- From: Levine, David M. <DLEVINE@ssf4.jsc.nasa.gov>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 95 15:48:00 cdt
- To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Jeffrey Mogul says: >So I would argue that "link speed" is a pointless concept. What we >should really measure is "recent response time", and it should be >measured *by the client* because only this way can one factor in >both the full network behavior and the server's behavior. I do >not believe that the server can easily map its notion of "load" >to the actual perceived response time, since (1) the server's load >may be hard to measure, (2) the server application may not see the >queueing delays required to open connections, send packets, etc. This is -exactly- what I was attempting to say. I didn't want the measurement to be the theoretical speed, since it rarely occurs. What I wanted was an actual -measurement- of the real-time transmissions. Mr. Mogul has stated it much more clearly than I. Of course, I was thinking about keeping running averages, but there are problems: conditions can change constantly. But Mr. Mogul's idea of having the client rate the response time on each server based on its first connection (for the session, I assume, but it could also be for the day or perhaps just for the hour) is much better. One possible variation I might give is having a "benchmark" page on each server (again, optional... kind of like "robots.txt") which would be a very small file with which the client could automatically check the response time without input from the user. This would allow the "front page" to still have a high-bandwidth version, as it would be accessed -after- the benchmark page. If the response time is excellent, the higher bandwidth pages would be sent. If there is no benchmark page on the server, the client would have to base it's response time estimates on the front page. I still think there would need to be a user-overide. Again, something very simple. But necessary, I think, because people might be patient enough to receive large documents over slow-response-time connections. Or might not want large documents when they do have the necessary connection. But I agree with Mr. Mogul that we are not looking for the speed of your modem or T1 line. We are looking at the, um, "in-situ" response (can't think of a better term), which takes into account a good deal more. And it is the client side that should perform the task. David Levine dlevine@ssf4.jsc.nasa.gov or lunar@sunsite.unc.edu
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 1995 14:24:41 UTC