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

Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:27:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNff7ncO2Fudg34NmLvSZ4z6YFH-r4i4sPAbzU0bNjfdhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Definitely not recommended.

-=R


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 04:28:00 UTC

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