- From: Jon Knight <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:46:00 +0100 (BST)
- To: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@biap.com>
- Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, Alex Hopmann <hopmann@holonet.net>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, Chuck Shotton wrote: > >The reason is that the number of TIME_WAIT entries is directly related > >to the number of TCP connections used. If you use sessions (what I > >called in my paper "persistent connections"), you need to create fewer > >TCP connections for the same number of retrievals. So you end up > >with fewer TIME_WAIT entries. > > This is irrelevant on platforms with a limited number of TCP/IP streams > that can be formed. People discussing this issue are right to refer to > "irresponsible use" of TCP/IP connections. If you happen to have a TCP/IP implementation that doesn't permit you to have lots of streams open, just don't bother implementing this HTTP Session Extension in your server (or even client); things will still work ok for the older browsers and servers that don't understand the new protocol addition. I don't see why those of us with sensible platforms that might be able to take advantage of a potential performance gain shouldn't just because a Mac can't handle lots of TCP connections without falling over. That's like saying inlined images in HTML should never be used because some people use text based browsers. Jon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jon Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Department of Computer Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU. *** Nothing looks so like a man of sense as a fool who holds his tongue ***
Received on Friday, 7 July 1995 00:47:59 UTC