W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: HTTP/2 flow control <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17>

From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:54:48 +0000
Message-ID: <201503191154.t2JBsnOk027692@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Patrick,

Thank you for taking the time to read my review 
carefully. I've been away from mail a few days, 
which should have allowed time for anything 
substantive to come from the people with SPDY experience.

We only had the Rob/Greg exchange which merely 
talked about what some theoretical thing called 
flow control might be useful for, rather than 
really addressing my concern that the 
credit-based protocol provided in h2 is unlikely 
to be able to provide control if it is needed. 
Nonetheless, Greg did summarise well the limited usefulness of h2's mechanism.

I should probably have provided a summary of my 
(long) review, which I try to do below.


I agree that there could be some use for the h2 
credit-based protocol at the very start of a 
stream (in both the C->S and S->C PUSH cases you 
mentioned). And it might possibly be useful for 
the cases you mention about unsolicited data, 
which sound like they occur at the start too. 
Altho without knowing more about these DoS cases 
I'm not sure; RST_STREAM might have been sufficient.

However, once a stream has been allowed to open 
up it's rate, your observation that we mostly see 
very large windows is what I predicted. It 
demonstrates that the credit-based protocol does 
not have sufficient information to be useful to 
regulate flow. It is effectively being treated 
like the human appendix - something that no 
longer serves any purpose but you have to 
continually put in effort to keep it healthy 
otherwise it could stop the rest of the system from working.

For this reason, I questioned why flow control 
has been made mandatory. And I suggested instead 
that the credit-based flow control in h2 could be
i) mandatory for a data sender to respond to 
incoming WINDOW_UPDATEs (and therefore a data 
receiver can gracefully protect itself from DoS 
by discarding data that exceeds the credit it has previously made available)
ii) optional for a data receiver to emit 
WINDOW_UPDATEs (i.e. does not even have to implement this part of the code).


