At 14:04 11/09/99 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
>Also, technically the 'server-side' cache (accelerator) does not need to
>be co-located with the actual server. It may be located in another
>continent, and have different network connectivity to the origin server
>than the end user. So it may both enhance the performance and take load
>off the network depending how it is deployed.
So how is this thing different to a 'mirror' or 'replica' ? It seems to
come back to 'management' and 'intent' which Joe doesn't like as they're
'unobjective' as a metric. Terms like 'server-side' and 'client-side' imply
some line that you can be on one 'side' of. When dealing with multiple hops
along the way (e.g. cache-to-cache) you may be 'client-side' of one side
and 'server-side' of the other, and it rapidly becomes a tangled mess.
It seems like server-side and client-side are only differentiated by their
relationship with the origin server (or other server? :-( ), and their
relationship with the end-user/client is irrelevant?
Markus
Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810
email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602
Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST