At 12:23 PM 10/09/99 +1000, Markus Buchhorn wrote:
> >> Reverse Proxy
> >
> >This is the one I find odd. There is nothing reverse about it.
> >It's just a proxy cache co-located (or nearly-colocated) with the server.
> >
> >Why not just call it a "server-side, or server-proximal" cache?
>
>Agreed. A 'server-side' cache is designed to take load off the origin
>server, but does nothing for the network or performance as seen by the
>end-user. A 'network' cache is designed to speed up responses for the
>end-user and reduce network load.
"Reverse Proxy" is in common usage and, though I admit I don't particularly
like the term myself, it is in wide enough circulation as to require
definition. It is a proxy acting for the server, as opposed to the more
traditional implementation acting "on behalf of" the client (with or
without the client's permission or knowledge).
[Off-topic] It does indeed improve the performance as seen by the end user
if it can quickly serve content from an otherwise overloaded origin server.
As for "'network' cache", please lets not introduce yet-anoth-definition!
> >> Surrogate Cache
> >> Not Defined. Editors View - Needs Discussion
> >> Editors-Node: Do we need it, or is it a role that is provided by
>proxies,
> >> reverse proxies and replica origin servers?
I think we should remove this term and its definition. I have not seen any
evidence to support that we need it.
Rgds,
John
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance Direct / Voicemail: +31 654 308 275
Kruisweg 799 Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
---------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST