W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 1996

Re: HTTP-NG Server & Client Mechanisms

From: Ashish Kolli <ashishk@wankel.me.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:19:52 -0800
Message-Id: <9602210819.ZM20525@wankel.me.cmu.edu>
To: BearHeart / Bill Weinman <bearheart@bearnet.com>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
	I think what Rob was trying to get at is the bandwidth issue: How well
would the HTTP-NG protocol perform in a congested network when compared to the
HTTP1.x . Since the overhead of establishing a new connection for each request
is eliminated in HTTP-NG we would expect a certain amount of performance
benefit. However when one is connected by computers that are "quite distant"
the TCP/IP protocol might introduce some latencies in terms of packet loss and
retransmission for a connection that is open for a long period of time, because
the load from other factors like "Sprintlink" might vary drastically.

- Ashish

On Feb 21, 11:35am, BearHeart / Bill Weinman wrote:
> Subject: Re: HTTP-NG Server & Client Mechanisms
> At 11:32 pm 2/20/96 MST, Rob Hartill spake:
> >There are far too many reports which tell us how well a client talks
> >to a server that is only a few feet away... not much help unless
> >we know how it behaves when fighting against network black holes such
> >as Sprintlink.
>    I'm confused. What does this have to do with client performance?
>    What can a client do about some unknown piece of hardware between it
> and its server?
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | BearHeart / Bill Weinman | BearHeart@bearnet.com | http://www.bearnet.com/
> | Author of The CGI Book -- http://www.bearnet.com/cgibook/
>-- End of excerpt from BearHeart / Bill Weinman

Ashish Kolli, Carnegie Mellon University
Email :	ashishk+@cmu.edu 
WWW   : http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ashishk/
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 1996 12:51:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:20 UTC