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

Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:13:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWia6QpOTQke+0qc44U+zQkRV790ojGJEQm9YZkqSu6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21 April 2014 20:17, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
> The solution is to either schedule the entire block all at once, which perhaps imposes a size limit, or to be prepared for the priority inversion.

Correct, though it's entirely possible that you can't dump the entire
block due to TCP window size constraints.

No one claimed we were making HTTP perfect here, but I think that you
will find that it's manageable with smaller sets of header fields.  If
you want real speed and occasionally need huge header blocks - and I
hesitate to suggest this - you may find that you can amortize the
effects by using multiple connections.  I wouldn't recommend that on
the big-I internet for general usage though.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 04:13:49 UTC

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