Re: Large Frame Proposal

• From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
• Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:16:34 -0700
• To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
• Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CA+pLO_hxc_kFyu7xmYGj+970O7XyvpDHPd4fwOeMEadHNWwa4w@mail.gmail.com>

> On a 100Gbps network link the transfer time of 4GB (2^32) is approx. 0.32
> seconds.
>
> The same large frame sent as HEADERS+CONTINUATION causes identical problems
> while also expanding the total transfer size by +2MB of CONTINUATION frame
> headers. That is extra 1.5ms latency at 10Gbps and much more at any lower
> speeds.

The transfer may take 0.32 seconds on a 100Gbps network, but on that
same link, the overhead from CONTINUATION frame headers is only .00015
seconds (.04%)

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 16:17:01 UTC