Sorry, at a conference and not paying enough attention to email. My bad. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its bandwidth. Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main websites' latency problems, on the average.
There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance limiting / impeding features of the sites in question.
-george
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli <tal@whatexit.org> wrote:
Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments.
Thanks, Tom
-- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos
Huh? I had presumed that CGN was Carrier Grade NAT, not a proxy service. Help me understand.
James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com