Re: Squid 2 - ?huh? why two ICP ports?

Hi

> > Assumptions: a cache digest is 200 000 bytes (a large peer may exceed
> > this quite easily, though). This is equivalent to 3333 ICP packets
> > (200000/60). If you retrieve the cache digest every 10 minutes
> > (600 seconds), you need to be sending 5 1/2 icp queries a second to
> > make cache digests worthwhile (3333/600). For ISP caches, cache
> > digests make sense. For ISP customers, you almost certainly want to
> > use ICP.

> I am afraid this math (and the conclusion) is somewhat misleading
> even with the current [ugly] Digest implementation. Please correct me if I
> misinterpreted your example. Receiving a digest every ten minutes implies
> that you have 6 peers.

Hmm. I thought that digests were re-retrieved every 10 minutes. My
example was supposedly speaking to only one server.

Your statement seems to indicate that they are only retrieved every
hour? Where is this value set?

If digests are received every hour, then my maths is completely off ;)

Thanks for correcting me.

If the digests are retrieved every hour then the ratios definitely
favor digests for any use.

> Sending 6 ICP queries per second if you have 6
> peers means one query per second per peer. That is a very low rate for
> most configurations with large number of peers.

Yes.

> Finally, our initial experiments with "deltas" or "diffs" indicate that we
> can further [drastically] reduce bandwidth requirements for digests.

Ahh: looking forward to this!

Oskar
Received on Sun Mar 28 1999 - 06:49:40 MST