From the wmf office in San Francisco,
webcache.googleusercontent.comresolves to something geographically
close and network RT time is around
25ms versus 86ms for en.wikipedia.org
, 61ms in googles favor.
From chrome in incognito mode to avoid sending
wikipedia cookies, it takes
me 391ms to fetch just the html for
503ms for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devo
That difference of 112ms is less than the latency difference from two round
trips, but the request depends on more, meaning that our squids are serving
the content faster than google is. Pulling
a host in our tampa datacenter takes an average of 3ms. If we had a west
coast caching presence, I think we'd beat google's cache from our office,
but I doubt we'll ever be able to compete with google on global points of
caching presence, or network connectivity.
Note that if you're using wikipedia from a browser that has been logged in
within the last month, it is likely still sending cookies that bypass our
squid caches even when logged out.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM, <jidanni(a)jidanni.org> wrote:
This is Google's cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devo
. It is a
snapshot of the page as it appeared on 28 Sep 2011 09:22:50 GMT. The
current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more ...
Like why is it so much faster than the real thing? Even when not logged in.
Nope, you may be one of the top ranked websites, but no by speed.
So if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Somehow use Google's caches instead
of your own. Something, anything, for a little more speed.
Wikitech-l mailing list