From: TOKILEY@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.2b168867.2535720f@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:26:39 EDT
Subject: Re: Apache 164 percent speed increase
To: new-httpd@apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


Wow.

In a message dated 99-10-13 01:11:21 EDT, you write:

> In what way is 0.56 requests per second on static content faster than
>  anything?  Even with only one client, I would expect to see at least 10
>  requests per second before your system even passed my laugh test.
  
Read the table again. Read it carefully.
Look at the TIMES. 

>  The assertion about saving modem users' bandwith is ludicrous.  Even old
>  modems have hardware compression algorithms that compress HTML and other
>  repetitive text very well.  With good hardware (~$50) 2:1 text
>  compression is unremarkable.

Total fallacy. Test was conducted with modems using the latest
greatest MNP. It STILL took much less than HALF THE TIME
to deliver the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF DATA when the 'text'
was already compressed prior to transmission.

The argument that 'the modems take care of compression'
is nonsense and I am tired of hearing about it. 
 
>  Honestly I was completely unable to glean the slightest bit of a point
>  from this spew.

Are you blind? It took much less than HALF THE TIME
to deliver the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of data?
What don't you get?

'A man sees what he wants to see'.
Paul Simon.

Kevin Kiley
CTO, Remote Communicatins, Inc.
http://www.RemoteCommunications.com
RCTPDS online compression server
http://www.rctp.com/