Re: #541: CONTINUATION

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> In message <CAPyZ6=KeAcET3ocnX3EDFoL38G=
> mNKoXtodRbvw-6aVCaSkfqw@mail.gmail.com>, Tatsuhiro Tsujik
> awa writes:
>
> >Why do we have to use same frame size for HTTP/2 with video's?
> >We can deliver multiple DATA frames for 1 video frame.
>
> See for instance earlier messages about the overhead cost of small frames
> relative to printers.  A lot of embedded equipment processes high bandwidth
> with little CPU power these days.
>
> >Also big frame really hurts multiplexing many people stated earlier.
>
> It is not the size of the frame that hurts multiplexing, it is the
> amount of time it takes to move it, also known as "bandwidth".
>
> Designing the protocol for only the lowest bandwidths is not a goal.
>
>
​Multiple DATA frames can consume large bandwidth too and thereby deliver
large data quickly.

So the goal of HTTP/2 is to design it for low power embedded devices?

​Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa​




> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
>