Re: Is a faithful HTTP/2 response scheduler necessarily O(n) in the worst case?

Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> Wed, 25 January 2017 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C23C12989E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:17:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=CFvmarVK; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=mwGhvKqJ
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Ej5duGV7hYc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F750129894 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:17:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cWJfF-0004yB-1u for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:14:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:14:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cWJfF-0004yB-1u@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1cWJfD-0004wj-3n for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:14:47 +0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de ([5.10.171.186]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1cWJf7-0002hy-2s for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:14:41 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 117) id 3438915A06FA; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:14:13 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1485335653; bh=RhqSJENLgN3AcLZpZXlYxeIiSANkl5i+lkOPjBRt6nI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=CFvmarVKRXBkA5UgcdZgZFwMjYDj/UhoaUQHNOiq532m3UC76uS+AYhltZrDqggSl kgIXHjNZJ+ZdVEymoPdxmCjhAw+FpbDW0oHlD34iNOQ3qjo6Cy6Yr2PT9PhWn22YLQ rwRj1L0ACvfPuGV1Ps6IR9qIjdcS33i/AS0N1qRc=
Received: from [192.168.1.175] (unknown [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A8AC15A02D6; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:14:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1485335652; bh=RhqSJENLgN3AcLZpZXlYxeIiSANkl5i+lkOPjBRt6nI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=mwGhvKqJ/1pm4xukhM69FF0uKy8kXSbyON/yNSiVMvAuO5s5yloC+rBrRrb5SYzIa 7KsHIp8ecEtByv3FRnmkCMQUPimk6t48a9B6zOhyt+dofvklj/9bVSweKyAaIrlIaK DZZ1vL39pLOwb0/zlqqx6TUEZkVFf7uege9FIOHU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: <CA+3+x5EdkLSAR2gWR9TT72o2Tg4Z_xKXMh8yVREYD7mvNuLB8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:14:12 +0100
Cc: =?utf-8?B?IkthenUgWWFtYW1vdG8gKOWxseacrOWSjOW9piki?= <kazu@iij.ad.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <551898D7-7B4B-4022-A644-0E1649AB5460@greenbytes.de>
References: <CA+3+x5Ft8MfRduWp1RzJ9_qAgQiCujac8f5FLz81Xpyu3cTDxw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzz0AYxBDDyEbpvnq1xPd1-vrFazbnVt2usanXS0CTKbeA@mail.gmail.com> <20170124.165356.870174430965764062.kazu@iij.ad.jp> <900A5D6B-0752-470E-840C-4518D933DD09@greenbytes.de> <CA+3+x5EdkLSAR2gWR9TT72o2Tg4Z_xKXMh8yVREYD7mvNuLB8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.10.171.186; envelope-from=stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.452, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cWJf7-0002hy-2s 531283e7df4e5f65c7cf25f1b8619eed
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is a faithful HTTP/2 response scheduler necessarily O(n) in the worst case?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/551898D7-7B4B-4022-A644-0E1649AB5460@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33377
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> Am 24.01.2017 um 23:22 schrieb Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>rg>:
> 
> > stefan.eissing@
> > The very same problem exists for stream processing in order to generate response data.
> 
> What did you mean by "stream processing"?

A server has limited resources. In order to determine which stream's response gets calculated first priorities and weight need also apply.

Stefan Eissing

<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenstrasse 16
48155 Münster
www.greenbytes.de