- ... URL1
- In Section
3.3 we explain why it may be useful to use one of the
physical URLs as a logical URL.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... 4.02
- Both browsers executed on a
PC with 300 MHz Pentium II processor and 64 MB of main memory running
Windows NT Workstation 4.0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... system3
- If a shared
file system is not available, each client uses its local version of
latency table.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ...
latency4
- In all experiments we measured also HTTP response time
and found its behavior fairly close to that of HTTP request
latency.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... period5
- We did not use a higher polling rate
as it could be interpreted as a denial-of-service attack.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ...
machine6
- Sun SparcStation with 128 MB of RAM running Solaris
2.5 and Java Web Server 1.1.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... interpreter7
- Some of the clients ran
on platforms that did not support JDK1.1 at the time of
experiment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... timeouts8
- In most cases the calculated timeout was larger than the timeout of
the underlying java.net.URLConnection implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ...
client9
- The DNS client may be in a completely different
location than the Web client if a recursive DNS query is
used
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.