Bob

At 21:12 10/03/2015, Patrick McManus wrote:
>Hi Bob - I think your comments are appreciated. 
>Its just one of those things where people have 
>dispersed to other things and aren't necessarily 
>in a place to revisit all the ground work again 
>at this stage for a new go round. It was in 
>large part the operational feedback and needs of 
>the <http://google.com>google.com team, who has 
>a lot of experience operating spdy at scale, 
>that created the flow control provisions. 
>hopefully those folks will chime in more authoritatively than my musings below:
>
>I'm sure there is quite a bit to learn here - 
>indeed poorly configured use of the 
>window_update mechanism has been (predictably) a 
>source of unintended bottlenecks during both 
>spdy and h2 trials. The spec does try and 
>highlight that there can be dragons here and 
>implementations that don't need the features it 
>can bring should provide essentially infinite credits to steer clear of them.
>
>During the various trials I've seen h2 per 
>stream flow control deployed successfully for a 
>couple of use cases - both of them essentially deal with unsolicited data.
>
>The primary one is essentially a more flexible 
>version of h1's 100-continue. When a client 
>presents a large message body (e.g. a file 
>upload) a multiplexing server needs a way of 
>saying "these are how many buffers I've got 
>available while I figure out where I'm going to 
>sink this incoming data (perhaps to another 
>server I need to connect to)". Presenting this 
>on a per-stream basis allows the server to limit 
>one stream while another (with a distinct sink) 
>can proceed independently.¬  IMO this value 
>should represent resources available and should 
>be independent of BDP. This is why in practice 
>you see clients with extremely large stream 
>windows - most circumstances just want the data 
>to flow at line rate (as you describe) and 
>aren't trying to invoke flow control. The 
>firefox default window is 256MB per stream - 
>that's not going to slow down the sender nor 
>require frequent window_update generation.
>
>The other use case is when the server pushes 
>resources at a client without them being 
>requested, which is a new feature of h2. This is 
>conceptually similar to the server receiving a 
>POST - suddenly there is a large amount of 
>inbound data that the implementation might not 
>have the resources to store completely. We can't 
>just let TCP flow control take care of the 
>situation because the TCP session is being 
>multiplexed between multiple streams that need 
>to be serviced. In this case the client accepts 
>"some" of the stream based on policy and 
>resource availability and can leave the stream 
>in limbo until an event comes along that tells 
>it to resume the transfer by issuing credits or reject it via cancel.
>
>hth a least a bit.
>
>
>On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Bob Briscoe 
><<mailto:bob.briscoe@bt.com>bob.briscoe@bt.com> wrote:
>HTTP/2 folks,
>
>I know extensibility had already been discussed 
>and put to bed, so the WG is entitled to rule out opening healed wounds.
>
>But have points like those I've made about flow 
>control been raised before? Please argue. I may 
>be wrong. Discussion can go on in parallel to 
>the RFC publication process, even tho the 
>process doesn't /require/ you to talk to me.
>
>If I'm right, then implementers are being 
>mandated to write complex flow control code, 
>when it might have little bearing on the 
>performance benefits measured for http/2.
>
>Even if I'm right, and the WG goes ahead anyway, 
>/I/ will understand. My review came in after your deadline.
>
>However, bear in mind that the Webosphere might 
>not be so forgiving. If h2 goes ahead when 
>potential problems have been identified, it 
>could get a bad reputation simply due to the 
>uncertainty, just when you want more people to 
>take it up and try it out. Given you've put in a 
>few person-years of effort, I would have thought 
>you would not want to risk a reputation flop.
>
>I'm trying to help - I just can't go any faster.
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>At 14:43 06/03/2015, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>>HTTP/2 folks,
>>
>>As I said, consider this as a late review from 
>>a clueful but fresh pair of eyes.
>>My main concerns with the draft are:
>>* extensibility (previous posting)
>>* flow control (this posting - apologies for 
>>the length - I've tried to explain properly)
>>* numerous open issues left dangling (see subsequent postings)
>>
>>===HTTP/2 FLOW CONTROL===
>>
>>The term 'window' as used throughout is incorrect and highly confusing, in:
>>* 'flow control window' (44 occurrences),
>>* 'initial window size' (5),
>>* or just 'window size' (8)
>>* and the terms WINDOW_UPDATE and SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW.
>>
>>The HTTP/2 WINDOW_UPDATE mechanism constrains 
>>HTTP/2 to use only credit-based flow control, 
>>not window-based. At one point, it actually 
>>says it is credit-based (in flow control 
>>principle #2 
>><<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-5.2.1> 
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-5.2.1  
>> > ), but otherwise it incorrectly uses the term window.
>>
>>This is not just an issue of terminology. The 
>>more I re-read the flow control sections the 
>>more I became convinced that this terminology 
>>is not just /confusing/, rather it's evidence 
>>of /confusion/. It raises the questions
>>* "Is HTTP/2 capable of the flow control it says it's capable of?"
>>* "What type of flow-control protocol ought HTTP/2 to be capable of?"
>>* "Can the WINDOW_UPDATE frame support the flow-control that HTTP/2 needs?"
>>
>>To address these questions, it may help if I 
>>separate the two different cases HTTP/2 flow 
>>control attempts to cover (my own separation, not from the draft):
>>
>>a) Intermediate buffer control
>>Here, a stream's flow enters /and/ leaves a 
>>buffer (e.g. at the app-layer of an intermediate node).
>>
>>b) Flow control by the ultimate client app.
>>Here flow never releases memory (at least not 
>>during the life of the connection). The flow is 
>>solely consuming more and more memory (e.g. 
>>data being rendered into a client app's memory).
>>
>>==a) Intermediate buffer control==
>>For this, sliding window-based flow control 
>>would be appropriate, because the goal is to 
>>keep the e2e pipeline full without wasting buffer.
>>
>>Let me prove HTTP/2 cannot do window flow 
>>control. For window flow control, the sender 
>>needs to be able to advance both the leading 
>>and trailing edges of the window. In the draft:
>>* WINDOW_UPDATE frames can only advance the 
>>leading edge of a 'window' (and they are constrained to positive values).
>>* To advance the trailing edge, window flow 
>>control would need a continuous stream of 
>>acknowledgements back to the sender (like TCP). 
>>The draft does not provide ACKs at the 
>>app-layer, and the app-layer cannot monitor 
>>ACKs at the transport layer, so the sending 
>>app-layer cannot advance the trailing edge of a 'window'.
>>
>>So the protocol can only support credit-based 
>>flow control. It is incapable of supporting window flow control.
>>
>>Next, I don't understand how a receiver can set 
>>the credit in 'WINDOW_UPDATE' to a useful 
>>value. If the sender needed the receiver to 
>>answer the question "How much more can I send 
>>than I have seen ACK'd?" that would be easy. 
>>But because the protocol is restricted to 
>>credit, the sender needs the receiver to answer 
>>the much harder open-ended question, "How much 
>>more can I send?" So the sender needs the 
>>receiver to know how many ACKs the sender has 
>>seen, but neither of them know that.
>>
>>The receiver can try, by taking a guess at the 
>>bandwidth-delay product, and adjusting the 
>>guess up or down, depending on whether its 
>>buffer is growing or shrinking. But this only 
>>works if the unknown bandwidth-delay product stays constant.
>>
>>However, BDP will usually be highly variable, 
>>as other streams come and go. So, in the time 
>>it takes to get a good estimate of the 
>>per-stream BDP, it will probably have changed 
>>radically, or the stream will most likely have 
>>finished anyway. This is why TCP bases flow 
>>control on a window, not credit. By 
>>complementing window updates with ACK stream 
>>info, a TCP sender has sufficient info to control the flow.
>>
>>The draft is indeed correct when it says:
>>"¬ ¬  this can lead to suboptimal use of available
>>¬ ¬  network resources if flow control is enabled without knowledge of the
>>¬ ¬  bandwidth-delay product (see [RFC7323]).
>>"
>>Was this meant to be a veiled criticism of the 
>>protocol's own design? A credit-based flow 
>>control protocol like that in the draft does 
>>not provide sufficient information for either 
>>end to estimate the bandwidth-delay product, given it will be varying rapidly.
>>
>>==b) Control by the ultimate client app==
>>For this case, I believe neither window nor 
>>credit-based flow control is appropriate:
>>* There is no memory management issue at the 
>>client end - even if there's a separate HTTP/2 
>>layer of memory between TCP and the app, it 
>>would be pointless to limit the memory used by 
>>HTTP/2, because the data is still going to sit 
>>in the same user-space memory (or at least 
>>about the same amount of memory) when HTTP/2 passes it over for rendering.
>>* Nonetheless, the receiving client does need 
>>to send messages to the sender to supplement 
>>stream priorities, by notifying when the state 
>>of the receiving application has changed (e.g. 
>>if the user's focus switches from one browser tab to another).
>>* However, credit-based flow control would be 
>>very sluggish for such control, because credit 
>>cannot be taken back once it has been given 
>>(except HTTP/2 allows 
>>SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE to be reduced, but 
>>that's a drastic measure that hits all streams together).
>>
>>==Flow control problem summary==
>>
>>With only a credit signal in the protocol, a 
>>receiver is going to have to allow generous 
>>credit in the WINDOW_UPDATEs so as not to hurt 
>>performance. But then, the receiver will not be 
>>able to quickly close down one stream (e.g. 
>>when the user's focus changes), because it 
>>cannot claw back the generous credit it gave, it can only stop giving out more.
>>
>>IOW: Between a rock and a hard place,... but 
>>don't tell them where the rock is.
>>
>>==Towards a solution?==
>>
>>I think 'type-a' flow control (for intermediate 
>>buffer control) does not need to be at 
