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

Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:23:54 -0700
Message-ID: <5425931A.4030104@fb.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 09/26/2014 12:32 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 26 September 2014 08:21, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know there are ways to work around it, but it seems sub-optimal to need to
>> maintain two separate connection pools for push enabled vs non-push enabled
>> clients, especially when it seems to be easy to fix on a protocol level.
> It's still strictly better than HTTP/1.1.

I don't know about *strictly* better. Two connection pools is an 
increase in complexity in the LB and could lead to worse performance. 
You might have to pay a penalty of opening a new connection to a server 
even though you have a connection ready, whereas in HTTP/1 you didn't 
have to open another connection. Are we really so pressed for bits in 
the flags that we can't move this there? Maybe SETTINGS is not the right 
place for enabling/disabling server push.

Received on Friday, 26 September 2014 16:24:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC