Return-Path: 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 19B2D21F941D for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:37:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u7z0EK51t7D4 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BCC11E80D5 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UhQeD-0005vQ-7d for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:37:33 +0000 Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:37:33 +0000 Resent-Message-Id: Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UhQe1-0005uU-7Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:37:21 +0000 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UhQe0-0007ks-Jw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:37:21 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id wc20so1922383obb.32 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:36:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=naDYHTI9of1XR3Am8Vd3Ne/YdQczDRlAhJ1s6W+Qe8I=; b=f+ECX0ZDgtJswLhfjWaYZZdGijnprFpkdvnLIPb2DHu9YG8553RWL74hSAGUStBjeh FE7Qyv27WDLVEIcdkC10wwPAJ4QNNoPvxpcrrEsROwbdCbFhV2DLLYJ1fXHra6FcamEA 1gPeM1wgfq/NTB01EahEPQ91rp9h0Kyx0JFCXT6JUTzbeF4VHTlhT1F1AIJrBzW02Mpi FFSu88P9Nn5qn6L5Vsv2Fz84LwyBNk8jyYVlhSyLQpPrvjsflBlrktippjuyBM8TRHwc rWnnjL50SiuU4uRQrIb39vEFTXootdCQIeEPMKoHkBQ4clLFxc4Rdq30dq3dLv5lQFQw sUiQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.98.135 with SMTP id ei7mr21606018obb.102.1369773414560; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.169.68 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:36:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:36:54 -0700 Message-ID: From: Roberto Peon To: Patrick McManus Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= , James M Snell , HTTP Working Group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e4970cc3cbe04ddcd396a Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.173; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f173.google.com X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.666, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001 X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UhQe0-0007ks-Jw 720e9f17b302fd24c513746775b29567 X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal - Reduce HTTP2 frame length from 16 to 12 bits Archived-At: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18126 X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: --047d7b2e4970cc3cbe04ddcd396a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 That is fine by me so long as we mark the rest of the length field as reserved and don't touch it. -=R On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Patrick McManus wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: > > My sweet-spot number was 16k, as I knew that I could saturate a 10G nic >> with 16k frames/writes and have enough CPU left over to do some actual >> work. The amount of overhead goes up more than linearly with the decrease >> in frame size thanks to contention, etc. >> >> > > Given what you've said here and in the other mail (plus of course my own > previously stated concerns) I'm inclined to suggest a 16KB max (14 bits) > without introducing any kind of max frame size configurable. My point is to > drive it as small as we can without creating excessive overhead and you've > put a stake in the ground that 16KB is that level. That's still 4x as > aggressive as the current draft. > > --047d7b2e4970cc3cbe04ddcd396a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That is fine by me so long as we mark the rest of the leng= th field as reserved and don't touch it.
-=3DR


On Tue, May 28, = 2013 at 1:33 PM, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> w= rote:



On Tue, May 28, 20= 13 at 4:12 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

My sweet-spot number was 16k, as I knew= that I could saturate a 10G nic with 16k frames/writes and have enough CPU= left over to do some actual work. The amount of overhead goes up more than= linearly with the decrease in frame size thanks to contention, etc.
=A0

= Given what you've said here and in the other mail (plus of course my ow= n previously stated concerns) I'm inclined to suggest a 16KB max (14 bi= ts) without introducing any kind of max frame size configurable. My point i= s to drive it as small as we can without creating excessive overhead and yo= u've put a stake in the ground that 16KB is that level. That's stil= l 4x as aggressive as the current draft.
=A0

--047d7b2e4970cc3cbe04ddcd396a--