encourage compressed contents.
A most expected contents (which will gain most from caching), like
Google or CNN or Wikipedia, is probably cached already.
