W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: #541: CONTINUATION

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:43:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXS9w=Okmd13XvtC8eeHFHwLMsw1SmpR9tJEXiWzXG65Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 July 2014 22:36, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> but I have pointed out in the past that the encoder header size is a
> reasonable indication of additional memory requirements represented by the
> header block.   The highly compressed fields within a header block are the
> indexed ones, and they reference memory in the header set that is already
> constrained by a setting.

Not really.  The math is pretty simple:

uncompressed_size[max] = compressed_size * header_table_size / 2

So yes, constrained, but not really reasonable.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 17:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC