- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:55:31 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mark, On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:10:46PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/540> > > On 24 Jun 2014, at 11:24 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > > In message <20140624102030.GC25779@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: > > > >> Instead, (I remember that it was already discussed here in the past), I > >> really think we'd need to support large frames for large data sets, that > >> are typically usable for such sites which have few streams per client but > >> very large ones. > > > > I agree. > > > > Moving objects which are trivially megabytes and gigabytes in size > > using 16kB frames just doesn't make any sense, in particular not > > given that MTUs above 9K are actively being discussed again. > > > The simplest way to address this would be to un-reserve the first two bits of > the length <http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#rfc.section.4.1>; that would > get us back up to 64k, letting Willy get to 35 Gbps. Given that 256k only got > him to 40 Gbps, that seems like a reasonable stopping point for HTTP/2. Please note something I probably didn't mention, but I was limited to 40 Gbps by the NICs, and above 256kB I started to get idle CPU again. Other people I know doing tests with a few more NICs have already reached slightly more than 60 Gbps. In fact building a lab at these rates is not something you do with commodity hardware every day, so people tend to use what they already have in their racks and try to get the most out of it. > Personally, I think that's a reasonable change -- the argument for 14 bits > was to make sure people didn't abuse multiplexing and that they properly > implemented continuation, etc.; I think those goals could be met by some > prose in the spec and proper testing. > > Doing more than 16 bits would take a lot more back-and-forth in the WG, and > is likely to encounter a lot of resistance from implementers, from what I've > seen. I think we could proceed differently and that would avoid people abuse the frame size. Instead we'd use a single bit to indicate if the size is in bytes or in 4k pages. Yes that allows to reach 64MB per frame. But that also means that when you want to use this, you don't have the byte granularity anymore so the temptation to use it will only be for those sending huge files and for whom having to send the last chunk separately is a detail compared to the gains of sending large chunks. > WRT the "jumbo" frame (i.e., flagging that some prefix of the payload is > actually an extension length) -- this sort of hack is necessary to back-port > bigger frames onto an existing protocol. Let's not do it out of the gate. The proposal above could be much simpler in fact. > Those are just my personal impressions. I'd very much like to hear from other > folks in the WG what they think. > > Regards, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ Regards, Willy
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 04:56:00 UTC