From: Meltsner, Kenneth (Kenneth.Meltsner@ca.com)
Date: Wed Dec 27 2000 - 12:26:56 PST
Departmental/personal proxy servers have been one of my big missed
prediction: I was sure that we would see a lot more use of them by now, that
small companies and departments would have shared proxies with some level of
analysis/annotation/etc. added to them. Instead, we all surf alone.
And as far as I can tell, in the marketplace, we have:
* Microsoft's cruddy Proxy Server 2 (a wretched product, recently replaced,
IIRC, by a new "Internet Acceleration" server)
* Netscape's Proxy Server, which was sold to another company at some point
and appears to be on End-of-Life maintenance.
* A large number of caching appliances and network appliances used for
acceleration, but not providing any sort of group support
* IBM's Transcoding server, which is really a proxy server that rewrites
content to fit those itty-bitty handheld thingies.
The Open Source world has a bunch of cool ideas and tools, but I don't get
the sense that any of them are used much beyond the usual "internet
Sure, proxy servers trade latency increases for bandwidth saving (dynamic
vs. static content), but I really would have thought someone would have come
up with a couple of proxy-based killer apps by now. I guess no one needs a
True tale of proxy server excitement: the Cisco caching appliance used to
save us about 30% of our bandwidth at my previous employer. In the mornings
when people (several thousand in Milwaukee) first arrived, we used to have
hit rates above 60 and 70% -- judging from the logs, just about everyone hit
the same handful of sites to check on stocks, weather, news, etc. Best
argument I've ever seen for portal products.
From: Rohit Khare [mailto:Rohit@KnowNow.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 1:42 PM
To: Dave Winer
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; Radio Userland; SOAP; firstname.lastname@example.org; Jeffrey
Zeldman; email@example.com; Bob Atkinson; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: Re: MSIE/Mac in P2P mode
At 8:46 AM -0800 12/27/00, Dave Winer wrote:
>First, I apologize if you receive multiple copies of this email.
As do I -- but the issue is simply that urgent. In fact, it's
crippled the performance of Windows 2000 as well, since that
configuration starves Apache+Perl as well.
Our startup depends on local HTTP microservers, just like UPnP,
Napster, Gnutella, and a slew of other schemes. When I can put two
implementations side by side and see 200 SOAP transactions per second
on Win2K with a separate server on the LAN plummet to 4 events per
second with the server on the same CPU, we have a problem. I can also
confirm Dave's Mac experience.
I am hopeful, though. We've seen Explorer grow into a great product,
and I know at least David Stutz can attest to what we've been able to
inspire it to. We just haven't had a generation of developers ship
"applications" as local proxy servers. When we make it clear how
useful this technique is, we can shut up and let our customers do the
I would be glad to extend any assistance we can in testing and
resolving these issues.
CEO, KnowNow Inc.
2730 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 561-0246 (direct)
(206) 465 4936 (cell)
>I'm hoping enough Microsoft people see this so that the problem is
>fixed, it's an important area for future Web development, esp in
>regards to P2P apps, where the server and the client are often
>running on the same machine.
>***Concise statement of the problem
>When accessing a server on the local machine, MSIE/Mac doesn't yield
>enough time to allow the server to do its processing. The net result
>is a glacial pace, when it should be lightning fast. The addition of
>a single system call to the loop that's waiting for a response from
>the server would probably cure the problem.
>This problem isn't present on MSIE/Win or Netscape/Mac, it only
>effects Mac MSIE users. Our only recourse for people who use our new
>"desktop website" software on the Mac will be to switch to Netscape,
>which doesn't have the problem. I'm not going to suggest that they
>switch to Windows, I'll let Microsoft do that. ;->
>More discussion is here.
>PS: I don't like the banging on pots and pans approach to getting
>attention of vendors. But Microsoft is not moving in browsers, esp
>on the Mac, and if this is what they respond to, so be it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 27 2000 - 12:31:25 PST