Difference between revisions of "Talk:SLSquid Proxy"
(New page: I don't see the point of LL creating their own version of the commercial caching services that already exist. Apart from taking development time and costing more, what is the advantage he...) |
m |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't see the point of LL creating their own version of the commercial caching services that already exist. | I don't see the point of LL creating their own version of the commercial caching services that already exist. ?? | ||
{{unsigned|Argent Stonecutter|21:24, 9 July 2007}} | |||
Apart from taking development time and costing more, what is the advantage here? | Apart from taking development time and costing more, what is the advantage here? | ||
{{unsigned|Argent Stonecutter|21:24, 9 July 2007}} | |||
There are also problems with enabling BitTorrent or similar P2P programs. Many ISP's see use of these programs as against their fair use policy and will restrict users available bandwidth if that traffic is present. | |||
{{unsigned|Fluf Fredriksson|13:28, 22 December 2007}} | |||
* P2P, in this sense, is used pretty general. Even the Internet technology is P2P, so the ISPs attempt to narrow what P2P means is limited since they are also based on P2P. There has been some discussion on SLDev about the breadth of this kind of caching. [[User:Dzonatas Sol|Dzonatas Sol]] 08:30, 22 December 2007 (PST) | |||
I'm a little confused as to what the proxy is actually doing in this scenario. Currently I have a server set up that is running Squid, so what I'd like to know is; is it possible to get Second Life to work through my proxy which would speed things up considerably I'd feel, as I've noticed SL has a habit of downloading the same things over and over, where as here Squid would simply serve me the cached version from the server on my LAN instead. Is this actually possible with the way that SL currently works? --[[User:Enverex Sieyes|Enverex Sieyes]] 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:04, 25 October 2008
I don't see the point of LL creating their own version of the commercial caching services that already exist. ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added on 21:24, 9 July 2007 by Argent Stonecutter
Apart from taking development time and costing more, what is the advantage here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added on 21:24, 9 July 2007 by Argent Stonecutter
There are also problems with enabling BitTorrent or similar P2P programs. Many ISP's see use of these programs as against their fair use policy and will restrict users available bandwidth if that traffic is present. —The preceding unsigned comment was added on 13:28, 22 December 2007 by Fluf Fredriksson
- P2P, in this sense, is used pretty general. Even the Internet technology is P2P, so the ISPs attempt to narrow what P2P means is limited since they are also based on P2P. There has been some discussion on SLDev about the breadth of this kind of caching. Dzonatas Sol 08:30, 22 December 2007 (PST)
I'm a little confused as to what the proxy is actually doing in this scenario. Currently I have a server set up that is running Squid, so what I'd like to know is; is it possible to get Second Life to work through my proxy which would speed things up considerably I'd feel, as I've noticed SL has a habit of downloading the same things over and over, where as here Squid would simply serve me the cached version from the server on my LAN instead. Is this actually possible with the way that SL currently works? --Enverex Sieyes 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)