W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > October 2014

Re: [EME] HTTPS performance experiments for large scale content distribution

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:16:06 -0700
Cc: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A037D50A-CF5C-497C-B426-3854B50AC4DE@mnot.net>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Hi Mark,

That’s interesting. I’m assuming by “optimisations that, with HTTP, can avoid data copies to/from user space” you mean sendfile() (since you’re a FreeBSD shop). 

This reminds me very much of discussions around HTTP/2. TCP splice and sendfile() aren’t nearly as useful in a framed protocol, and while we’ve increased the maximum frame size to make it possible to accommodate them, it’s very likely that none of the browsers will ever negotiate anything bigger than a 16K frame size, meaning that these techniques are essentially useless with the new protocol. For us (i.e., the HTTP WG), this was an explicit design tradeoff; the benefits (especially in terms of congestion control and other network effects) of using one connection and having responsive multiplexing outweighed these concerns.

 So, it’s really gratifying to see that you see the possibility to reduce the overhead of TLS (as compared to zero-copy plaintext) so much. 

If they’re public, would you mind sharing the optimisations you’re looking at? I.e., is it just availability of AES-NI, or something else?

Cheers,


> On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:00 am, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> We have done some testing ​on the Netflix CDN ​with HTTPS​. We dedicated several servers to serving only HTTPS traffic and directed traffic from our Silverlight clients to those servers in order to measure the serving capacity, as compared with similarly situated servers serving over HTTP.
> 
> We​ discovered that with our existing hardware/software stack ​[1] ​we would incur a capacity hit of between 30-53%​ using HTTPS​ depending on the server hardware/software version. This is due in part to the computational overhead of encryption itself (despite use of Intel hw acceleration) and in part to the unavailability of optimizations that, with HTTP, can avoid data copies to/from user space. This is not a capacity hit we ​could absorb in the short term and we estimate the costs over time would be in the $10’s to $100’s of millions per year.
> 
> Our current rough estimates indicate that, over the coming year we could implement additional software optimizations which could potentially reduce ​the size of this overhead ​by around​ 30%​ and with modified hardware (over the next several years) ​by around 70-80%. ​We have not decided to do this, it's just an illustration of technical feasibility. 
> 
> ​I think it's unreasonable to expect that standards action alone can be successful in the face of such costs​. What is needed is a collaborative discussion to work towards solutions and on timeframes that are not cost-prohibitive.
> 
> ...Mark
> 
> PS: For the avoidance of any doubt, I am talking here only about delivery of content that is already encrypted at rest on the server. We have many mechanisms in place, including HTTPS, to protect sensitive user data such as account details, credit card information etc.
> 
> [1] See https://www.netflix.com/openconnect for an overview, although this does not cover more recent designs
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 27 October 2014 17:16:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:55 UTC