- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:59:16 -0700
> This type of UA-specific setting is something best left outside the spec entirely. Yup On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote: > I think Ian's decision to add no language to the spec is the correct one. > To be clear, we were never asking for Ian to put a limit in the spec - > rather, given the de facto existence of limits on some platforms, we wanted > to discuss how those platforms should behave to ensure that they were still > compliant with the specification. > Per previous discussions, some implementations have little or no overhead > per worker (e.g. Firefox which uses a static thread pool to service worker > tasks). On those platforms, it makes no sense to allow the user to specify a > maximum number of workers, so having language in the spec saying that UAs > "SHOULD" do so is inappropriate. > > This type of UA-specific setting is something best left outside the spec > entirely. > > -atw > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Eduard Pascual <herenvardo at gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >> > >> > I include below, for the record, a set of e-mails on the topic of >> settings >> > limits on Workers to avoid DOS attacks. >> > >> > As with other such topics, the HTML5 spec allows more or less any >> > arbitrary behaviour in the face of hardware limitations. There are a >> > variety of different implementations strategies, and these will vary >> > based on the target hardware. How to handle a million new workers will >> be >> > different on a system with a million cores and little memory than a >> system >> > with one core but terabytes of memory, or a system with 100 slow cores >> vs >> > a system with 10 fast cores. >> > >> > I have therefore not added any text to the spec on the matter. Please >> let >> > me know if you think there should really be something in the spec on >> this. >> > >> >> Shouldn't a per-user setting be the sanest approach for the worker >> limit? For example, it would quite make sense for me to want a low >> limit (let's say 10 or so) workers on my laptop's browser; but have no >> restriction (or a much higher one, like some thousand workers) on my >> workstation. >> Ian's point is key here: what's an appropriate limit for workers >> depends almost entirely on hardware resources (and probably also on >> implementation efficiency and other secondary aspects), and there is a >> *huge* variety of hardware configurations that act as web clients, so >> it's just impossible to hardcode a limit in the spec that works >> properly for more than a minority. At most, I would suggest a note >> like this in the spec "User agents SHOULD provide the user a way to >> limit the ammount of workers running at a time.": emphasis on the >> "SHOULD" rather than a "MUST", and also on the fact that the final >> choice is for users to make. Then it'd be up to each implementor to >> decide on default, out-of-the-box limits for their browser (it would >> make sense, for example, if Chromium had a lower default limit than >> FF, since C's workers are more "expensive"). >> >> Just my two cents. >> >> Regards, >> Eduard Pascual >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090708/6eced23c/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 10:59:16 UTC