- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:14:48 +1300
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 26/01/2012 10:48 p.m., Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message<20120126093557.GA8887@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:39:00AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> I find it pretty cumbersome to force everyone to support zlib, especially >> in environments where it provides no benefit (small requests/responses) > Actually if you look at it, you can simulate ZLIB in null-mode trivially, > so that is not really a valid concern. > > It's an idea, I'm not sure if it is a really good idea, but the current > handling of compression is worse. > > Compressing cookies would save a lot of bytes, but those are content-metadata > so maybe there are less draconian means. > > One benefit of compressing the entire connection is that it offers > "privacy-light", the simple malware which just snoops packets and > searches for "password:" etc, would be out of the picture. no gain. compression is equally mandatory and open to snoops as for other software. >> Making trailers mandatory will cause a lot of pain to static servers >> relying on sendfile() and equivalent mechanisms. > Nobody forces them to send any trailers... > > I'm perfectly happy with announcing the intention to send trailers > in the headers. (Sort of like postscripts "atend") Yet if you want to rely on it for broken connections it must be sent or that reliance fails. >> There's no one-size-fits-all. Having small chunks (eg: 256 bytes) will >> cause a huge overhead for very small exchanges (eg: auto-completion), >> while at the same time significantly reduce on-wire efficiency and CPU >> efficiency. Chunking works remarkably well for all sizes nowadays, let's >> not reinvent something which works well. > If you made the chunked header look like: > \nXXXXXX\n > > Instead of the current > > \r\nX*\r\n > > Then the difference in efficiency is utterly marginal for transmitters > but very big for receivers. 16-bit binary numeric length should be long enough for any one chunk overhead. One can have multiple chunks inside a Jumbo packet as easily as fragmented over multiple packets. AYJ
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:15:20 UTC