- From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:11:59 -0700
- To: Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm new to this list but have been studying web performance over high > latency networks for many years and multiplexing seems to me like the wrong > way to go. The main benefit of multiplexing is to work around the 6 > connections per domain limit but it reduces transparency on the network, > decreases the granularity/modularity of load balancing and increases object > processing latency in general on the back end as everything has to pass > through the same multiplexer, and introduces its own intractable > inefficiencies. In particular the handling of a low priority in flight > object ahead of a high priority object when packet loss is present is a step > backwards from what we have today for sites that get beyond the 6 > connections per domain limit via domain sharding. Why not just introduce an > option in HTTP 2.0 that allows clients and servers to negotiate max > concurrent connections per domain? When web sites shard domains, aren't they > essentially telling the browser that they will happily accept lots more > connections? I'm sure this suggestion has long since been shot down but > browsing around on the web I'm not finding it. There are a couple of practical problems that happen upon increasing the number of concurrent connections: - With N connections, the server or proxy has to be prepared to allocate N * receive_window_size bytes of memory for incoming packets. Large values of N thus have a disadvantage for people operating high-traffic sites. - Congestion control happens independently for each of N connections. While I'm not a proponent of artificially throttling HTTP to compensate for "bufferbloat," multiplexing N HTTP streams over one TCP connection does make for easier congestion control (especially in low-end client devices) than running N TCP connections. - If the client and server have to negotiate a value for N, it may add an additional round trip. Brian
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 03:12:27 UTC