W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Proposal - Reduce HTTP2 frame length from 16 to 12 bits

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:36:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd3MR0_UD=0q734OEmUkPqb1aypgRhoWUR81OFkH4HquA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Cc: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
That is fine by me so long as we mark the rest of the length field as
reserved and don't touch it.
-=R


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My sweet-spot number was 16k, as I knew that I could saturate a 10G nic
>> with 16k frames/writes and have enough CPU left over to do some actual
>> work. The amount of overhead goes up more than linearly with the decrease
>> in frame size thanks to contention, etc.
>>
>>
>
> Given what you've said here and in the other mail (plus of course my own
> previously stated concerns) I'm inclined to suggest a 16KB max (14 bits)
> without introducing any kind of max frame size configurable. My point is to
> drive it as small as we can without creating excessive overhead and you've
> put a stake in the ground that 16KB is that level. That's still 4x as
> aggressive as the current draft.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 20:37:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:11 UTC