W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: Connection limits

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:04:24 -0800
Message-Id: <608F7651-6683-458A-9E4B-B35B0BFAFE6A@gbiv.com>
Cc: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Josh Cohen (MIG) <joshco@windows.microsoft.com>

On Mar 5, 2008, at 4:52 AM, Josh Cohen (MIG) wrote:
> I would agree.
>
> The connection limit, in addition to the bandwidth limitations of  
> the time, also helped the servers themselves.  Back then,  
> maintaining many simultaneous but short lived TCP connections was  
> inefficient for many operating systems TCP stacks.  By switching to  
> fewer, longer standing connections, and the hope of the use of  
> pipelining, we thought we'd address that.
> Nowadays with stacks much more efficiently tuned to handle these  
> types of connections efficiently, and the non-occurrence of  
> pipelining, I think this could be relaxed a bit.

Just out of curiosity, why do people keep saying things like "non- 
occurrence
of pipelining" when the vast majority of connections I've looked at over
the past six years contain obviously pipelined GET requests and  
occasional
pipelines of POST (in spite of the bogus requirement).  Is this just  
because
you do all your work behind a corporate firewall proxy?  Is this just
another myth?  Or am I the only one on the planet who looks at traces to
servers using both a client and a server that support pipelining?

Er, in regards to the topic, I see no reason for the connection limits.
They should be replaced with a simple statement of why too many  
connections
results in counterproductive collision/bandwidth effects.

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 20:04:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT