- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:33:00 +0200
- To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
- Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:10:16AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > Haven't heard much. If we s/20k/4k/ in the header section, any other comments / suggestions / concerns? > > How about something like 4072 bytes instead of 4k? That would give > the implementor some space for a length field and/or memory-management > bookkeeping inside the same page as the buffer, on systems with 4KB > pages. One specific value will never match all usages. For instance, I could store those pages in trees which need more than 24 bytes on 64-bit systems. The proposed value should be seen as a guideline to favor interoperability and nothing more. If an implementation makes use of 4kB pages and need 64 bytes for page management, resulting in 4032 bytes, it will still be fine because the application which would complain about the missing 64 bytes will once in a while be hit by implementations respecting the 4096 bytes too. So, while your point is completely valid as an optimisation principle, we should not be that precise because it would become much more complex to respect for many usages. Regards, Willy
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 13:33:26 UTC