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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:53:21 +0200
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140626055321.GD11680@1wt.eu>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:28:47PM -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Sure, we might have arrived at what is only a local minimum, but
> without stronger justification I'm really reluctant to act on this.
> As far as it goes, Willy's numbers don't actually concern me that
> much; parallelism goes a long way to addressing those sorts of
> concerns.

Martin, while I can understand that such numbers are irrelevant to
your use case, and that you're not tempted by a last-minute change,
I'd like to mention that parallelism is orthogonal to this concern ;
parallelism is what currently makes it possible to reach close to
100G with HTTP/1.1 and if the same hardware goes back to 10 or 20G,
it's not parallelism that will bring the performance back, it's just
a definitely wasted performance by a design which does not scale as
well as the one it replaces.

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 05:53:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC