- From: J.P. Martin-Flatin <martin-flatin@epfl.ch>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 01:16:09 +0200
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:31:25 -0700, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
> > Presumably, the timeout of persistent connections will be longer than
> > the TCP connection timeout (that is, the recommended time to maintain
> > TCP TIME_WAIT state, generally 4 minutes). So even though the
> > technique used for the attack is the same, the effect will be
> > amplified in the case of persistent connections with long timeouts.
>
> No, actually, most of the benefit from persistent connections appears
> to be in the first 30 seconds to a minute...
>
> I don't think many busy servers will likely keep that long a timeout,
> even with persistent connections. Mogul's research showed that most
> the value for "click ahead" occurs in the first few minutes, so a
> reasonable timeout for a busy server (one which will likely have to
> time out connections at all) is likely shorter than the TCP TIME_WAIT
> state.
Do you refer to:
Jeffrey C. Mogul. "The Case for Persistent-Connection HTTP".
WRL Research Report 95/4, Digital, Palo Alto, CA, USA, May 1995.
or one of its variants (Proc. WWW2 and Proc. SIGCOMM'95)?
Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 1998 09:14:29 UTC