From: Tom Copeland <tom@...>
Date: 2004-08-11T03:56:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Opinions of RubyForge's performance over the weekend (CVS,	Web, etc)

On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:53, David Garamond wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > I found CVS performance acceptable. The website, however, is typically
> > slow. The problem, I think, is not so much the actual speed of the
> > server or the line, but that it looks like the pages are highly
> > complex and not cached (and neither are the images?) in any way. It's
> > bad when I can see Firefox rendering each element individually.
> 
>  From peeking at the HTTP headers, the images are normal I think (E-Tag 
> and Last-Modified are present) so they should be cache-able as any other 
> static files.

Yup, the only dynamic images are the project stat PNG charts.

> And I guess the major bandwidth sucker would be file downloads, anyway.

Right on.  50 GB last month, whew!

Yours,

tom