- From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:46:54 -0500
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 19:03 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > To bring this back to compression - I just took a set of 100 compressed > > real headers, and passed them through a decompress/recompress filter > > 1000 times in 350 milliseconds on one core of a rather unimpressive i5. > > Spdy would do it faster because it tends to window things smaller than > > the default gzip. So that's a cpu overhead of .35ms per set of 100. The > > headers were reduced from 44KB (for the set of 100) to about ~4KB. > > That's probably a reduction from 31 packets to 3. IW=4 means that's a > > difference of 3 rtt's of delay to send 31 packets uncompressed vs 0 > > delay to send 3 compressed. > > That's precisely what worries me a lot. You were able to compress "only" > 3000 requests per second on an i5, 3000 sets of 100 http transactions per second on 1 core of an i5 with a lame implementation. So that's 300,000 http transactions per second per core on a chip that costs ~$50 a core. not a big factor. > which means only 1500 request+response > per second for a proxy or gateway. 150,000 per second. I'll also note that it's not a moral failing if we specify a protocol that's good for the Internet that can be gatewayed to one that is better for back offices, although I don't think that has to happen. I think the work of the Internet protocol is the more important work of the IETF.
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 18:47:39 UTC