Re: Re[2]: Some proxy needs

"Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> Sun, 08 April 2012 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 AE87721F854D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 15u-L61sMFHj for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80D221F8549 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SGzPn-0000mT-UW for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:12:51 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>) id 1SGzPe-0000lX-Ak for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:12:42 +0000
Received: from smtpout1.laposte.net ([193.253.67.226] helo=smtpout.laposte.net) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>) id 1SGzPb-0006X0-9R for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:12:40 +0000
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org ([88.174.226.208]) by mwinf8501-out with ME id vZCA1i0014WQcrc03ZCABh; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:12:11 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E49F3283; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:12:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at arekh.dyndns.org
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arekh.okg [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EDrwZKPdHKha; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:12:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:12:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 192.168.0.4 (SquirrelMail authenticated user nim) by arekh.dyndns.org with HTTP; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:12:08 +0200
Message-ID: <0edc27e8599b098be0f9a3bf18a1653f.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <83903.1333917310@critter.freebsd.dk>
References: <83903.1333917310@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:12:08 +0200
From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-7.fc18
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.253.67.226; envelope-from=nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net; helo=smtpout.laposte.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1SGzPb-0006X0-9R ea2eb0303d0fb314276e330445b61657
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Some proxy needs
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0edc27e8599b098be0f9a3bf18a1653f.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13408
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SGzPn-0000mT-UW@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:12:51 +0000

Le Dim 8 avril 2012 22:35, Poul-Henning Kamp a écrit :
> In message <6d282afce1d51732a6d9cdcfdcac0a8a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>,
> "Nicol
> as Mailhot" writes:
>
>>Then if the protocol does not permit signaling progress, what the solution
>>would be? (educating users does not work, they've been brainwashed to refresh
>>at the slightest pause)
>
> I think it is a design-mistake for the proxy to react to the forced
> reload of a huge object, when is already busy processing that object
> and have not delivered it to any clients yet.
>
> Given that the client has not seen the object yet, the client has
> no basis for conclusing it is out of date, so the reloads should
> be ignored, the requests queued and once the object is processed,
> you can deliver it.

Ah, but on a big proxy farm setup, the load balancer may orient the second
request to an new proxy (since the first one is busy). And the origin web site
may also be part of a cdn, and the second request may not end on the same
delivery server as the first one

Either way once you pile up several layers where load is shared between
multiple parallel nodes, implicit signaling breaks down badly

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot