- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:02:24 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-11-05 05:05, Peter Lepeska wrote: > Amos, > > I agree what you said, but again only when there is more than one > active > stream. Again, HTTP 2 flow control is harmless at best when there is > only > one active stream. Part of my point was that there is absolutely no way to determine that one active stream cases existence all the way along the path. Middleware exists (whether it is visible to the endpoints or not) and the "single stream" may be sharing any HTTP hop with one or more other streams. "At best" this single stream will be able to avoid contention in the more common cases where it ceases being a single end-to-end stream at some middel hop. So no I think the best-case is rather better than you are saying. > > But you don't have to believe me. Just setup a test a browser that does > flow control and add a few % loss and 200 ms latency and see whether > you > are able to download large files faster with flow control on or off. > The > flow control off case should never lose, assuming the loss/latency are > regular and your test is long enough. At what size data frames? and what relative size of TCP and HTTP layer buffer sizes? over how many hops? In the grand scheme of HTTP, single client going to single server, with a single stream and nothing in between is a rather rare occurance. Just like it is a rather rare and artificial occurance to see only a single isolated TCP connection today. Amos
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 21:02:51 UTC