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

Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:08:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXKmSsTu3uXH4C42C-821m5j7X5M8ZsHXgMpATh5c6+cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Cc: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21 April 2014 17:24, 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.

As long the server waits >1RTT after sending the first GOAWAY before
identifying the *real* last request, isn't that enough?

Sure, if your clients exceed MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS before the RTT is
up, then you are pretty much guaranteed to be OK, but that's a clear
sign that you are setting MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS too low.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 04:08:39 UTC

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