Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer

Er, why should the sender ignore receive window updates? If the receiver
doesn't want to use flow control, it should disable it and not send
WINDOW_UPDATEs. I don't think the sender should ignore receive window
updates.


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>