... 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

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.