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

Re: Significantly reducing headers footprint

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:04:07 +0200
To: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120611170407.GC7538@1wt.eu>
Hi Martin,

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:38:39PM +0200, Martin Nilsson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:32:41 +0200, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
> 
> >This is good work, Willy.
> >
> >Any perf results on how much this will impact the user?  Given the  
> >stateful
> >nature of gzip already in use, I'm betting this has almost no impact for
> >most users?
> >
> 
> Gzip works better on text files than binary files, at least for small  
> messages where transferring a custom huffman table creates a big relative  
> overhead, so doing things binary doesn't have to be better. If you start  
> doing unaligned bits it gets really bad, as gzip works on byte level (c.f.  
> flash files). You can of course try to construct your binary format so  
> that it looks ASCII-ish for all common values...

It's not totally true in fact. Gzip offers nice savings here, but the main
issue I'm having is that by compressing the full requests, we still present
a complete request to the recipient, which has to process it as a whole. This
basically means decompressing then parsing all the cookies etc... While
doing so over HTTP/1.1 probably is the most natural thing to do, I think
that we can improve the 2.0 design to avoid having to do this in the first
place.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 17:05:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 17:05:22 GMT