Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams

William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> Mon, 29 April 2013 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 6C32521F9C04 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 pTI-zu8yZ+RQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0383F21F9BC2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWvNm-000653-V5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:13:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:13:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWvNm-000653-V5@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1UWvNH-00061N-PR for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:12:48 +0000
Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com ([209.85.216.170]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1UWvNG-0004xC-O2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:12:39 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id d42so3420311qca.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6QJYuH/LAcueS0+6VNPHFGk4di6CSbFxvZx6PJDhUMs=; b=Ipqksf+Tc7b4MBW+eoedcNtlTdgA/cI1D5GqSA82lCJohIopKLYH8dnkM5pPg1TR6i o76uRHoYA/45aAhiZbsSwT56qvj5It2POS3gPja2h8K26rh0wl/SIEWcJZsYB2LhVhR9 ruLbHObWzyiVkCW4jRLGrf7ID3Dd8HnMW3y6BSBqUwOo2hpLbY9VptkZ3zs0XPuViYHy LCW3wu927HZmLBDslevCiMLMmh7mYwsKMdUZuDp7gj+Y0mgEkFJ0V1ocEnIyqElWZkIq iX4pbNyArLKqPYIVkNH0TDS05ui5YfMfDkQgxYXd1NKBTy8Qg3G6p93qMQ9HqqzU1mcB y85Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6QJYuH/LAcueS0+6VNPHFGk4di6CSbFxvZx6PJDhUMs=; b=UUVJdEQXMOX8d9s9MH7ojnUszxnMhF/8NnseSnE+RPM22KT9P0JqMs4rtP3PPH94xQ wFNZ4FhuS/5oSfYi9GNolvnVgr+oZ4XSozUnzyqQq8WcJ5JFQhB97sXzJTalNcc0Eq+T qhc/Qfi7pTVqUnx2N/Y7G0BGrp3/APuTNblUI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=6QJYuH/LAcueS0+6VNPHFGk4di6CSbFxvZx6PJDhUMs=; b=jgf03k/1zIDky2/WGAMMFf272yEmDDPFip5PLdsTCL9eMoslKSV4aiE8WfaIlERspT 4fCXeHkIbWGPUanltiBOFKWHeUzXiH51J2KR1SsdyCurgphUeT9/ETmEK48BrUKs6R6r fH1PypkDmOuMgsrwU6sLLcrT5DYSBT4W8MtexQrdM6mR1FlEdjc7xc6stxrQI6lDRcxz TDMzBQC/vzcNlWjlP2gC9Wnxb/0XJowxuChAd1PPd9KZTf3yWeCbN/LLceOF4/MP8K9l Ts5rD22sUK3CzuuG5Qu2z3E4SuxXOiI17c0g5D9WZtsRZydN3CSlXOEXN63hb2Iz0ByG XobQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.170.18 with SMTP id b18mr846054qcz.5.1367269932914; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: willchan@google.com
Received: by 10.229.180.4 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbfENXLGaMFniFRFdawq9suWrvYxBCRiAc37W9NuHL-isA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbdBe-Xkx+CMvpN=_oNAqm6SyLyL+XNHRUKSqn8mjSDw1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgCiyWerT0tUUVKcbNPqdTGuXHd_MG59DjcUsEWst5t7g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVdU=cZ53Bqg5Un=E80NMpcgYO37DVmwUFW0O-i7SNf8w@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfENXLGaMFniFRFdawq9suWrvYxBCRiAc37W9NuHL-isA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:12:11 -0300
X-Google-Sender-Auth: x3IFU8KKlZaAWaIpfJZw5BiuPRE
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYi++SSvM7KWADrK9XZssH2=_+tPzA4waUZj2cPWwtrx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f646b01a9f5b804db865622
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAkT4lA0JbyYVqc0shKnY3axNFrnWoV45AabeLVqVHWM9GXaFJRGPBXe4nF6raCrGppwaEsLERwV9lYLqsXMBllUKQPbry86QXQY1sarzZba57Q0r0b4w20GUBwO7IxAkMPUE2sB+aYCk2jsQmg77zFe9bdiIdKAU7kwrn+V0cn798twJGJqu8EL1U11iloXvInQMg
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.170; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-qc0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.470, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.442, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UWvNG-0004xC-O2 f5f392c92646347999b87d51027e603c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYi++SSvM7KWADrK9XZssH2=_+tPzA4waUZj2cPWwtrx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17678
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>

Why will the server top out? We set our browser advertised
MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS limit to 1000:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/net/spdy/spdy_session.h&sq=package:chromium&rcl=1367246521&l=49.
What receiver of push streams is going to have a low limit? Or are you
worried that it'll want to push more than 1000 streams in a roundtrip?


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:08 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:

>
> It does not attempt to solve the core problem completely.  If anything it
> just pushes it down the road a bit.  As currently defined,  servers will
> top out quickly on the number of streams they can push.  With the revised
> scheme I proposed, we would give the recipient more control over the
> decision making process. A server will run up to the limits just as fast,
> but the recipient could allow the server to keep right on going if it
> wishes. In other words,  less coordination required between the endpoints.
>
> On Apr 29, 2013 11:20 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I don't believe that the proposal improves the situation enough (or at
> > all) to justify the additional complexity.  That's something that you
> > need to assess for yourself.  This proposal provides more granular
> > control, but it doesn't address the core problem, which is that you
> > and I can only observe each other actions after some delay, which
> > means that we can't coordinate those actions perfectly.  Nor can be
> > build a perfect model of the other upon which to observe and act upon.
> >  The usual protocol issue.
>
>