W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: HTTP/1.2 stuff: try it out!

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 13:36:41 PDT
Message-Id: <9508242128.AA29574@netmail2.microsoft.com>
To: dmk@allegra.att.com, http-wg-request%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

] From: Jeffrey Mogul  <mogul@pa.dec.com>
] To: Dave Kristol  <dmk@allegra.att.com>
] Cc:  <netmail!http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
] Subject: Re: HTTP/1.2 stuff: try it out!
] Date: Wednesday, August 23, 1995 1:56PM
] But in the paper I plot "requests arriving for already-open connections"
] vs. idle timeout.  Generally, a large fraction of the gain (almost
] half) comes with timeouts greater than 10 seconds.  This implies
] either of two things:
] 	(1) Many clients were delaying ca. 10 seconds before retrieving
] 	inlined images.
] 	(2) there were a lot of subsequent hits in the 10-100 second
] 	range.
] Hypothesis #1 seems rather unlikely, so I'd bet on #2.

A third hypothesis -- that the previous entity requested took more than 
10 seconds to transmit thru the network, thus delaying the arrival of 
the following request by that amount. Is this taken into account by the 
timeout mechanism in your implementation -- i.e., does the timeout 
period start when the TCP stack returns to the server from the server's 
send() call, or when the last byte leaves the server?

Received on Thursday, 24 August 1995 13:43:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC