Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Mon, 25 March 2013 18:40 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 92CC621F90D9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Aw5hGvPECYCE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FC821F90CC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UKCIq-0001Uc-Vy for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:39:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:39:28 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UKCIq-0001Uc-Vy@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UKCIe-0001Tj-O6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:39:16 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UKCIY-0002Mm-Mz for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:39:16 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x4so6318202obh.30 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+ISzrl1T98JY/7YH7A+02zPXClXppqrNIBcy/GY5NCs=; b=jQlsNCon50kdQeZRixRNDxUAZ4DR4Is/1FHJrUfgPnmtpEPYPHfBtcYIqD1KcKba80 EABXWWhSDAWwoMRPApEVCAGrRIbbMwTuePD2IEDd5tR6wMFxJPkG6DM5r7NMIv/X+qYL tETug3wyIGFsixw/JM42NNfOqWGoKoL39ptWfCLBWqGswGwTp4m1kaXgvE3G6X7ZSHun dxJn0a4s/Rv5AAlbTkYxbMx5q5o5oRJS2+2RNmvhPPhob77jNXc3Ee++Yrl45jSGt1Mp qqLT7+XOvSMYv4cArCa7Q/SoZINPIwgLRi++gjdOy/reuG3OW55LXdSC956O71oklJuc 9pbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.9.1 with SMTP id v1mr11795564oea.130.1364236724352; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.109.72 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E5163F4076@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
References: <254AABEE-22B9-418E-81B0-2729902C4413@mnot.net> <A14105FB-ED1A-4B70-8840-9648847BCC3A@mnot.net> <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E5163F3C67@ADELE.crf.canon.fr> <CAP+FsNfFohSwrX2DxthNcnn+wDj6T5W7xpcg4yA56Gvt_nP3_Q@mail.gmail.com> <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E5163F3D72@ADELE.crf.canon.fr> <7CA7F3EB-A492-471A-8AC4-23293DD10840@mnot.net> <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E5163F4076@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:38:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdztfCJjvP58ryVXDRgGyGSPO-37gRMjAuwikz2eviBiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb2031858938c04d8c41d00"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.171; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.731, BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 1UKCIY-0002Mm-Mz 3303cb6124e679c755cd47b739851b63
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNdztfCJjvP58ryVXDRgGyGSPO-37gRMjAuwikz2eviBiw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17136
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>

There are two obvious strategies here: What we do now, and using what SPDY
does today (share connections if the certs match and DNS resolution of the
new hostname overlaps with those of the current connection).

-=R


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:21 AM, RUELLAN Herve
<Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> > Sent: lundi 25 mars 2013 06:56
> > To: RUELLAN Herve
> > Cc: Roberto Peon; ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group
> > Subject: Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm
> >
> >
> > On 23/03/2013, at 5:04 AM, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think it would be good to move this from the compressors to the
> > streamifier. In addition, it would be interesting to look at a more
> realistic
> > streamifier that could for example unshard hosts (expecting that HTTP/2.0
> > will remove the sharding currently done by server developers).
> >
> > Right now, it combines all requests to the same TLD (according to the
> Public
> > Suffix List) into a single "connection." Do you have a suggestion for
> how to do
> > it better?
>
> I think this should provide some "realistic" results as a starting point.
> Depending on what we want to measure, we may want to refine this a bit.
>
> Hervé.
>
> > I've just pushed a quick and dirty fix to use a new instance of each
> > compressor for each connection; the results are pretty even between
> > headerdiff and delta2, with a small increase in each:
> >
> > * TOTAL: 5948 req messages
> >                                        size  time | ratio min   max   std
> >                         http1     3,460,925  0.18 | 1.00  1.00  1.00
>  0.00
> >   delta2 (max_byte_size=4096)       707,901 11.87 | 0.20  0.03  0.83
>  0.15
> >      headerdiff (buffer=4096)       960,106  1.65 | 0.28  0.01  0.96
>  0.23
> >
> > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages
> >                                        size  time | ratio min   max   std
> >                         http1     2,186,162  0.28 | 1.00  1.00  1.00
>  0.00
> >   delta2 (max_byte_size=4096)       622,837 12.86 | 0.28  0.02  1.22
>  0.13
> >      headerdiff (buffer=4096)       596,290  3.65 | 0.27  0.02  0.92
>  0.18
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
>
>