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

Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE

From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:07:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CANmPAYF1_oM5OPgxNhcprTuNZS0n6kspPP9rbU538vXz4oD6Vw@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>
I understand that we want to minimize the config settings but this
alternative solution has the much worse consequence of slowing down pushed
resources in the 99% case when we expect the browser to actually use what
we are pushing.

If it is between no new config setting and starting with small per stream
receive windows by default to limit the damage of unused pushed resources,
I am fine with no new config setting.

I think the receive windows should be configured to maximize performance
and we should be very cautious any time we tweak them to deliver other
functionality due to the possible side effect of slower transmissions.

Isn't HTTP 2.0 supposed to primarily be about faster? We need to stick to
that original goal!

Peter


On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:29 AM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> Note that the FF strategy (which we've discussed Chromium side) is to
> start with smaller per-stream receive windows by default, and upgrade them
> immediately for normal streams, or as Pat calls them, "pull" streams. This
> would let stuff like push streams, or as Chromium is discussing, web
> platform prefetch/prerender/etc streams, start with smaller receive windows.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 4 November 2013 10:00, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > As per above, the browser currently can only set max concurrent streams
>> to
>> > limit the amount of data pushed to it but perhaps better is to set a max
>> > size of file that the browser is willing to accept via server push.
>>
>> We are, as much as possible, attempting to limit the number of
>> settings that we allow in the protocol.  I take that to mean that
>> there needs to be a high bar on the addition of settings.
>> Specifically, if there is an alternative solution to the problem, then
>> it's not enough.
>>
>> In this case, if you are concerned about the size, the flow control
>> window will allow you to control the size and give you time to
>> generate RST_STREAM as appropriate.  ...Trade off as appropriate
>> against your desire to maximize throughput.
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 21:07:43 UTC

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