- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:10:05 +1100
- To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17/01/2013, at 10:20 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> The question is: is it worth the trouble? I don't have an answer to
> that, but I'm inclined to say that yes, we should represent dates/time
> in an already very small format.
I definitely think it's worth consideration. I just put a flag (compress_dates; you have to set it in source, at least for now) on the simple compressor that lets you see the difference between compression and none...
* Without date compression:
732 req messages processed
compressed | ratio min max std
req http1 195,386 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
req simple 82,768 | 0.42 0.16 0.87 0.18
732 res messages processed
compressed | ratio min max std
res http1 159,968 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
res simple 92,188 | 0.58 0.12 0.89 0.16
* With date compression:
732 req messages processed
compressed | ratio min max std
req http1 195,386 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
req simple 82,357 | 0.42 0.16 0.87 0.18
732 res messages processed
compressed | ratio min max std
res http1 159,968 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
res simple 79,930 | 0.50 0.13 0.87 0.15
Note that the traces we currently have don't have If-Modified-Since in them very much, since they were started with a clean cache; this is why there's little difference in requests (Date doesn't occur much in reqs).
Of course, we can get to the similar results by many other means...
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 00:10:33 UTC