- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:57:08 -0800
- To: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA4WUYghWKOmzKDD47bEYT9jHqH13P9n6pTOLF5+e3Dfb1Tbzg@mail.gmail.com>
While I have lots of caveats about this paper (which I haven't written up yet), I think it correctly identifies that multiple connections are not the solution: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2013/program/p303.pdf. See section 6.1. The real solution is to fix the transport. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote: > This draft ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-white-httpbis-spdy-analysis-00) > documents that there is a "fairly significant performance loss with SPDY" > in tests that introduced packet loss. The primary reason for this is that > fewer TCP connections are used so a single packet drop reduces bandwidth > for a greater % of the traffic at any given time. > > I fear that this effect will be still worse when browsers are using a > single TCP connection to a SDPY (or HTTP/2) proxy when accessing multi-host > sites and that therefore we may want to make specific recommendations about > multiple TCP connection use when talking to explicit proxies. > > I'm not sure this is something that should be mentioned in the core spec > (and discussed as part of open issue #413 on proxies) but perhaps in a > follow-on specification dedicated to proxy use in HTTP/2 -- maybe built on > Mark's proxy draft? > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-00.txt. > > I'm happy to help out on such a proxy spec if it's something the group > would like to take on. > > Thanks, > > Peter >
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 16:57:36 UTC