Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: decreased caching efficiency?
From: Christian Kuhtz <ck () arch bellsouth net>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:35:52 -0400


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."



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault