Re: Suggestion

Indeed, our cache wasn't even half-full, but we're talking $560(AUS) [$430(US)] to
get it filled to the point it was when it spontaneously combusted, and it's effect on
our daily bandwidth expenses is noticeable. We can expect to pay much more per day
(slowly diminishing) for the next couple weeks, at least. Within three to four weeks,
we should be stable again, costwise.

D

David Luyer wrote:

> > David Luyer <luyer@ucs.uwa.edu.au> writes:
> > > As for why it's not implemented - I guess nobody likes the idea enough to
> > > implement it, or people see some problem which I can't see...
> >
> > Or maybe they realize that a cache is just that: a cache. It holds no important
> > information and in most cases is refilled within a couple days.
>
> A cache often holds around $7,000 worth of 'unimportant data', though, that
> people don't want to re-fetch. Maybe being in America you don't see the
> point that is so blatantly obvious to people in other parts of the world -
> that data is expensive to re-fetch and, especially if you provide a search
> engine for it, but even if you don't - a lot of the data is re-used and
> real savings are made.
>
> David.

--
Note to evil sorcerers and mad scientists: don't ever, ever summon powerful
demons or rip holes in the fabric of space and time. It's never a good idea.
ICQ UIN: 3225440