>>stream-granularity. Indeed, I suspect a proxy 
>>could control its app-layer buffering by 
>>controlling the receive window of the incoming 
>>TCP connection. Has anyone assessed whether this would be sufficient?
>>
>>I can understand the need for 'type-b' 
>>per-stream flow control (by the ultimate client 
>>endpoint). Perhaps it would be useful for the 
>>receiver to emit a new 'PAUSE_HINT' frame on a 
>>stream? Or perhaps updating per-stream PRIORITY 
>>would be sufficient? Either would minimise the 
>>response time to a half round trip. Whereas 
>>credit flow-control will be much more sluggish 
>>(see 'Flow control problem summary').
>>
>>Either approach would correctly propagate e2e. 
>>An intermediate node would naturally tend to 
>>prioritise incoming streams that fed into 
>>prioritised outgoing streams, so priority 
>>updates would tend to propagate from the 
>>ultimate receiver, through intermediate nodes, up to the ultimate sender.
>>
>>==Flow control coverage==
>>
>>The draft exempts all TCP payload bytes from 
>>flow control except HTTP/2 data frames. No 
>>rationale is given for this decision. The draft 
>>says it's important to manage per-stream 
>>memory, then it exempts all the frame types 
>>except data, even tho each byte of a non-data 
>>frame consumes no less memory than a byte of a data frame.
>>
>>What message does this put out? "Flow control 
>>is not important for one type of bytes with 
>>unlimited total size, but flow control is so 
>>important that it has to be mandatory for the other type of bytes."
>>
>>It is certainly critical that WINDOW_UPDATE 
>>messages are not covered by flow control, 
>>otherwise there would be a real risk of 
>>deadlock. It might be that there are 
>>dependencies on other frame types that would 
>>lead to a dependency loop and deadlock. It 
>>would be good to know what the rationale behind these rules was.
>>
>>==Theory?==
>>
>>I am concerned that HTTP/2 flow control may 
>>have entered new theoretical territory, without 
>>suitable proof of safety. The only reassurance 
>>we have is one implementation of a flow control 
>>algorithm (SPDY), and the anecdotal 
>>non-evidence that no-one using SPDY has noticed 
>>a deadlock yet (however, is anyone monitoring for deadlocks?).
>>
>>Whereas SPDY has been an existence proof that 
>>an approach like http/2 'works', so far all the 
>>flow control algos have been pretty much 
>>identical (I think that's true?). I am 
>>concerned that the draft takes the InterWeb 
>>into uncharted waters, because it allows 
>>unconstrained diversity in flow control algos, 
>>which is an untested degree of freedom.
>>
>>The only constraints the draft sets are:
>>* per-stream flow control is mandatory
>>* the only protocol message for flow control 
>>algos to use is the WINDOW_UPDATE credit message, which cannot be negative
>>* no constraints on flow control algorithms.
>>* and all this must work within the outer flow control constraints of TCP.
>>
>>Some algos might use priority messages to make 
>>flow control assumptions. While other algos 
>>might associate PRI and WINDOW_UPDATE with 
>>different meanings. What confidence do we have 
>>that everyone's optimisation algorithms will 
>>interoperate? Do we know there will not be 
>>certain types of application where deadlock is likely?
>>
>>"¬ ¬  When using flow
>>¬ ¬  control, the receiver MUST read from the TCP receive buffer in a
>>¬ ¬  timely fashion.¬  Failure to do so could lead to a deadlock when
>>¬ ¬  critical frames, such as WINDOW_UPDATE, are not read and acted upon.
>>"
>>I've been convinced (offlist) that deadlock 
>>will not occur as long as the app consumes data 
>>'greedily' from TCP. That has since been 
>>articulated in the above normative text. But 
>>how sure can we be that every implementer's 
>>different interpretations of 'timely' will still prevent deadlock?
>>
>>Until a good autotuning algorithm for TCP 
>>receive window management was developed, good 
>>window management code was nearly non-existent. 
>>Managing hundreds of interdependent stream 
>>buffers is a much harder problem. But 
>>implementers are being allowed to just 'Go 
>>forth and innovate'. This might work if 
>>everyone copies available open source algo(s). 
>>But they might not, and they don't have to.
>>
>>This all seems like 'flying by the seat of the pants'.
>>
>>==Mandatory Flow Control? ==
>>
>>"¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬  3. [...] A sender
>>¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬  MUST respect flow control limits imposed by a receiver."
>>This ought to be a 'SHOULD' because it is 
>>contradicted later - if settings change.
>>
>>"¬ ¬  6.¬  Flow control cannot be disabled."
>>Also effectively contradicted half a page later:
>>"¬ ¬  Deployments that do not require this capability can advertise a flow
>>¬ ¬  control window of the maximum size (2^31-1), and by maintaining this
>>¬ ¬  window by sending a WINDOW_UPDATE frame when any data is received.
>>¬ ¬  This effectively disables flow control for that receiver."
>>
>>And contradicted in the definition of half closed (remote):
>>"¬  half closed (remote):
>>¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬  [...] an endpoint is no longer
