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

Re: per stream (initial) flow window size

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:21:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpdOvOo7gRzaqiRD9jkWZ5A_RDOJjsq6YPh1gCXVC5eEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hey Ilya,

So Firefox has been taking exactly this approach with both spdy/3.[+] and
http/2 already. We use a small initial window setting that is meant to
apply to pushes - and we reusme them in much the same manner as you
describe. For pulls we want to use large windows so we simply pipeline a
window update in the same SSL data record that contains the HEADER. While
there is a theoretical race there it in effect can't actually be delayed
because of the way SSL frames everything atomically; it hasn't ever been a
problem and no servers have complained to me (yet) about the extra frame
callback overhead. I actually expected to have some interop problems with
this strategy in the early days - but it hasn't been a problem at all.

So imo the use case is already well served by the draft as is.. what's left
is whether saving 8 extra bytes for the pat/ilya use case is interesting
and worth the complexity.. I'd be happy with it of course, but I don't
realistically think it is necessary. ymmv.

-P




On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com> wrote:

> SETTINGS allows us to set a default starting window for all streams +
> update this default later. However, I think there are compelling cases
> where it would be beneficial to allow different streams to start with a
> different initial window size (similar to optional priority in headers
> frame). Given that this would effectively be a new feature... let me try
> to motivate why the extra complexity is worth it based on some of the
> recent work I've been involved with:
>
> We want to make browser pre{fetch,rendering} smarter [1,2]. Meaning, we
> want to be able to discover critical page resources as early as possible
> and kick off fetches for those assets also. However, since some of these
> assets are large (and there can be many of them), we need to control how
> much data we fetch (e.g. if we are too aggressive we may slow down the host
> page, and/or incur high overhead for the user).
>
> A concrete example of this is the work we've been experimenting with in
> PageSpeed [3], where we are aggressively inlining CSS/JS and even doing
> "page splits": the rewriter effectively creates two pages, the first is the
> "prefetch friendly" version which fits in < 15KB (one RTT), and second is
> the diff that fills in the rest once the navigation is triggered via an XHR
> -- if that sounds crazy, then that's not too far from the truth. That said,
> we have a working prototype, and it's showing impressive results.. For
> example, we can take a mobile wikipedia page, which currently takes 9s
> (!!!) to first render (on a 3G profile), down to 1.6s [3] by using the
> combination of prefetch + page split strategies.
>
> What does flow control have to do this with all this? When issuing a
> prefetch, we would like to be able to open a request with a lower initial
> window (e.g. 15KB), and fetch just the head of the document - in most
> cases, this will allow us to discover the critical resources, initiate
> requests for them, etc. Then, if the navigation is triggered, we would just
> increment the window and "resume" the stream to get the rest of the page...
> This eliminates the need for server rewriting / page splitting, which has a
> lot of gnarly edge conditions. Handling this at the transport layer would
> make it much, much simpler and more powerful.
>
> (Yes, we could lower the initial window for all streams, but that's
> counter productive in majority of cases... we'd just end up sending a lot
> more WINDOW_UPDATE frames for non-prefetch request.)
>
> Further, the ability to set a custom window size also allows us to adjust
> this logic based on type of asset, prior knowledge of the site, or other
> signals. For example, the other use case is progressive rendering of images
> - i.e. using flow control to fetch image layers and having control over
> where and when to stop. Concretely, we could fetch first X KB, which may
> provide a reasonable low-res preview of the asset, and then continue
> fetching subsequent layers until some condition is met (end of file, or max
> resolution of device is reached -- if you're a 2x device, don't fetch the
> 3x layers). I'm intentionally skipping over the image container
> discussions here, since that's a separate conversation.. But I'll note that
> many sites are already trying to provide this sort of experience, except
> through rather poor implementation: inline low-res asset, render that, then
> initiate a separate XHR to fetch image and replace with high-res version.
> Needless to say, we can do much better, and there is strong interest in
> providing this sort of functionality natively...
>
> --
>
> In short, there are interesting cases where the initiator of the stream
> may want to control the initial window size: to decrease it, and perhaps
> even to increase it in some cases. There are multiple ways to achieve this,
> but one plausible strategy would be to allow an optional SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE
> payload in the headers frame, not unlike the optional priority field --
> minimal overhead, no races between initiating the request and
> WINDOW_UPDATE, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ilya
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wck0tFTiibKzZDuBeyK0lrKTKsZ5pqfvcR__1r2m834/edit
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Aug/0010.html
> [3] https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/optimization
> [4]
> http://www.webpagetest.org/result/130715_PZ_08063384bd76cd2206a1b39e8678e438/3/details/
>
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 05:21:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC