- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:19:17 +0000
- To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 -------- In message <CAOdDvNoOnscRCA54n07Suxe9UQieq32SkwvMxNnEdSnK94s_PA@mail.gmail.com> , Patrick McManus writes: >> As I said, I think that if the state itself is never larger than a request >> and substitutes for the request, it's not that big of a deal. > >honestly, the trend in ram prices [...] I think both of your perspectives are too near-sighted here. The protocol you should be working on should be the one which still works when most middle-class homes, not only in the western world, but also in India and China, have fibre to the home at speeds of 1Gbit/sec and above. In that world, a major piece of global news, be it a naked breast, an geophysical event or a shot politician, is going to make the traffic spikes we have seen until now look tame. HTTP is a very assymetric usage protocol, and therefore any amount of state that the server _has to_ retain for a client must justify it's existence, byte for byte, against the scenario where 10% of the world want to access the same URL. HTTP/1 allows you to deliver content without committing any per-client state, beyond the TCP socket, and that is not a "degraded mode", that is the default mode. If your HTTP/2 proposal cannot do that, you're working on the wrong protocol. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 13:19:45 UTC