IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control

Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> Thu, 21 August 2014 14:59 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F451A03C0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 pyF12Oldbh9R for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D8731A03B5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XKTnd-0001OO-8Q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:57:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:57:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XKTnd-0001OO-8Q@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>) id 1XKTnO-0001Mk-3L for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:56:58 +0000
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>) id 1XKTnJ-0008D7-AY for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:56:58 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h3so12995843igd.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=k3L9XVfPIYGIIh5gtolJmyV3oGoSB8kFFF4vsF09x5I=; b=W3CalR0OmZFw54DY/xY3YIfrmSWtXeFOKF8EQWZ5a4XD4rfEame3ls73x1lK/uVLkg 7/Wpu34OlN6kahptTFf2+IyR6qfIUV0Iei1Sj94PpriQNM2pdLiM8mEhqk/VyyzUNjQ5 /2pNK87z8l9DfsxLnIfIWg3Sxs9zCFDPyWTaifkONjKUPodhC5Cl5sX0JrDrcW8F17QT /pI5FTqcgmYHgogHHaQKWcX1MFZGaZdy4dCxZapxEysiBan6cBnXUg6Aa0VE3DLl5/bo zVPS4bBEfw7806YyHn5SpyRvMP2de5JDGD76iT9egMkktNOss503gTdLbRjC9uI3q/h+ r2kQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.111.225 with SMTP id il1mr4784993igb.28.1408632987510; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.31.201 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNr3g5Ch80ypTThNvZDPftPG5Qive6WmHrvHgsw4NEXOTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPyZ6=+9sEFaaEBHSvhbzck6mLthatDVamMckYfnUXVMhVbiVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqX0H7hhxtx3ODniuYQU5wt9Qi91BDjOcENssi_m4PbQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyZ6=J1b6VYaBJ==H7FsO9ofe9BTv53+DoDTCeRtW8TPmx=Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNr3g5Ch80ypTThNvZDPftPG5Qive6WmHrvHgsw4NEXOTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:56:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=+0Ot1XRNw38rBX1hH04hJ1i6pVDpL+CsLUifozB1tDQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Cc: HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a9712d6f082050124ec28"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.181; envelope-from=tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f181.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.730, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XKTnJ-0008D7-AY c93e880a377c6c2aeea226e6167056d4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPyZ6=+0Ot1XRNw38rBX1hH04hJ1i6pVDpL+CsLUifozB1tDQw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26692
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 Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <
> tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ​In this scenario, proxy has no room to expand. Therefore I wrote that​
>> all streams on backend connections are stalled.
>>
>>
> This is my point. If the proxy really has no room to expand (its out of
> ram) - then we've got a resource problem not a protocol problem. If it does
> have more ram, then just use the protocol to open the window to match the
> resources available.
>
>
​So if there is no ram to spend for that connection, is stalling entire
connection inevitable consequence (and we should not care about it)? ​
Connection flow control is limit the memory commitment for proxy then why
do we need to extend it in the response to a client behavior?

Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status