- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:58:14 -0800
- To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfpt7EJC9gjM4quN_S9gxWdqmaMca3UHteP7DrAdQ1ADw@mail.gmail.com>
No, it is very very very important that they're separate. The sum of the connection level window is almost always < sum(stream windows), and this is necessary to ensure that large stream concurrencies can be advertised. -=R On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote: > Right, but as I understand it, the connection-level limit is meant to > model the total buffering capability of the receiver. This amount of buffer > space is only reduced when data on a particular stream is buffered. When > that data is processed, we eventually send a WINDOW_UPDATE for that stream, > but in reality, the receiver has also freed space in its total buffer > budget by the same amount, so at some point, a WINDOW_UPDATE for the > connection will follow for the same amount. > > What I'm suggesting is that we make the connection-level WINDOW_UPDATE > implicit with the stream-level WINDOW_UPDATE, since it fits with modeling > the buffering capability of the remote side. > > > On 02/11/2014 02:40 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > >> On 11 February 2014 14:33, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote: >> >>> "Separate WINDOW_UPDATE frames are sent for the stream and connection >>> level >>> flow control windows. " >>> >>> It seems that we don't usually need a separate WINDOW_UPDATE for the >>> connection (with streamid = 0). When a particular stream gets processed, >>> we >>> send a WINDOW_UPDATE for that stream, but doesn't this also imply that >>> the >>> connection-level window should also be updated? When would a >>> WINDOW_UPDATE >>> for a stream NOT imply an update on the connection window? >>> >>> I can see keeping around WINDOW_UPDATE with streamid = 0 for the case >>> where >>> you want to increase only the connection window size at the beginning of >>> the >>> connection, but after that setup, it seems like a waste of bandwidth to >>> send >>> these extra WINDOW_UPDATE frames for the connection window. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> There are two layers of flow control windows, one per stream, and a >> single connection-level window. >> >> WINDOW_UPDATE on stream 0 increases the space advertised on the >> connection-level window. It's critical to protocol operation that >> this be separately updated to the stream-level windows. >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 22:58:41 UTC