W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:58:39 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
CC: "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@skype.net>, "Robert Collins" <robertc@squid-cache.org>, Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>, Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <DF8F6DB7E5D58B408041AE4D927B2F48CBB89724@CINURCNA14.e2k.ad.ge.com>
On 4/16/13 12:03 PM, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>> wrote:

Unfortunately, most flows with http/1 are short (and bursty) flows, so it is incorrect to say that they have reached steady-state w.r.t. congestion control. Many resource fetches complete in between one and three rtts, then much of time the connection(s) sit idle for extended periods of time (seconds to minutes).

Good point.  Most of my work with HTTP/1 (and TCP) are with long-lived flows and I live in the long tail.  My gut tells me you are correct when it comes to traditional web usage.

I'm hoping Will will chime in here with data soon, but the distribution on single connection cwnds as measured on traffic in the wild shows us that using multiple connections puts more packets on the wire as a result of init-cwnd (and thus not subject to congestion control, ouch) than a single stable-state, heavily used and reused connection such as Spdy or HTTP/2 would allow.

Wouldn't Spdy or HTTP/2 still face the issues regarding steady-state then?

Part of my concern is that we may, once again, create an HTTP that unfairly dominates traffic due to lots of bursty flows.

<snip>

I agree that solving the problem for http/2 alone won't fix it for everything. On the other hand, we also need to act swiftly to solve problems on timescales that matter to users, and http is a fine venue for that. The fact that http/2 could do this doesn't stop us from coming up with an opaque blob that *any* latency sensitive application protocol  could use to communicate with the transport layer.

As someone stated earlier, I fear the opposite to be true.  This may end up slowing down HTTP/2 and not be swift at all..
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 17:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC