Self-TJTo the Masters of b3ta.
Why not include some sort of 'Refresh' link that simply links to the board?
If I understand correctly, people doing 'Refresh' or F5 will have all the images reloaded too, with quite a waste of bandwidth/time...
(Why not include some sort of 'Refresh' link that simply links to the board?
If I understand correctly, people doing 'Refresh' or F5 will have all the images reloaded too, with quite a waste of bandwidth/time...
frox,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:33,
archived)
because it caches the images so it doesn't cause problems to refreshersand a button like that would eat up the b3ta bandwidth
(
GrandmaOfShoes,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:34,
archived)
I am not sure...I did some experimetns, and F5 seems to hit a second time my server's logs.
But maybe it was just an HTTP HEAD command... dunno.
(But maybe it was just an HTTP HEAD command... dunno.
frox,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:36,
archived)
true!someone on here has list of all IE shortcuts in their profile!!
(
Rev. Jesse. broke his ankle,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:43,
archived)
??At least in Netscape, I see no difference between F5 and CtrlF5.
Will experiment more...
(Will experiment more...
frox,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:45,
archived)
I believe in netcrapshift-F5 is the equivalent of interweb exploder's ctrl-F5
(
--=| Daz |=-- has been masturbating over a picture of you since,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:49,
archived)
it's usually a normal GET + if-modified-since headers...(
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all foreskin of the apocalypse,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 23:08,
archived)
Yeah, I agreeIt would be nice to have a 'live' version of the board, which works more like live chat.
(
Coctail,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:38,
archived)
but then your reading something and poofits gone besides someone made a page like that a while ago!
( Rev. Jesse. broke his ankle,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 22:41,
archived)
F5 (normal reload) will in most browsersre-request the page, and then request the images IF they have changed since last requested (if-modified-since / e-tag headers).
A click on a link to an already downloaded page that has proper headers set (no-cache etc.) will reload the page, but will probably NOT re-request the images. This will reduce the bandwidth for the image servers, but only by about a 300 bytes per request or so, assuming the webservers for the images are well-behaved. Ofcourse 300 bytes x 10,000 unnessisary requests per image is still 3Mb per image..
You can check this on firefox if you have HTTP headers plugin (not installed now, sorry).
(A click on a link to an already downloaded page that has proper headers set (no-cache etc.) will reload the page, but will probably NOT re-request the images. This will reduce the bandwidth for the image servers, but only by about a 300 bytes per request or so, assuming the webservers for the images are well-behaved. Ofcourse 300 bytes x 10,000 unnessisary requests per image is still 3Mb per image..
You can check this on firefox if you have HTTP headers plugin (not installed now, sorry).
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all foreskin of the apocalypse,
Sun 18 Jul 2004, 23:06,
archived)