- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 14:08:11 -0700
- To: 'Jeffrey Mogul' <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
I'll make the changes Jeff suggests to the next revision. >---------- >From: Jeffrey Mogul[SMTP:mogul@pa.dec.com] >Sent: Friday, August 16, 1996 12:50 PM >To: Paul Leach >Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com >Subject: Re: New document on "Simple hit-metering for HTTP" > >Koen writes: > But when removing the cache entry, _the proxy does not necessarily > have an open persistent connection to the origin server in question_. > I would be more happy if the draft explicitly allowed a proxy to > report the hit count of a removed cache entry within, say, one day of > removing it. This would allow the proxy to batch the HEAD requests > for each server and send them at night, when the there is enough > bandwidth left to make opening extra connections not hurt. > >Paul writes: > Sure -- it already says it need not wait for the HEAD request to finish > before removing the item; it wouldn't hurt to mention that it can defer > (and batch) the requests as long as there is a high probability that it > will get made. > >I see no problem with saying that the proxy can defer and batch >the final-report HEAD requests but I do not believe that it makes >sense to have this delayed until "at night" (which is a problematic >concept, since it assumes that the proxy actually knows when more >bandwidth will be available). > >I'm worried that long delays in updating this information will >discourage origin servers from using the mechanism, and I'm also >worried that any mechanism that causes all of the proxies within >a particular time zone to spontaneously generate a large stream >of requests at a particular point in time will cause the nasty >synchronized congestion that Floyd and Jacobson warned about in >Proc. SIGCOMM '93. (One could avoid this by some randomization, >but they point out that this is much harder than one might suppose.) > >So my suggestion is that the spec says something like: > > A proxy MAY defer the final-report HEAD request to an origin > server, and send a batch of these later, either piggybacked on > its next request to the server or when sufficient resources are > available. A proxy SHOULD NOT delay these reports longer than > absolutely necessary, to avoid discouraging the use of > hit-metering. A proxy SHOULD NOT delay these reports if there > is a significant probability that it will be unable to deliver > them after the delay. A proxy MUST NOT delay these reports for > delivery at a non-randomly-chosen specific time of day; this is > necessary to prevent unnecessary congestion. > >-Jeff > >
Received on Friday, 16 August 1996 14:17:47 UTC