Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management.
Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com> Sun, 05 April 2015 23:59 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8F21ACE72 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.811
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 95yF_mnNxB8D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
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 07A811ACE71 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YeuPe-0003gx-Rw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:57:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:57:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YeuPe-0003gx-Rw@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <max.bruce12@gmail.com>) id 1YeuPa-0003gB-LZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:57:06 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <max.bruce12@gmail.com>) id 1YeuPZ-0007Xq-Cg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:57:06 +0000
Received: by iebrs15 with SMTP id rs15so11166559ieb.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 16:56:39 -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=1mxnw10FE8GIkjr9GPOfTBcKbKHNVnWF3kBC1TZDBps=; b=PlYvrQHvkOfw6fOZQOpt0o8jedBXOxzbinXBUl63upi+e1vZ3Y5J5J8zV7v4GmaVFD 26lPNZhRUik2ynKereNkYrQoHEeqhSZYiehUhNf91DX7k76f2mIS/MwomAEiutcHLXoX TkkHMad8C2iWgLksJzeJ6XGxElZgUaTTRJg7PJCIqJaDANRLm/VW+5bAOLxGWcla/lZy MygRUUP+xM9J0bf++MUZsqZQDtfJvsZVhMzuDOGTsT8gVhZGremksXgI1e9pOsVGuag0 fzhEq354QjK9ROnPvpa8Sx8Jf3M2f3kjpJUkhRZ/GJ7wdbvNgS1Eg+Kprd8C61g/opm3 gbWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.27.143 with SMTP id b137mr18697889iob.76.1428278199166; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 16:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.58.142 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNe-fvK5WsoqcRwPKGxM42A-EOUXTpxBFUCR7c=dRJ4MOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABb0SYTLVFYXymJ75TkNkku3oT5pRcSAahjq2HcD5gDLouskpA@mail.gmail.com> <20150405183651.GA11551@1wt.eu> <CABb0SYTSW+M1NjBAa_s7dcB56obj1nEbQmt5r6P7eStTBmTwHg@mail.gmail.com> <20150405185755.GD8875@1wt.eu> <CABb0SYR0wV1U5i2n=PbZd+BFTBntJFvzFD0DPPRVHXyJP=Oyqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NF2NXdsLn3yK-1F9hkHw+yuMzMp2GnE3EN-ZCU2KDqv6A@mail.gmail.com> <CABb0SYQ4+6fJHrfLVvfs8yZMakuwqv17M_THyKauy=UcewQAmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNe-fvK5WsoqcRwPKGxM42A-EOUXTpxBFUCR7c=dRJ4MOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 16:56:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABb0SYT_Xvm_a3yah-=kBRKnoEtObV5JEWxacxOmpU9diAvFOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140a87cb3adc8051302eea1"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.170; envelope-from=max.bruce12@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.921, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YeuPZ-0007Xq-Cg 2dd1ba63dcff2f9ae61497ed55a484e3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management.
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABb0SYT_Xvm_a3yah-=kBRKnoEtObV5JEWxacxOmpU9diAvFOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29272
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>
I wrote a server implementation fully except no HPACK yet(working on now). As for a client impl, I tested using a header modifier plugin for Firefox, but for a full on browser/extension would be out of my skill set. As for submitting a draft, I emailed Mark, and don't know how to submit one myself. On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > If that is true, then you may want to write up a server and client > implementation, test/deploy it in the real world, and the write up.submit a > draft. > -=R > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, I proposed a HTTP/1.1 addition to Mark, that prevents HOL blocking >> & allows server pushing in HTTP/1.1, with 100% backwards compatibility, and >> relative ease to implement, and can even start HPACK without any direct >> protocol negotiations. TCP is in charge of ensuring that content gets where >> it needs to go, if that TCP is untimely closed, that's something the client >> just has to re-request. As for the connection/stream overhead, you can have >> only one case of initializing TCP, and zero stream overhead, using 1-2 HTTP >> headers, that allow server pushing and prevent HOL blocking if implemented >> on both client and server(and if not, prepare the responses for the client >> before they ask). >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Max, >>> >>> I don't see much difference between the stream overheads of HTTP/2 vs >>> the connection overheads of HTTP/1. >>> >>> Both need open/close state kept and even in HTTP/1 that state is >>> moderately complex as you can be half closed in and/or half closed out; the >>> response can complete before the request; there are multiple sources of >>> events (application vs network) that can race on state changes; the server >>> has a requirement to reliably deliver a serialised event stream to the >>> application without duplicates or loopbacks. Unless the server/client >>> keeps good atomic state on the open/closed status, then there are going to >>> be lost events and/or leaked resources. >>> >>> In jetty the vast majority of this state overhead is in common code used >>> by both HTTP/1 and HTTP/2. This code used to be a lot simpler in older >>> versions of our HTTP/1 on server... but it was wrong code that missed many >>> edge cases when presented with fully asynchronous applications. Closing >>> asynchronous streams is just complex and multiplexing changes that very >>> little. It just makes the network event stream look a little different and >>> some events are distributed to multiple listeners. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> >>> On 6 April 2015 at 06:08, Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The way HTTP works though, we don't need streams in such a conventional >>>> and TCP-like way. We only need multiplexed packets to carry data over, so >>>> just associate request/response pairs with an ID, and allow server push via >>>> server sending the request path in a header too. Why do we even need a >>>> frame structure? It's unnecessary overhead. Same with the virtual streams. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 11:45:53AM -0700, Max Bruce wrote: >>>>> > My thoughts is that you just don't use so much overhead. You don't >>>>> get rid >>>>> > of stream IDs, you just don't need so much complex things >>>>> surrounding it. >>>>> > Example: You append a header to HTTP/1.1 request, with a response ID, >>>>> > server responds with it. Server can push responses by sending a >>>>> unsent ID & >>>>> > request path in a header. >>>>> >>>>> You still need the stream IDs in the frames themselves so that you know >>>>> which stream each frame belongs to. >>>>> >>>>> Multiplexed systems always look simple at first, until you start to >>>>> implement them, cover the corner cases (eg: who closes first etc) and >>>>> you finally realize once everything is done how much your system looks >>>>> like tcp... >>>>> >>>>> There was an elegant (in my opinion) simplification in H/2 compared to >>>>> other systems, the stream IDs are always incremented until the largest >>>>> encodable ID is reached, which is where a new connection must be used. >>>>> I find this elegant because you don't need to keep track of IDs in use >>>>> vs available ones and it really simplifies a number of things (eg: no >>>>> risk to have late frames from an old stream using the same ID). >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't please me either to have to implement such a complex system >>>>> but I am absolutely convinced that it can hardly be simplified further >>>>> as long as we want non-blocking, multiplexed streams. I have already >>>>> implemented multiplexed streams in the past for some projects, and it >>>>> resulted in almost the same design (but more complex). >>>>> >>>>> Willy >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> @ Webtide - *an Intalio subsidiary* >>> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that >>> scales >>> http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd. >>> >> >> >
- Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Willy Tarreau
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Willy Tarreau
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Greg Wilkins
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Willy Tarreau
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Roberto Peon
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Willy Tarreau
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Max Bruce
- Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management. Walter H.