Juliusz Chroboczek <Juliusz.Chroboczek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > With http://www.kde.org/screenshots/: > > So according to this test, this page downloads roughly two times > faster through Polipo/tor than through Privoxy/tor, right? It certainly did for the five samples I took. > > I also tested with another website (http://www.spiegel.de/): > > This test is not representative: this is an HTTP/1.0 site. There are > fortunately very few of these left nowadays. What exactly is the problem with the site? Watching the circuits in Vidalia I had the impression that Polipo used keep-alive. > > Privoxy may have had a slight advantage here, because by removing > > three tracking pixels it had to do three requests less. > > And notwithstanding the fact that you so carefully crafted this test > to advantage Privoxy, Polipo/tor was still 13% faster? To which numbers are you referring here? Repeating my results: Firefox + Privoxy + Tor: 110.619s, 78.505s, 20.397s, 36.926s, 73,442s 63.983s 62,956s 43,588s Firefox + Polipo + Tor: 93.979s, 33.102s, 34.242s, 123.365s, 99.740s 76.886s 75.987s 53,774s So Polipo+Tor were slightly slower, while the reason seems to be bad luck with the speed of the Tor circuits. However if I understand you correctly, you're saying that I intentionally chose a site where Polipo has problems? Can you name some other sites that you consider valid targets then? I can test again with Privoxy's actions disabled. Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature