BenV
04-19-2000, 03:42 PM
Perhaps a stupid question...
Since for performance reasons you have a 5/10 limit on IRMs/IROs, why couldn't I nixnay the IROs idea and just have ERs that point to a primary domain? [Aside from the fact that you don't allow them to point to a FQ box].
Is the IRO performance hit in the processing of the request or in the redirect?
If it's the former, it seems to me that you have the same performance hit on ERs as IROs/IRMs so why the limit on the IROs/IRMs and not on the ERs.
It just seems to me that there can't be much overhead in an ER, regardless of where you tell the browser to go since this seems to be more of a client-side issue - I may be wrong.
If it's a business marketing decision, that's fine 'cause you don't want to water down the value of your other services. And who am I to say how you run things, right.
Anyway...
Since for performance reasons you have a 5/10 limit on IRMs/IROs, why couldn't I nixnay the IROs idea and just have ERs that point to a primary domain? [Aside from the fact that you don't allow them to point to a FQ box].
Is the IRO performance hit in the processing of the request or in the redirect?
If it's the former, it seems to me that you have the same performance hit on ERs as IROs/IRMs so why the limit on the IROs/IRMs and not on the ERs.
It just seems to me that there can't be much overhead in an ER, regardless of where you tell the browser to go since this seems to be more of a client-side issue - I may be wrong.
If it's a business marketing decision, that's fine 'cause you don't want to water down the value of your other services. And who am I to say how you run things, right.
Anyway...