IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers

Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> Fri, 26 September 2014 16:27 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 9D19B1A8A1B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.788
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 aLzANDfWGyae for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:27:15 -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 165901A8A1A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XXYK6-00087r-4b for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:24:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:24:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XXYK6-00087r-4b@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <prvs=4346405ad5=dcsommer@fb.com>) id 1XXYJj-000874-ID for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:24:23 +0000
Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30] helo=mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <prvs=4346405ad5=dcsommer@fb.com>) id 1XXYJi-0006R8-UW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:24:23 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (m0004003 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s8QGO0HV007713; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:24:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fb.com; h=message-id : date : from : mime-version : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=facebook; bh=kO0kukUTbFOKYnz/BOySJO/n/eIRBLfodtdTU5xF/LY=; b=OjPUU5IZUyet4ivbKQt+ubhd8KeO8QyaXDQYsh4ue+sYCMhI4EOZOjXoh1tgsfRwOfLi MNec7VJgYyMCklObdrtqe5S7NRTLOO6Bip5iNFoB3+rpXwLsXqtf4jFACHYK6PRW0G0c YN3RHzDeYA4QRTlLs8YymZnwtklfMCIv+kY=
Received: from mail.thefacebook.com (mailwest.thefacebook.com [173.252.71.148]) by mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1pn5dm93ab-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:24:00 -0700
Received: from [172.26.200.16] (192.168.16.4) by mail.thefacebook.com (192.168.16.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:23:55 -0700
Message-ID: <5425931A.4030104@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:23:54 -0700
From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <5424B462.4070300@gmail.com> <CABkgnnUQNi+a82-BErVcOagO=XbYRsC+s4q_rg8S3EKsfUtXug@mail.gmail.com> <542513DE.80103@gmail.com> <CABkgnnVd+xU9EJUSwdEq9roBzwOp7qk5dn6yXvZNq1dVz08vTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVd+xU9EJUSwdEq9roBzwOp7qk5dn6yXvZNq1dVz08vTg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.16.4]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.28, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-09-26_07:2014-09-26,2014-09-26,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1409260154
X-FB-Internal: deliver
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=67.231.153.30; envelope-from=prvs=4346405ad5=dcsommer@fb.com; helo=mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.072, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XXYJi-0006R8-UW 415e928487337931bcae4ea748f60593
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5425931A.4030104@fb.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27270
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 09/26/2014 12:32 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 26 September 2014 08:21, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know there are ways to work around it, but it seems sub-optimal to need to
>> maintain two separate connection pools for push enabled vs non-push enabled
>> clients, especially when it seems to be easy to fix on a protocol level.
> It's still strictly better than HTTP/1.1.

I don't know about *strictly* better. Two connection pools is an 
increase in complexity in the LB and could lead to worse performance. 
You might have to pay a penalty of opening a new connection to a server 
even though you have a connection ready, whereas in HTTP/1 you didn't 
have to open another connection. Are we really so pressed for bits in 
the flags that we can't move this there? Maybe SETTINGS is not the right 
place for enabling/disabling server push.

Daniel

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status