- From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 19:18:44 +0800
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > Is there still some confusion about what we mean by pipelining? There's none from me. I understand that pipelining wasn't viewed as a property of connections, its what you've said: > In my understanding it's when multiple requests are sent down a single > connection and subsequent requests are sent before the previous response > is received back. And the behaviour of this is what I'm going to do a little more research into. I'm currently specifying the pipeline in this application as a property of the connection and requests will be pipelined only to the server or upstream over the same connection - I'm trying to avoid having to build my own pipeline logic and would like instead to trust the user-agent's pipeline logic. (This means passing the invalid HTTP replies back up to the client though; and that could be rather exciting to try and attempt..) > The approach we took with WinGate was to serialize the requests. Whilst > this effectively breaks potential pipelining performance benefits, it's > about the only way we found to make the system stable. We tried various > ways where we honoured the client and server pipelining (i.e. pass > through), but actually found the performance to be worse. So now, we > don't even process the FD_READ notification on the socket if it's a > client send and we've received the entire message from the client and > the server response hasn't been sent back, so TCP windowing etc should > choke back the sends of subsequent requests. You found it performed worse? Did you ever investigate why it turned out to be worse? Adrian
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2007 11:08:03 UTC