Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management.
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sun, 05 April 2015 23:53 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 5251D1ACE6D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 V6fdsz1gk_Yz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:53:05 -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 3B6691ACE6B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 16:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YeuIO-00087W-9f for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:49:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:49:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YeuIO-00087W-9f@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1YeuIK-00086p-Tk for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:49:36 +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 1YeuIJ-0000YF-Bf for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 23:49:36 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id t35NnBM6016404; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 01:49:11 +0200
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 01:49:11 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150405234911.GA16399@1wt.eu>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABb0SYR0wV1U5i2n=PbZd+BFTBntJFvzFD0DPPRVHXyJP=Oyqg@mail.gmail.com>
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=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.019, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YeuIJ-0000YF-Bf 10c3f78692c39fb32290e4e51cba46e9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Overhead of HTTP/2 Stream Management.
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20150405234911.GA16399@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29269
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 Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 01:08:28PM -0700, Max Bruce 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. Would you please describe what you call "packets" here and how you associate them with a request/response pair, and when a request/response message has begun, when it is finished, when it is certain that a "packet" from an aborted response is to be ignored, etc ? I think you'll come to a solution pretty similar to what was obtained here in the end. Willy
- 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.