- From: young ka ming <kmyoung7@ie.cuhk.edu.hk>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 15:09:47 +0800 (HKT)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Hi, Thank you so much for enlightening me. How could a client know in advance that it will have got a hugh response so that it opens another connection? specification by file type? Kaming On Thu, 11 May 2000, Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > Kaming Young writes: > > HOL blocking means Head Of Line blocking > > What i mean is consider Alice send out a request for a large latest > hit MP3 file and then a request for a small text file which both > resides on the same server. so the response for MP3 file will > block the second response and the response that follow in the > persistent connection case. > > The HTTP/1.1 Draft Standard (RFC2616) address the head-of-line > blocking issue with respect to proxies, in section 8.1.4, where > it says: > A proxy SHOULD use up to 2*N connections to > another server or proxy, where N is the number of simultaneously > active users. > > I can't remember why we didn't say "to avoid head-of-line blocking" > in this sentence, since this is precisely the reason for saying > that proxies aren't expected to multiplex lots of clients on > one connection. > > The same paragraph says: > A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections > with any server or proxy. > > The reasoning behind that requirement is related to a kind of > head-of-line blocking. Consider a client loading a long HTML > page with lots of images. The client should probably start > the process of loading the images (on connection #2) while > continuing to load the HTML (on connection #1); we don't want > the images blocked until the entire HTML file is loaded. > > I'm not sure it makes sense for a single browser window to > be simultaneously loading a text file and an MP3 file, but > I guess it would make sense for a single user to be loading > both in separate windows of a single browser application. > Even so, the spec still allows these two simultaneous connections. > > Anyway, we never specifically defined "single-user", so I > think a client implementor should use good judgement in > deciding whether a browser with multiple active windows > counts as one "user" or several. > > The point of these requirements was not to force people to > suffer from head-of-line blocking. It was to allow the > implementation of clients and proxies that do not suffer > from head-of-line blocking, while discouraging them from > using more TCP connections than necessary. > > -Jeff > >
Received on Friday, 12 May 2000 00:17:40 UTC