Adrian Chadd wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2007, Adrien de Croy wrote: > >> The worse aspect kicked in once servers started dropping connections >> when they got a pipelined request. Rather a negative impact on >> performance that one, esp with connection-based authentication. >> >> So overall statistically we saw it as worse, and the benefit on the >> sites that supported it seemed very small as well. You're only talking >> about saving one RTTs per request to send requests serialized (after >> response received) than pipelined. The biggest performance improvement >> we saw in testing came about from the reuse of the connection. >> >> I guess if all servers and intermediaries supported pipelining, it would >> perform better overall, but I don't think it's widespread enough yet, so >> we decided to trade a small performance loss for an improvement in >> stability and ease of implementation. We may still revert on this. >> > > Did you benchmark it over higher latency links? It might not give great > performance boosts for under 100ms but anecdotally it seems to load > pages in Mozilla faster when the site RTT is ~300 to ~400ms (think > .eu site accessing .au, or vice versa.) > > > I'll have to check that - no is the likely answer though - good point re the latency. thanks. Adrien > > Adrian > >Received on Sunday, 1 April 2007 12:11:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:31 GMT