> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Karl
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 8:29 PM
> To: Rohit Khare
> Cc: FoRK@xent.com
> Subject: Re: Caching
> Rohit Khare <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Imagine a future with extreme local
> > data storage -- whatever high number you choose, at some point you'll
> > pass a threshold where you can store the N most likely pages you'll
> > *ever* visit offline.
> > So imagine stopping by 7-11 and picking up "this week's Web" like you
> > would a 10-minute phone card... or the metaphor of charging up
> > your phone with bits as you do electrons: a honkin' Li-Ion battery
> > caches a 10 hour stream of electrons (talk time), so could your
> > sugarcube hologram cache a 10 hour stream of most possible data you'd
> > want.
> If you're suggesting that we'll trade bandwidth for storage, I don't
> think that we'll see such an extreme, except maybe when in the field
> with a slower connection. Yes, buy the card, but more importantly,
> never throw anything away once you've seen it, and even more
> importantly, attempt to have the most up-to-date guess about the N
> most likely pages you'll visit, and have those cached before you ask
> for them. Idle bandwidth is wasted bandwidth.
> I barely started plinking with this using overnight wget & instantly
> deleting what I had grabbed, so that it would be in my squid cache
> when my browser looked at it next, but either the web is still very
> backwards with its expiry information, or I was unlucky. Even today,
> I have enough disk for something like a shallow traversal of the links
> off of the most recent page grabbed, but it would need a real traffic
> shaper to not get in my way.
> Karl Anderson email@example.com <URL:http://www.pobox.com/~kra/>