- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:51:40 -0700
- To: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcyBDuOm9U5+fmJQmWEY0=QYtoNb-yLg1Jz2on5Ncyagg@mail.gmail.com>
I'll try to make it more clear in the future. I believe I'm the main culpret here, btw. -=R On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) < robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote: > Another attempt > > > >>On 4/16/13 12:03 PM, "Roberto Peon" > >><grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Unfortunately, most flows with http/1 are short (and bursty) flows, so > >>it is incorrect to say that they have reached steady-state w.r.t. > >>congestion control. Many resource fetches complete in between one and > >>three rtts, then much of time the connection(s) sit idle for extended > >>periods of time (seconds to minutes). > > Good point. Most of my work with HTTP/1 (and TCP) are with long-lived > flows and I live in the long tail. My gut tells me you are correct when > it comes to traditional web usage. > > >> I'm hoping Will will chime in here with data soon, but the distribution > >>on single connection cwnds as measured on traffic in the wild shows us > >>that using multiple connections puts more packets on the wire as a > >>result of init-cwnd (and thus not subject to congestion control, ouch) > >>than a single stable-state, heavily used and reused connection such as > >>Spdy or HTTP/2 would allow. > > Wouldn't Spdy or HTTP/2 still face the issues regarding steady-state then? > > Part of my concern is that we may, once again, create an HTTP that > unfairly dominates traffic due to lots of bursty flows. > > <snip> > > >> I agree that solving the problem for http/2 alone won't fix it for > >>everything. On the other hand, we also need to act swiftly to solve > >>problems on timescales that matter to users, and http is a fine venue > >>for that. The fact that http/2 could do this doesn't stop us from coming > >>up with an opaque blob that *any* latency sensitive application protocol > >> could use to communicate with the transport layer. > > As someone stated earlier, I fear the opposite to be true. This may end > up slowing down HTTP/2 and not be swift at all.. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 18:52:07 UTC