- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@neon.mcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 12:54:15 -0800 (PST)
- To: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
- Cc: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Looking at IMS on a packet by packet basis, in the presence of > possibly large headers greater than 512 bytes, having the client > cancel will save 2 packets in the best case, and be no worse in the > worst case. I sent a message on tis to www-talk during chicago with > more analysis. my hands aren't up to recreating it at the moment, > and I think the message dissapeared in transit. i'll see if i can > find it again. Well, did you monitor the impact on the server's TCP kernel when that is constantly happening? Basically what you're suggesting is very ugly anyway, and I don't like it one bit even if it wasn't expensive for the network. Gee, it's a few lines of code to do it cleanly. It's like smashing your car on a signpost because you don't feel like hitting the brakes. -- Cheers, Ari --
Received on Friday, 2 December 1994 12:54:34 UTC