IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sat, 05 March 2016 18:09 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 0C8541B3528 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 10:09:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 BxbAmw-RoAXt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 10:09:23 -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 133431B3523 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 10:09:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1acGZ5-0001zP-34 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 18:04:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 18:04:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1acGZ5-0001zP-34@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1acGYx-0001yc-Dh for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 18:04:23 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1acGYv-00017y-V6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 18:04:23 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id u25I3eWr031232; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 19:03:40 +0100
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 19:03:40 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160305180340.GA31228@1wt.eu>
References: <56D77892.2000308@isi.edu> <20160303065545.GA18412@1wt.eu> <56D87BAC.4060204@isi.edu> <20160303184418.GA18774@1wt.eu> <CAOdDvNokUDxmfy87VrQNLoQvQknP6L3h6fLbuFeVpOiDN4szAQ@mail.gmail.com> <56D9D235.9000106@isi.edu> <FA915C37-6831-44A6-86B0-E9A5E3DD909E@mnot.net> <a0dc0b8d-ed3f-4901-d1ed-1445d8560d0f@gmail.com> <20160305073813.GC31072@1wt.eu> <38CB1EBC-3C38-430A-998A-9AF426A2AA99@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <38CB1EBC-3C38-430A-998A-9AF426A2AA99@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.926, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1acGYv-00017y-V6 60e0b07c62705e23aa1d00d1f0c29783
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160305180340.GA31228@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31196
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>

On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 12:54:08PM +0000, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> Does the doc need to cover operating systems at all?
> 
> Is it sufficient to have the explanations and describe what to tune and leave
> it to the reader to work out how to set tunable foo on their operating
> system?

I don't have a strong opinion on this, and I'm not the author, Daniel
did this work. I think that suggesting examples of what settings are
available in certain operating systems to achieve some of the explained
concepts is useful, especially to counter the mis-information or bad
advices found on many blogs. But sending that as strict rules is not
a good thing considering that RFCs are supposed to serve as a reference
for a long time while operating systems change.

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email