- From: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:41:53 +0500
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
> >I think a new study would be needed to take these effects into account > >before we can conclude that sticky headers aren't worth the effrort. > > I agree. To get something like a firm conclusion, at least one other > study is needed. My study was done a year ago, with a small sample > (145 Mb of traffic), and by someone who is not a statistician. > > However, I think there is enough data to conclude that sticky headers > are *unlikely* to be worth the effort. I therefore see no reason for > sticky headers to become a WG activity at this point. As a server implementer, I feel that one thing is missing from this dicussion: the (CPU) time to parse headers. Sticky header allows for reusing parsed header values, and at least in my Java web server, this account for a non-negligible portion of the CPU time that is used to handle a request (by optimizing this part of the server I got up to 20% speed improvements). However, I don't know if this applies to C server as well... Of course, I beleive that - still in my case - the CPU time to handle sticky headers would not be greater then the time to parse, say, a real Accept header. Anselm.
Received on Friday, 9 August 1996 15:43:33 UTC