From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from alt2.b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk ([90.155.4.52]) by ewsd; Fri Feb  7 07:04:35 EST 2020
Received: from 132.198.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.198.132] helo=quintile.net)
	by b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <steve@quintile.net>)
	id 1j02Mn-00020Y-Lq
	for 9front@9front.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 12:04:13 +0000
Received: from [172.24.208.48] ([83.219.41.164]) by quintile.net; Fri Feb  7 12:04:12 GMT 2020
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [9front] Netsurf 3.9 for Plan 9 (work in progress)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:04:11 +0000
Message-Id: <184A1F20-82DD-4E24-BA4A-549D86D75FBF@quintile.net>
References: <CAFSF3XM4h71nmg_Joe=Hz5VNybXgED3QaD1Xkcvyq0MjpQOk5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFSF3XM4h71nmg_Joe=Hz5VNybXgED3QaD1Xkcvyq0MjpQOk5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: 9front@9front.org
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17D50)
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: responsive optimized HTTP engine-scale framework-scale polling storage 


i did tests years ago, with abaco (that long ago) and the win was huge.

don't forget this is not a proxy cache but a cache outside the tls encrypted=
 link, you are caching images and html that the page references.

-Steve


> On 6 Feb 2020, at 2:46 pm, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BF@steve: i used to run a caching proxy for all web clients in my
> network, back when there were still multiple web browser vendors and
> the majority of websites (barring the ones where you log in with
> user/pass) still supported plain unencrypted access by default.
>=20
> it was great. ad blocking and caching could be done on a beefy central
> machine and everybody around would benefit from it.
>=20
> nowadays it has become completely unusable. everything is encrypted
> anyway, and even when i check the way that chrome uses web site
> ressources it seems that the web servers are always so slow anyway
> with providing the main content (which always is small though) that
> the overhead of downloading all the other content over and over again
> isn't so important any more.
>=20
> my bandwidth is big. i'm mainly bottlenecked by the javascripts in the
> browser, some sluggish interaction with sliding and fading video
> windows that want to evade my mouse pointer, or the web server's very
> slow processing times.
>=20
> even closing tabs nowadays on a modern computer takes longer than
> turning off windows98 safely.
>=20
> that's why i ask: why not leave away caching?
> did you do any real tests? :)