- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:18:56 +1100
- To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes. Once things settle down a bit, I'll re-check more final candidates against the full set of servers; I just didn't want to pepper 700,000+ servers with too many requests (because that starts to look like intrusion, which in turn can skew the results as well). Cheers, On 23/02/2013, at 10:56 AM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote: > > As I understand this series of tests, you did an initial probe of servers > with FOO\r\n > > And continued testing with only those servers which TIMEDout in the first > test. I think that it might be a risky conclusion that every unrecognized > probe would receive the same quick CLOSE response. > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Yep, will try to get to that tomorrow; just wanted to start driving the discussion with data today. >> >> Of course, the source is in github, so you can do that while I sleep, if you like :) >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> On 21/02/2013, at 8:57 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:46:20PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> One more little experiment; the "first" request, followed by something that a settings frame might look like: >>>> >>>> FOO * HTTP/2.0\r\n\r\n\x80\x00\x00\x04\x80\x00\x00\x00 >>>> 31177 CLOSE >>>> 298 CONN_ERR >>>> 3673 TIMEOUT >>>> >>>> Not too bad. >>> >>> Mark, it would be nice to first check how many timeouts we get >>> from these severs using perfectly valid requests, as I suspect >>> some of them randomly fail because they might be overloaded. >>> >>> Willy >>> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 01:19:26 UTC