- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:52:13 -0700
- To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdA0WDd2HOYf-BSsfW6cMJZ5-6sdNMZVFVjmCkfhHXSbw@mail.gmail.com>
No, substitution is different because it prevents some future usecases (the head-of-line unblocking one). Substitution is also different because it requires a non-linear memory model and generally results in heap fragmentation, whereas strict incremental indexing allows for a completely linear memory model with no fragmenting. -=R On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>wrote: > Here I’ll disagree, though I haven’t coded a test for how much it’s > worth. On the decompressor side, the expense is minimal (index lookup), > and on the compressor side it’s strictly optional. (Though I suppose the > same argument exists for substitution, really….) > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:52 AM > *To:* Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> > *Cc:* Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>, Roberto Peon<grmocg@gmail.com>, > Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Mike Bishop > <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > >[snip] > > > > When we’re talking about ~0.01% gain in efficiency, I think there’s a > strong > > argument to be made in favor of simplicity. (Incidentally, a quick > > performance profile of my code shows it spends the majority of its time > > deciding what entry to replace!) > > > > Similar results on this end. Substitution is simply not worth the > extra complexity. +1 to dropping it. > > I'm also not a fan of the name index reference option given that it > requires us to search the table for a suitable name index. I'd rather > take the somewhat less efficient on-the-wire encoding than scan the > table for name indexes. > > - James > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > > > From: Gábor Molnár > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:23 PM > > To: Roberto Peon > > Cc: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa, ietf-http-wg@w3.org > > > > It would be interesting to test if a substitution strategy is better than > > incremental if it knows all the upcoming headers *in advance*. This would > > simulate the performance of the best possible heuristic algorithm. > > > > > > 2013/9/21 Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> > >> > >> When I was doing a similar comparative analysis, I found that > incremental > >> indexing did better than substitution indexing as well. > >> I suspect that substitution indexing benefits strongly from heuristics, > >> e.g. compute the probability that a header is reused and use that to > >> determine if you replace or not. > >> That being said, I'm still unsure if the complexity of substitution > >> indexing is worth the potential benefit. > >> > >> -=R > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa > >> <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I made a simple benchmark test for substitution indexing vs > >>> incremental indexing only and share its results here. > >>> > >>> The detailed results can be found at > >>> https://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/nghttp2/wiki/hpackSubst > >>> > >>> """ > >>> HPACK draft offers 2 kind of indexing methods: incremental and > >>> substitution. In nghttp2, we always use incremental > >>> indexing. This is because we do not have good strategy to use > >>> substitution indexing efficiently. We suspect that it is in the > >>> draft because it has some use cases, but we don't see them yet. > >>> > >>> So we did some tests comparing our incremental only strategy and > >>> the experimental strategy utilizing substitution indexing. > >>> > >>> Our incremental only strategy goes as follows: > >>> > >>> 1. If the name/value pair is in the header table, use indexed > >>> representation. > >>> > >>> 2. Else, if name is in the header table, use incremental indexing > >>> with indexed name. > >>> > >>> 3. Else, use incremental indexing with new name. > >>> > >>> The experimental strategy utilizing substitution indexing changes > >>> step 2 as follows: > >>> > >>> 2. Else, if name is in the header table, substitute that entry; > >>> use substitution indexing with indexed name. > >>> > >>> We use data set in https://github.com/http2/http_samples. > >>> > >>> The detailed results are listed in the following sections. > >>> > >>> The end result is that, in the overall, incremental only strategy > >>> is more efficient than the strategy with substitution. But the > >>> difference is not so large. On some data set, the substitution > >>> performed well, so depending on the data set, the winner may > >>> change. Also there may be better strategy for substitution. > >>> """ > >>> > >>> It turns out that the experimental strategy is used in node-http2 > >>> and firefox. > >>> > >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 19:52:40 UTC