- From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:22:21 -0700
- To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> I did some quick experiments before putting the change in the spec. Experiments using what corpus? Again with a corpus that has more custom headers than standard ones (as almost every request sent between our backend servers does), the change almost doubled the compressed size. > My conclusion was, and still is, that the compaction impact was slightly negative, but very small and was more than balanced by the other benefits of putting the dynamic table after the static table. What are these other benefits? I certainly don't believe there are any -- having to know the size of the dynamic table to compute a static index offset? Why was the change put in, without a discussion on the list, when it admittedly had a negative impact on compression in your testing?
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 15:22:48 UTC