- From: Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:17:33 -0600
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5/28/13 7:12 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: > I understand what you're saying. We're all agreeing that the max frame > size should be limited. I'm simply suggesting 16k is what I think is the > best small frame size. Patrick is suggesting 4k. > I wouldn't object strenuously to 4k, but my experience and gut both say > 16k is the better choice. > My gut says that 4k is on the small side too. If we left it at 16-bit, but with a SHOULD saying only 14-bits are to be used, are we still cutting too much rope for people to hang themselves? I'm not suggesting UA developers should have to try to optimize for anything beyond the suggested 16KB frame sizes, that seems unreasonable and unnecessary. On the argument side for smaller frames, CPUs tend to get more powerful faster than the NIC capacity increases. In my experience, a modern box can saturate a 10GigE at the same (small) object sizes as a machine could saturate a 1 GigE NIC 4-5 years ago. Cheers, -- Leif
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 15:17:58 UTC