Re: Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND)

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 18:52 UTC

Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:52:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1USAzE-0007cO-MH@frink.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DF8F6DB7E5D58B408041AE4D927B2F48CBB897DD@CINURCNA14.e2k.ad.ge.com>
References: <CABkgnnUH+vYF2Q=jkOsoBsTD6ipBQ84UDvuN9EZyBM=vDrE1rQ@mail.gmail.com> <DF8F6DB7E5D58B408041AE4D927B2F48CBB897DD@CINURCNA14.e2k.ad.ge.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:51:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcyBDuOm9U5+fmJQmWEY0=QYtoNb-yLg1Jz2on5Ncyagg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013c682c19f36904da7edc7d"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com
Subject: Re: Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNcyBDuOm9U5+fmJQmWEY0=QYtoNb-yLg1Jz2on5Ncyagg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

I'll try to make it more clear in the future.
I believe I'm the main culpret here, btw.
-=R


On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <
robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote:

> Another attempt
>
>
> >>On 4/16/13 12:03 PM, "Roberto Peon"
> >><grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, most flows with http/1 are short (and bursty) flows, so
> >>it is incorrect to say that they have reached steady-state w.r.t.
> >>congestion control. Many resource fetches complete in between one and
> >>three rtts, then much of time the connection(s) sit idle for extended
> >>periods of time (seconds to minutes).
>
> Good point.  Most of my work with HTTP/1 (and TCP) are with long-lived
> flows and I live in the long tail.  My gut tells me you are correct when
> it comes to traditional web usage.
>
> >> I'm hoping Will will chime in here with data soon, but the distribution
> >>on single connection cwnds as measured on traffic in the wild shows us
> >>that using multiple connections puts more packets on the wire as a
> >>result of init-cwnd (and thus not subject to congestion control, ouch)
> >>than a single stable-state, heavily used and reused connection such as
> >>Spdy or HTTP/2 would allow.
>
> Wouldn't Spdy or HTTP/2 still face the issues regarding steady-state then?
>
> Part of my concern is that we may, once again, create an HTTP that
> unfairly dominates traffic due to lots of bursty flows.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I agree that solving the problem for http/2 alone won't fix it for
> >>everything. On the other hand, we also need to act swiftly to solve
> >>problems on timescales that matter to users, and http is a fine venue
> >>for that. The fact that http/2 could do this doesn't stop us from coming
> >>up with an opaque blob that *any* latency sensitive application protocol
> >> could use to communicate with the transport layer.
>
> As someone stated earlier, I fear the opposite to be true.  This may end
> up slowing down HTTP/2 and not be swift at all..
>
>
>

Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND) Martin Thomson
Re: Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND) Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)
Re: Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND) Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)
Re: Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND) Roberto Peon
Re: Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND) Roberto Peon