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

Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer

From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:26:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CANmPAYHavuinEkWqupof3+hwaZaPapkb3K2xC+E-rrHggy7bsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Right. And you don't want to turn it off at the connection level since you
never know if a connection will eventually see multiple simultaneous
streams and so need flow control. That's why I was thinking the sender
should ignore receive window updates unless it is sending more than one
stream.

If the receiver really wants to slow down a single stream connection, then
it will just delay its posting of receive buffers to TCP the way it does
with HTTP 1.x -- this gives flow control back to TCP unless there's more
than one sending stream.

Peter


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:25 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> It's probably understood already, but just to be clear, this is receiver
> controlled and directional. Unless you control both endpoints, you must
> implement flow control in order to respect the peer's receive windows, even
> if you disable your own receive windows. Cheers.
> On Nov 3, 2013 1:18 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3 November 2013 12:03, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Will flow control be used even when an HTTP 2.0 connection is only being
>> > used to transfer a single file?
>>
>> If you are concerned that flow control will reduce your ability to get
>> the most out of a connection, turn it off.
>>
>> In fact, we make that recommendation:
>> http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#DisableFlowControl
>>
>>
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2013 23:26:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC