W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: SPDY Review

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:57:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfD3=OYibM8hZOWAB8qxmnO7K=e4=JK+BV50P8y7sDZ6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Martin-
Thanks for this, it is great!

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com> wrote:

>
> I've taken an internal assessment of SPDY and cleaned it up a bit
> (removing internal or 3rd party NDA information). Apologies in advance to
> any misunderstandings, mistakes or inaccuracies I've managed to produce.
>
>
>
>                             SPDY review
>
> 1. Introduction
>
>  Opera Software has a long experience of HTTP optimization protocols,
>  both through our own products Opera Mini and Opera Turbo, but also
>  from integrating with 3rd party optimization, predominantly in the
>  mobile space. In this document we compare the features of SPDY with
>  our implementation and deployment experiences from equivalent
>  features of other protocols.
>

Can you tell us more about your or Opera's operational experience with
equivalent features?
I'd be rapt at any such presentation!


>
>  We struggled a bit with the format of this document, as there are a
>  lot of interdependencies between the protocol format and its
>  different features. We've decided to present the review in three
>  parts. First we look at the individual conceptual features of SPDY,
>  directly followed by a quick evaluation for each. After that comes a
>  short discussion of the binary serialization of the protocol.
>  Finally we offer our ideas for how to improve the SPDY protocol.
>

I'm interested in how you'd prefer it organized. Anything that makes it
clearer and easier to understand is always good.


>
>  This document is a compilation of analysis and comments from
>  multiple teams within Opera, and I would like to specially thank Per
>  Hedbor, Markus Johansson and Jonny Rein Eriksen for their
>  contributions.
>

Thanks all!


>
>  A review of the SPDY protocol, based on the ID
>  draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00. Last update 2012-04-19.
>
> 2. Feature overview
>
>  SPDY is a transport layer protocol that acts on top of TCP and
>  replaces HTTP while allowing all HTTP semantics to be mapped onto
>  SPDY. In addition SPDY provides
>
>  - Enforced pipelining
>  - Out of order response
>  - Multiplexed requests and responses
>  - Flow control
>  - Header compression
>  - Asynchronous headers
>  - Push
>
> 2.1. Pipelining & response order
>
>  Pipelining is very important to avoid the overhead of setting up new
>  TCP connections. Limiting the number of connections is also
>  beneficial for congestion control. HTTP pipelining is defined in
>  HTTP 1.1 and Opera has spent considerable effort to make it work as
>  widely as possible. Unfortunately quite a lot of equipment doesn't
>  implement HTTP 1.1 correctly, so lots of heuristics has to be
>  applied in real world scenarios.
>
>  Given the non-uniform response times of different requests from the
>  same server, due to different amount of backend work required to
>  generate a response, pipelining is prone to stalling when a slow
>  request blocks a faster request. Out-of-order response is a good
>  solution to the problem. It can easily be added to HTTP by adding a
>  request ID header in each request and expecting corresponding
>  response IDs in the responses.
>
>  By adding priority information to the requests the server can take
>  active decision in which resource to send first.
>

> 2.1.1. Evaluation
>
>  Pipelining and out-of-order response are two important concepts that
>  significantly improves HTTP performance. Client indicated priority
>  preference further enhances the protocol. It is worth noting that
>  for implementation purposes, e.g. issues in underlaying software
>  layers, multiple connections may be preferable to a single one.
>
>

Also, browsers can eliminate heuristics about delaying the transmission of
requests, at least when tied with using one connection.




> 2.2. Multiplexing
>
>  The SPDY multiplexing feature allows for multiple resources to load
>  in parallel over a single TCP connection. The benefit is that it
>  offers a protection against stalling of prioritized
>  resources. Stalling in this case doesn't mean that the connection is
>  idle, but it could be downloading a large, low prioritized resource,
>  when the client issues a request for a higher prioritized resource.
>
>  An alternative to multiplexing would be to open a new connection and
>  let the current one, with only low priority requests on it, starve
>  until the high priority items have been handled. This is however bad
>  from congestion control point of view, and resets any states, like
>  compression contexts, associated with the first connection (although
>  those could theoretically be copied to new connections). Also, since
>  SPDY supports push, it may not be technically possible to initiate a
>  new connection from the server to push a high priority resource to
>  the client.
>
>  Finally we can note that multiplexing in SPDY always incur a data
>  overhead. The lower latency we want for higher priority requests to
>  reach the other side, the higher the overhead will be.
>
> 2.2.1. Evaluation
>
>  Multiplexing allows for higher priority requests/responses to
>  interrupt lower priority uploads/downloads without OOB signaling
>  that interferes with TCP.
>
>  The SPDY specification offers no insight in how frame sizes should
>  be chosen.
>

We wanted to allow for implementations to do whatever seems right at the
time.
Any addition to the spec here would hopefully be a guideline and not an
implementation requirement.
2k-4k is fine for today, but if goodput is 10X higher in the future,
scaling this up reduces overhead by 10X.
Overhead isn't terribly large at either size-- with a 4k frame, you'll have
0.19% overhead due to the protocol overhead.



>
> 2.3. Flow control
>
>  SPDY provides a per stream flow control mechanism by defining a
>  recipient buffer size that the sender needs to keep track of. The
>  recipient has to acknowledge received data by responding with the
>  currently available buffer space. This feature can be used for
>  several things.
>
>  - Throttling of then entire connection due to one endpoint having
>    capacity issues.
>
>  - Dynamic reprioritization of streams.
>

I'm convinced that allowing the client to announce a new priority for an
existing stream would be good. It shouldn't have to rely upon flow control
for that.


>
>  - Throttling of unwanted pushed content.


I'll talk about push soon. :)


>


>  - Throttling of a specific stream due to backend issues for that
>    specific stream.
>

This is the main real-world usecase, imho.


>
>  - Throttling of a specific stream due to rate of consumption.
>
> 2.3.1. Evaluation
>
>  While not stated in the SPDY specification what problem the SPDY
>  level flow control aims to solve, Mike Belshe writes an example in
>  his blog that stalling recipient of data as a situation where SPDY
>  flow control is helpful, to avoid buffering potentially unbound
>  amount of data. While the concerns is valid, flow control looks like
>  overkill to something where a per-channel pause control frame could
>  do the same job with less implementation and protocol overhead.


xon/xoff flow control seems difficult to get right.
It either gives you no guarantees about the amount of receiver-side
buffering, or it requires a prescient determination of the channel BDP,
which as far as I know isn't a solvable problem with current network
architectures :)


>


>  To throttle the entire connection there is already data rate
>  management implemented in TCP. It is possible to throttle specific
>  streams, but that should already be taken care of by the priority
>  settings. Dynamic reprioritization is possible, but would be better
>  made into an explicit stream property.


Awesome, totally agree as you can see!


> Throttling or avoiding pushed
>  content is another reason, but again an explicit mechanism would be
>  preferrable. For real time communication each sender already have
>  the ability to let one stream starve other streams, though UDP would
>  be preferrable over TCP. Also note that TCP provides the URG channel
>  for exception messaging.
>
>
Does URG work? last time I looked, PSH, etc. was ignored by hardware that
I've had experience with. I'd be particularly suspicious of it working on
mobile devices given the lower-layer's attempts (mostly successful) to
cover up random loss at the radio level.


> 2.4. Header compression
>
>  For many applications the HTTP headers are a significant
>  overhead. This is most visible in the mobile space where the content
>  itself often is heavily minimized for the lowest common denominator,
>  while at the same time mobile devices can send huge amounts of
>  UAProf headers in every request. Even on Desktop the amount of
>  cookies sent for every request is significant. Header compression is
>  a good solution to this issue.
>
>  SPDY uses a binary representation of headers, encoded as a set of
>  Hollerith encoded key-value pairs. The first line of the HTTP
>  request is also broken into its components and sent as key-value
>  pairs in the stream headers. To mitigate this somewhat less compact
>  representation of the headers, SPDY compresses the headers with
>  zlib, uses a persistent LZ-window for the connection and uses a
>  static dictionary.
>

> 2.4.1. Evaluation
>
>  Header compression is a good feature with real world applications,
>  and deflate with persistent context is a good approach to achieve
>  it. A fixed dictionary is probably not very effective as it
>  complicates the implementation while only providing initial value to
>  the compression. As an example, this is how the average requests
>  sizes compares between HTTP and SPDY in different modes, using the
>  set of captured headers used to train the current SPDY 3 dictionary.
>
>    HTTP                             821.1
>    HTTP zlib compressed             543.5
>    HTTP compressed with dictionary  497.0
>    SPDY                             913.7
>    SPDY zlib compressed             606.5
>    SPDY compressed with dictionary  517.0
>
>  I.e. Just putting the HTTP request in a SPDY stream (after removing
>  disallowed headers) only differs by 20 bytes to SPDY binary header
>  format with dictionary based zlib compression. The benefit of using
>  a dictionary basically goes away entirely on the subsequent request.
>
>  For very constrained devices the major issue with using deflate is
>  the 32K LZ window. The actual decompression is very light weight and
>  doesn't require much code. When sending data, using the no
>  compression mode of deflate effectively disables compression with
>  almost no code. Using fixed huffman codes is almost as easy.
>

I agree totally that better approaches on the compression side likely exist.
I'm surprised at the numbers, though. Our experience in the past was that
headers were significantly more compressed than you're seeing here.



>
> 2.5. Asynchronous headers
>
>  The HEADERS frame allows either side set additional headers for the
>  request or response at any point while the stream is open. This
>  differs from normal HTTP semantics where headers are sent strictly
>  before any data, and at half duplex, and allows for parallel
>  generation of headers and contents. While this is already possible
>  to do with chunked encoding trailer, it is not a feature in popular
>  use.
>
> 2.5.1. Evaluation
>
>  The problem with this frame is that it creates a situation where a
>  potentially critical header for the interpretation of the content is
>  sent last, thus forcing the receiver to put data processing on hold.
>  As additional headers can be sent up until the stream is closed
>  (though it doesn't specify what is allowed on half-closed
>  connections) this potentially makes all streams subject to last
>  minute reinterpretations. The specification doesn't define the
>  behavior when updating already sent headers. This feature also makes
>  SPDY more vulnerable to protocol injection attacks.


> 2.6. Push
>
>  SPDY allows the server to open a stream towards the client and
>  effectively push content to the client. The idea is cache seeding,
>  where resources likely or known to be requested soon will be pushed
>  to the client. Server push has to happen as a result of an earlier
>  client request, which must be explicitly linked.
>
> 2.6.1. Evaluation
>
>  As defined the feature is not powerful enough to push non-request
>  related content (such as new RSS items), while also lacking
>  mechanisms to limit the size of pushed content or fully disable
>  pushing. The client has the option to read and discard this
>  information, but that may be a costly waste of bandwidth.
>
>
>
I'll talk about server push a bit later.


> 3. Binary representation
>
> 3.1. Control frame version
>
>  The version field of the control frame is odd for several different
>  reasons.
>
>  - The field is huge, 15 bits, which given the rate of incompatible
>  changes in released protocols (IPv6, HTTP 1.1 etc) appears
>  unwarranted. Also, adding more room for the version field is easy if
>  different versions are considered incompatible. The version field is
>  meaningless if different versions are compatible.
>
>  - The version is sent in every control frame, which appears overly
>  redundant.
>
>  - There is no clear semantics of how the version should be
>  handled. While status code 4, UNSUPPORTED_VERSION, gives a clue that
>  messages with unknown versions should be rejected, there is only a
>  mechanism to do it for streams.
>
>
100% agreed.
There is a lot of room for improvement in various field sizes, and
elimination of repeated data.


> 3.2. Field sizes
>
>  The specification is consistently using 24 bit frame sizes but 32
>  bit sizes for almost all counters and size fields for frame internal
>  data. In design notes 4.4. "Fixed vs Variable Length Fields" the
>  authors note that this is done for speed and simplicity. There is no
>  reason why an 8, 16 or 24 bit field wouldn't be simple or fast
>  enough, especially given the existence of 31-bit and 3-bit fields
>  that also exists in the specification.
>
> 3.3. Directionality
>
>  While the SPDY draft attempt to implement two independent layers, a
>  general purpose framing layer with an HTTP-like layer on top of it,
>  this separation creates some unneeded complexities. The two main use
>  cases for SPDY is HTTP request-response and HTTP push. Both of these
>  are unidirectional once established and both of them have some
>  mandatory header fields that are more efficiently encoded in a fixed
>  structure.
>

We'll hopefully put websockets over it as well. We've been suffering from a
lack of interested parties in websocket as it exists right now, and so a
lack of interest in making it go.



>
> 3.4. Stream header coding
>
>  Multiple headers with the same name are encoded as a list of null
>  separated values. This removes the possibility to store binary
>  values in headers, which both prevents unencoded values and more
>  natural representations of e.g. size, date, age, hash etc.
>

Agreed. If I remember properly, interpretation of these fields is only
defined for HTTP streams, where we shouldn't be seeing binary in the keys
or values.
For a non-HTTP stream, the interpretation is whatever the implementation
decides to do.
Since the key/values are length-prefixed instead of token-based, any number
of nulls can be encoded.


>
> 4. Proposed changes
>
>  This section details some ideas for improvements of the SPDY draft.
>
> 4.1. Handshake
>
>  We believe the versioning semantics needs to be better formalized,
>  and that the version information can be moved into a connection
>  handshake. In its simplest form a SETTINGS frame is always sent
>  first in the connection, establishing the version and connection
>  parameters. A connection should be rejected if the version is out of
>  range for the server. The server should respond with the highest
>  supported protocol version before closing.
>

So long as it doesn't require the client or server to wait for an RTT
before sending data, sounds good!



>
> 4.2. Field sizes
>
>  Define a reasonable range for each field, based on statistics where
>  possible, and resize them where appropriate.
>
> 4.3. Specialized HTTP frames
>
>  For the common case of using SPDY as an HTTP substitute, create
>  special frames to open HTTP request-response and HTTP push
>  streams. This removes the need for explicit unidirectional flag and
>  mandatory header values.
>

It moves mandatory values into mandatory frames, right?
I can see that we might achieve a small byte savings at the cost of making
it more difficult for proxies to deal with non-HTTP stuff in the future?
I guess I mean I don't see the advantage.



>
> 4.4. Typed key-value pairs
>
>  Create a better structure for the key-value pair lists where it is
>  possible to have binary values and typed values. The types can
>  include binary string, integer and list. Standardize how all
>  standard HTTP headers should be normalized and typed, including
>  which ones are disallowed to be in lists of multiple values.
>
>
I'm not sure if this is necessary? Where would it be used?
Right now HEADERS has a definition of interpretation for HTTP, but if not
used for HTTP, since it uses length-prefix fields instead of token-based
fields, you can put anything in without worrying about escaping.


>  Introduce a mechanism that allows headers to be properties of the
>  stream, to be used internally in SPDY, and move optional parameters
>  and parameters that seldom deviate from default value to use
>  internal headers (e.g. priority, slot, associate-to-stream-id). This
>  also provides a mechanism for easy extension.
>

Do you mean properties of the session as opposed to stream?
If so I heartily agree. At the last IETF, when I was talking to Willy, it
seemed that we both agreed that defining per-session, per-connection, and
per-stream headers would obviate much of the requirement for compression.
All of the compression stuff can use work.


>
> 4.5. Push
>
>  The client needs to be in control of what pushed data to accept. A
>  simple accept flag may be too simplisitc, as it prevents tricks like
>  redirect collapsing, but would be an improvement nevertheless.
>
>
There is a lot of confusion about server-push, which I hope to clear up :)
The server *always* gets to decide what to send. The client only gets the
choice to interpret it or ignore it.
The client is *never* in control of what it accepts. This is true of any
protocol, including HTTP/1.1 today.

SPDY's server-push allows for naming of the resources, and thus it allows
for them to be stored in the cache as separate objects.
In *all* other ways, server-push is 100% equivalent to inlining stuff in
your response.

To reiterate, server push is functionally equivalent to inlining while
identifying the resource name.
Are we suggesting that clients should have the ability to ignore inlined
data?
If not, then why would we be arguing against server-push as inlining and
server-push are mostly equivalent...



> 4.6. Flow control
>
>  Remove the SPDY flow control and instead introduce a control
>  mechanism to actively put a stream on hold. If priority is moved to
>  stream properties, as suggested in 3.4., dynamic reprioritization is
>  possible.
>

There is a lot of conversation happening around flow control right now on
the spdy-dev list, and I'd prefer to not have two separate conversations
about it :)


>
> 4.7. Header compression
>
>  Remove the header compression dictionary. It creates little benefit
>  for the added complexity it introduces.
>
> 4.8. Asynchronous headers
>
>  Specify the asynchronous header feature stricter so that overwriting
>  HTTP headers isn't allowed and the receiver knows in advance what
>  headers will be generated later.
>
>
I'm not actually familiar with the expected semantics for the
interpretation of chunk-extensions and trailers in HTTP/1.1.
Last time I looked it wasn't defined?

I'd be fine defining initial-headers, stream-metadata, and final-headers I
guess?
We all know about the usecases for initial-headers.
Stream-metadata will get interesting as we wish to provide integrity
security, checksums, etc. for streams.
final-headers could possibly useful for debugging and profiling responses
since it is the obvious place for a server to insert data about what it did
for you.

-=R



> /Martin Nilsson
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:58:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:58:16 GMT