W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:44:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYhGijhM51n1cWTy0BNqG9GXqNr438At6TaEwYkhbQH=3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether or not we should add a protocol
solution for draining, or if application level health checking is
sufficient. For reverse proxies, an application specific solution may be
sufficient, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. There are also the
considerations for forward proxies and other clients (browsers), and it'd
be interesting to hear your (and others) thoughts there.


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> FWIW: We do out-of-band, active health-checking to signal draining.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>wrote:
>
>> Actually, the extra ack GOAWAY only avoids this issue for high RPS proxy
>> <-> server connections. For low RPS connections, the server's hard shutdown
>> timeout would probably fire before all the extra MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS are
>> requested, so the same old race condition still applies. Our proxy/server
>> connections are extremely busy, so we haven't noticed this shortcoming of
>> the workaround.
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 00:44:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC