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 20:04:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CANmPAYFG-oLt0L_HPDh9w5yYP6qd0gu1UOOMo04MjuZRbBy78A@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
If a receiver cannot absorb any more data, it will not make a buffer
available to TCP.

Don't forget that in HTTP 1.x we don't do flow control. We leave that to
the transport layer and this works well. Layering flow control on top of
flow control can only result in slower flows. This slowdown is necessary
when two or more streams are being sent at once but let's not take this hit
in the simple case of one stream.

Peter

On Sunday, November 3, 2013, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_control_(data) says "In data
> communications, flow control is the process of managing the rate of data
> transmission between two nodes to prevent a fast sender from overwhelming a
> slow receiver."
>
> Guesstimating BDP is only important if the receiver cares about maximizing
> throughput. Which hopefully it does, but there's no guarantee. Sometimes
> due to resource constraints, the receiver cannot accept that much data, and
> it asserts flow control in this case. And senders *need* to respect that.
> Otherwise a receiver with any sense, like a highly scalable server, will
> terminate the connection since the peer is misbehaving.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'bizzbyster@gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Sloppiness? I don't get that. The sender's job is to transmit the data as
>> fast as possible, not to respect the receiver's best guesstimate of
>> available bandwidth sent ½ RTT ago. In this case, the sender's job is to
>> keep the TCP buffer full of data so it can send it when it has the
>> opportunity to.
>>
>> Respecting the peer's receive window in the single file send case is
>> harmless at best and detrimental otherwise.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Sunday, November 3, 2013, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>>
>>> I don't feel comfortable encouraging such sloppiness, I worry about
>>> future interop. Respecting a peer's receive window isn't hard. Just do it :)
>>>
>>> And even though wget doesn't support upload (to my knowledge, but I'm
>>> not an expert), a command line tool may upload, in which case it should
>>> definitely respect the peer's receive window.
>>> On Nov 3, 2013 6:22 PM, "Yoav Nir" <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  This discussion started with tools like WGET. If all you're ever
>>>> sending is one single request equivalent to "GET xxx", you're likely fine
>>>> not considering server receive window.
>>>>
>>>>  For a single file, the data that the client sends to the server never
>>>> exceeds the default server receive window.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 04:04:44 UTC

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