Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of parin.soc@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.197 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=nIq9YeFH6tyiMTXc0O+gpRVz1khcYVcmcAalY9VbD1vdEK69eh3qLTxG7eVYMrF1uXGX0m/7/GNd6JeqJWrwzBlnu3InBgWeNB08UgQjlwWCUjpkcPbeYgonZmxvq1qHZig58ug6WR411jJR7Ysz07+DcuwRfBIyIjDLWQOLB+w=
Message-ID: <e0f6a050050715195746bf158c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:57:34 -0500
From: Parin Shah <parin.soc@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Parin Shah <parin.soc@gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: mod-cache-requestor plan
In-Reply-To: <20050715085424.GA18082@stdlib.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <42D66FAF.2090709@holsman.net>
	 <BEFC16BD.78D2%Brian.Akins@turner.com>
	 <e0f6a05005071423231ad7972@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20050715085424.GA18082@stdlib.net>

On 7/15/05, Colm MacCarthaigh <colm@stdlib.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:23:29AM -0500, Parin Shah wrote:
> > - we need to maintain a counter for url in this case which would
> > decide the priority of the url. But mainting this counter should be a
> > low overhead operation, I believe.
>=20
> Is a counter strictly speaking the right approach? Why not a time of
> last access?
>=20
> I havn't run a statistical analysis but based on my logs the likelyhood
> of a url being accessed is very highly correlated to how recently it has
> been accessed before. A truly popular page will always have been
> accessed recently, a page that is becoming popular (and therefore very
> likely to get future hits) will have been accessed recently and a page
> who's popularity is rapidly diminishing will not have been accessed
> recently.
>=20

Last Access Time is definetaly better solution when compared to
counter mechanism. Would like to know other ppl's opinion too.

Thanks,
Parin.