Re: WWW "versus" gopher

Paul Phillips <paulp@is.internic.net>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 10:55:26 --100
Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9403110111.A23124-0100000@is.internic.net>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: paulp@is.internic.net
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Paul Phillips <paulp@is.internic.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: WWW "versus" gopher
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 2889
  Maybe we should all read "Lying with Statistics." :-) Wouldn't one 
expect as many gopher servers to run on a non-standard port as http 
servers? Inflating the WWW numbers to account for this while leaving the 
gopher numbers untouched generates numbers for the sake of numbers.  The 
Web is growing fine on its own...

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul Phillips                  | EMAIL: paulp@is.internic.net           |
| InterNIC Information Services  |   WWW: http://www.internic.net/~paulp/ |
| Reference Desk Staff           | PHONE: 619-455-4626 FAX: 619-455-4640  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 

On Fri, 11 Mar 1994, Paul S. Wain wrote:

> Quick question,
> 
> @  Service Name       Port  Rank Packet Count % Pkts  Rank   Byte Count  % Byts
> @  ============       ====  ==== ============ ======  ==== ============= ======
> @  gopher               70     9   1472386850  2.455     6  396066059800  3.470
> @  www                  80    11   1105399700  1.843     7  347503518500  3.044
> 
> Looking at these stats, I would think that the values could be a bit low
> for the WWW packet count. The reason I ask is, what about all those
> servers out here that exist on other ports, such as, say:
> 
> 801, 8000, 8080, 4040, etc etc.
> 
> Could some rough factoring be added in for them? I just ask since even
> it 90% of people used port 80 and only 10% dont (looking at my hotlist
> most appear to be on another port :) then that would give new www
> figures of:
> 
> @  Service Name       Port  Rank Packet Count % Pkts  Rank   Byte Count  % Byts
> @  ============       ====  ==== ============ ======  ==== ============= ======
> @  gopher               70     9   1472386850  2.455     6  396066059800  3.470
> >> www                  80etc xx   1215939670  x.xxx     x  382253870355  x.xxx
> 
> Which although it keeps the WWW is "7"th place, means that by now it has
> already overtaken gopher....
> 
> Just a quick hack out at some maths there. Let me know what you all
> think :)
> 
> Paul
> 
> .-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> |       Paul S. Wain, (X.500 Project Engineer and WWW/HTTP chappie),      |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Computer Centre, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middx., UB8 3PH, ENGLAND. |
> |   VOICE: +44 895 274000 extn 2391       EMAIL: Paul.Wain@brunel.ac.uk   |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |               http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/paul/	                  |
> |               http://htt21.brunel.ac.uk:8080/paul/                      |
> |               http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:4040/~ccsrpsw/                  |
> `-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
>