Re: H2 Server Push performance data

Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org> Tue, 23 July 2019 00:20 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541B212030B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 yX2XC0ch2JDy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA154120314 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hpiVO-00084b-QH for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:18:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:18:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hpiVO-00084b-QH@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1hpiVM-00083k-Ld for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:18:08 +0000
Received: from mail-yw1-xc35.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1hpiVK-0004JJ-T1 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:18:08 +0000
Received: by mail-yw1-xc35.google.com with SMTP id l124so16429304ywd.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2EXjjIA39J6h0Y6NdqlAJdd0v00Pt4T/s7cuYRQAIfM=; b=gqBZ6Gfrf8h0YRcSP9urkQWfM5SJMGhuEfd818rh6T0jSvKBWHVFKZnP+sW5kSr/a9 Tdtv+RZQ/ckowua4/w561kYyjxqt0DVDlFfv78R1g/y104HNmS4VQbM0kv4mJTY9izbU 81szoxzcgzI6oadpybA6xHXfQwA42dSkOTOFQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2EXjjIA39J6h0Y6NdqlAJdd0v00Pt4T/s7cuYRQAIfM=; b=AVjmLDz+I3qTnaCzLUSnPVNyyWqwwCs2D51WDNcZ9ZSV8ciYeqo7Aaor00wqSGL4b4 WHLSBqhdcPKWaRa7TsBULl+eyUPC68TNQtJwDGe3+gdD6LHQ1EKgh6cm+hq/1u4dJLx/ b01tVi0fFErifngGuVT84gFbrNEPj49xP98plpePMBcBSkIAWjIXELn/ySm7uESt4yCt xLR8VBh1koO3qMYc6w1kTuEXlgjES52D2XgS/wVj72zWmTGVzQB+HJatW8b79/JMw35L gxvSnIgVKTf9eojcXU29dtGMc4dyAyU6arf5XmLS0ruXrDVGqnwwGkz3zcXRZjgpgoZR hx2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXMWc7CCIHlKLEaSPDmnOx1y2PynUGpSgemC+sfTF26Sw//ZRRq muWvWnuNpAk58H6jsU9Hw7EixRLCQEo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzK3NA6HRguqgzl9QZ5LQw8T/xoRz9K4beiy9oU1LHvk1dJruJGMXk+w17rInKFB5YxDbsMBw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d410:: with SMTP id w16mr42811511ywd.125.1563841064669; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f179.google.com (mail-yb1-f179.google.com. [209.85.219.179]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v77sm10037560ywc.25.2019.07.22.17.17.43 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-f179.google.com with SMTP id x188so10966720yba.8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:5a44:: with SMTP id o65mr45911477ybb.470.1563841062977; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8EA56456-0299-4D60-B97A-E6FCD27D9231@akamai.com> <CA+3+x5H9eF5mNGbLU_M3ZN=Jfe4PdstoeeZ-56G1UOZfRdOO4w@mail.gmail.com> <1563830865138.49957@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <1563830865138.49957@akamai.com>
From: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:17:31 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CA+3+x5HWR4SytJeKcqHD8Q=EN84854BuyFw6SRx7RKx1QJRyZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+3+x5HWR4SytJeKcqHD8Q=EN84854BuyFw6SRx7RKx1QJRyZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nanner, Aman" <ananner@akamai.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000b9f6b058e4e1f60"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35; envelope-from=tombergan@chromium.org; helo=mail-yw1-xc35.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hpiVK-0004JJ-T1 42644dee0730236a9eacc0ea49e709c8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: H2 Server Push performance data
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CA+3+x5HWR4SytJeKcqHD8Q=EN84854BuyFw6SRx7RKx1QJRyZw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36822
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Did you at least do an A/A comparison to test if your regression introduces
bias?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:27 PM Nanner, Aman <ananner@akamai.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
> The first couple of charts (based on the multiple customer sites) use the
> mean as a way to provide a summary view of performance for each individual
> site.  The last chart in the article is a percentile plot for one customer
> site which demonstrates a more granular view, but we do not have percentile
> plots put together for each customer site. It should be possible to do that
> in the event we were to perform deeper analysis on more sites.
>
> The A/B data was not collected in a way that we would consider to be pure
> enough to be considered i.i.d coin flips. There exist dimensions where the
> values can make it more or less likely that Server Push may be applied on
> specific responses within the production network (e.g. geo, time of day,
> user-agent), and so the approach was chosen to use linear regression to
> attempt to control for these variables.
>
> I agree that the FirstContentfulPaint metric would be useful to analyze;
> we had some limitations in our dataset regarding collection of that metric
> that resulted in it not being reliable enough to use (it wasn't as widely
> collected as DOMComplete). There have been some encouraging results seen
> for this metric based on some preliminary analysis, but we wouldn't
> consider the data and analysis reliable enough yet for sharing.
>
> Thanks,
> Aman
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 2:02 PM
> *To:* Nanner, Aman
> *Cc:* ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: H2 Server Push performance data
>
> Hi Aman,
>
> Interesting results, thanks for sharing! I do wonder why you decided to
> compare means instead of percentiles? It looks like there are some crazy
> bad outliers. Assuming your "April 2019 Results with Old Methodology" and
> "April 2019 Results (1% quantile excluded)" graphs use the same set of
> sites in the same order, the mean goes from about +500ms to -200ms. If 99%
> of requests on that site take -200ms, the last 1% must take 70s! Instead of
> means, you could have compared medians, or 25th/75th percentiles, or other
> percentiles in the distribution. You can compute confidence intervals on
> percentiles. You can also do something like Mann-Whitney to check if the
> distributions differ significantly.
>
> I'd also like to hear more about this linear regression that you run on
> the A/B results. I couldn't follow why this regression is necessary. If
> your A/B test uses i.i.d. coin flips, you can compute confidence intervals
> directly on the A/B results. Is your A/B test not i.i.d.? How do you know
> the linear regression doesn't introduce bias?
>
> Also, have you looked into measuring other metrics, such as
> FirstContentfulPaint?
>
> -Tom
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:41 AM Nanner, Aman <ananner@akamai.com> wrote:
>
>> At the previous IETF 102 HTTPWG session in Montreal, I had presented some
>> Akamai data on H2 Server Push which can be found here:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/gh-pages/ietf102/akamai-server-push.pdf
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_httpwg_wg-2Dmaterials_blob_gh-2Dpages_ietf102_akamai-2Dserver-2Dpush.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=HVAbQ4bnkmcYKMR6_H0nEMfpVIpY1jgJWVBhC_es5Nw&m=JhnrDdJ2FDK0-S_OawS0GoKyXIVn4C8H_c03AveZDRo&s=UzEaCDDavuWPtu3zi_hdJa51YwKMwdzescfn9rpYnlQ&e=>
>>
>> Akamai has conducted some more recent tests with a tweaked methodology
>> (exclusion of 1% highest-latency requests on the long-tail), and we have
>> found some interesting results. I share some more details about the
>> performance analysis here:
>>
>>
>> https://medium.com/@ananner/http-2-server-push-performance-a-further-akamai-case-study-7a17573a3317
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_-40ananner_http-2D2-2Dserver-2Dpush-2Dperformance-2Da-2Dfurther-2Dakamai-2Dcase-2Dstudy-2D7a17573a3317&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=HVAbQ4bnkmcYKMR6_H0nEMfpVIpY1jgJWVBhC_es5Nw&m=JhnrDdJ2FDK0-S_OawS0GoKyXIVn4C8H_c03AveZDRo&s=5ScQ7t8fvPbCcHySFH1WDh9iHpnjchASXvAmdo8mvJM&e=>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aman Nanner
>> Akamai Technologies Inc.
>>
>>