>>¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬  obligated to maintain a receiver flow control window.
>>"
>>
>>And contradicted in 
>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-8.3>8.3. 
>>The CONNECT Method, which says:
>>"¬  Frame types other than DATA
>>¬ ¬  or stream management frames (RST_STREAM, WINDOW_UPDATE, and PRIORITY)
>>¬ ¬  MUST NOT be sent on a connected stream, and MUST be treated as a
>>¬ ¬  stream error (Section 5.4.2) if received.
>>"
>>
>>Why is flow control so important that it's 
>>mandatory, but so unimportant that you MUST NOT do it when using TLS e2e?
>>
>>Going back to the earlier quote about using the 
>>max window size, it seems perverse for the spec 
>>to require endpoints to go through the motions 
>>of flow control, even if they arrange for it to 
>>affect nothing, but to still require 
>>implementation complexity and bandwidth waste 
>>with a load of redundant WINDOW_UPDATE frames.
>>
>>HTTP is used on a wide range of devices, down 
>>to the very small and challenged. HTTP/2 might 
>>be desirable in such cases, because of the 
>>improved efficiency (e.g. header compression), 
>>but in many cases the stream model may not be 
>>complex enough to need stream flow control.
>>
>>So why not make flow control optional on the 
>>receiving side, but mandatory to implement on 
>>the sending side? Then an implementation could 
>>have no machinery for tuning window sizes, but 
>>it would respond correctly to those set by the 
>>other end, which requires much simpler code.
>>
>>If a receiving implemention chose not to do 
>>stream flow control, it could still control 
>>flow at the connection (stream 0) level, or at least at the TCP level.
>>
>>
>>==Inefficiency?==
>>
>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16#section-5.2>5.2. 
>>Flow Control
>>"Flow control is used for both individual
>>¬ ¬  streams and for the connection as a whole."
>>Does this means that every WINDOW_UPDATE on a 
>>stream has to be accompanied by another 
>>WINDOW_UPDATE frame on stream zero? If so, this 
>>seems like 100% message redundancy. Surely I must¬  have misunderstood.
>>
>>==Flow Control Requirements===
>>
>>I'm not convinced that clear understanding of 
>>flow control requirements has driven flow control design decisions.
>>
>>The draft states various needs for flow-control 
>>without giving me a feel of confidence that it 
>>has separated out the different cases, and 
>>chosen a protocol suitable for each. I tried to 
>>go back to the early draft on flow control 
>>requirements < 
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-httpbis-http2-fc-principles-01  
>> >, and I was not impressed.
>>
>>I have quoted below the various sentences in 
>>the draft that state what flow control is 
>>believed to be for. Below that, I have 
>>attempted to crystalize out the different 
>>concepts, each of which I have tagged within the quotes.
>>
>>* 
>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16#section-2>2. 
>>HTTP/2 Protocol Overview says
>>¬  "Flow control and prioritization ensure that 
>>it is possible to efficiently use multiplexed streams. [Y]
>>¬ ¬  Flow control (Section 5.2) helps to ensure 
>>that only data that can be used by a receiver is transmitted. [X]"
>>* 
>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16#section-5.2>5.2. 
>>Flow Control says:
>>¬  "Using streams for multiplexing introduces 
>>contention over use of the TCP connection [X], 
>>resulting in blocked streams [Z]. A flow 
>>control scheme ensures that streams on the same 
>>connection do not destructively interfere with each other [Z]."
>>* 
>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16#section-5.2.2>5.2.2. 
>>Appropriate Use of Flow Control
>>"¬  Flow control is defined to protect endpoints that are operating under
>>¬ ¬  resource constraints.¬  For example, a proxy needs to share memory
>>¬ ¬  between many connections, and also might have a slow upstream
>>¬ ¬  connection and a fast downstream one [Y].¬  Flow control addresses cases
>>¬ ¬  where the receiver is unable to process data on one stream, yet wants
>>¬ ¬  to continue to process other streams in the same connection [X]."
>>"¬  Deployments with constrained resources (for example, memory) can
>>¬ ¬  employ flow control to limit the amount of 
>>memory a peer can consume. [Y]
>>
>>Each requirement has been tagged as follows:
>>[X] Notification of the receiver's changing utility for each stream
>>[Y] Prioritisation of streams due to contention 
>>over the streaming capacity available to the whole connection.
>>[Z] Ensuring one stream is not blocked by another.
>>
>>[Z] might be a variant of [Y], but [Z] sounds 
>>more binary, whereas [Y] sounds more like 
>>optimisation across a continuous spectrum.
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>________________________________________________________________
>>Bob Briscoe,¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ 
>>¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬  BT
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Bob Briscoe,¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ 
>¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬  BT
>

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT 
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 11:55:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC