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

Re: delta encoding and state management

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:48:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYj51jRFosut2RsdE46SqoMDqa_r5EB7g4pj5eC2i73j7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Hi William,
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:33:37PM -0800, William Chan (?????????) wrote:
>> From the SPDY whitepaper
>> (http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper), we note that:
>> "Header compression resulted in an ~88% reduction in the size of
>> request headers and an ~85% reduction in the size of response headers.
>> On the lower-bandwidth DSL link, in which the upload link is only 375
>> Kbps, request header compression in particular, led to significant
>> page load time improvements for certain sites (i.e. those that issued
>> large number of resource requests). We found a reduction of 45 - 1142
>> ms in page load time simply due to header compression."
>> That result was using gzip compression, but I don't really think
>> there's a huge difference in PLT between stateful compression
>> algorithms. That you use stateful compression at all is the biggest
>> win, since as Mark already noted, big chunks of the headers are
>> repeated opaque blobs. And I think the wins will only be greater in
>> bandwidth constrained devices like mobile. I think this brings us back
>> to the question, at what point do the wins of stateful compression
>> outweigh the costs? Are implementers satisfied with the rough order of
>> costs of stateful compression of algorithms like the delta encoding or
>> simple compression?
> I agree that most of the header overhead is from repeated headers.
> In fact, most of the requests we see for large pages with 100 objects
> contain many similar headers. I could be wrong, but I think that browsers
> are aware about the fact that they're fetching many objects at once in
> most situations (eg: images on an inline catalogue).
> Thus maybe we should think a different way : initially the web was
> designed to retrieve one object at a time and it made sense to have
> one request, one response. Now we have much more contents and we
> want many objects at once to load a page. Why now define that as the
> standard way to load pages and bring in the ability to load *groups*
> of objects ?
> We could then send a request for several objects at once, all using
> the same (encoded) headers, plus maybe additional per-object headers.
> The smallest group is one object and works like today. But when you
> need 10 images, 3 CSS and 2 JS, maybe it makes sense to send 1,2 or
> 3 requests only. We would also probably find it useful to define
> a base for common objects.
> We could then see requests like this :
>     group 1
>        header fields ...
>        base http://static.example.com/images/articles/20130122/
>        req1: GET corner-left.jpg
>        req2: GET corner-right.jpg
>        req3: GET center-banner.jpg
>        req4: GET company-logo.png
> etc...
> Another big benefit I'm seeing there is that it's easy to switch from 1.1
> to/from this encoding. And also intermediaries and servers will process
> much less requests because they don't have to revalidate all headers each
> time. The Host header would only be validated/rewritten once per group.
> Cookies would be matched once per group, etc...
> It would be processed exactly like pipelining, with responses delivered
> in the same order as the requests. Intermediaries could even split that
> into multiple streams to forward some of them to some servers and other
> ones to other servers. Having the header fields and base URI before the
> requests makes that easy because once they're passed, you can read all
> requests as they come without the need to additionally buffer.
> When you have an ETag or a date for an object, its I-M-S/I-N-M values
> would be passed along with the requests and not the group.
> I think this should often be more efficient than brute compression and
> still probably compatible with it.
> What do you think ?

This is an intriguing counterproposal. Perhaps we should fork the
thread to discuss it? I'd still like to get an answer here about what
folks think about the acceptability of the rough costs of stateful

One issue I see in this proposal is that, as always, it is difficult
to predict the future. You don't know when you're parsing the document
when you'll discover a new resource to request. How long do you delay
the resource request in order to consolidate requests into a load
group? The same thing is even more true for response headers.

> Willy
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 21:49:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC