Hi Mark, Regarding the implementation of Apache::Clean, the question is -- whether or not you can benefit one way or another from the fact that your uncompressed responses are 5-20% less? I can really talk about the Light-Compression in Apache::Dynagzip, keeping in mind that Apache::Clean provides many extra things, but I assume that the blank spaces make the main "blank volume" of unprepared for transmission files.
Normal compression (gzip) usually makes files 3-20 times less. The compression ratio depends very little on whether the light compression was applied prior to gzip, or not. What question would you like to add to Web Content Compression FAQ? Thanks, Slava -- http://users.outlook.net/~sbizyaye/dynagzip/ On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 09:32, Mark Stosberg wrote: > Hello, > > I have a similar question to the one posted here before: > > Apache::Clean, Apache::Compress, mod_gzip/deflate, cross site scripting and > more. by Richard Clarke > http://mathforum.org/epigone/modperl/hyrwhonyex/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The web content compression FAQ that followed was helpful, but there wasn't > much > feedback on this particular angle: > > If you are already using a compression tool like mod_gzip, does it tend to be > worthwhile to add an Apache::Clean phase as well? > > I'm curious to know if other Apache::Clean users have felt there was > significant benefit or a noticeably performance penalty. > > It would same the bandwidth is more of an issue than the processor time, so my > assumption is that a little extra processor time would be a reasonable > trade-off. > > Thanks! > > Mark > > -- > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Mark Stosberg Principal Developer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Summersault, LLC > 765-939-9301 ext 202 database driven websites > . . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . .
