Re: bohe and delta experimentation...

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 17 January 2013 00:11 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 6C8E911E80E7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:11:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.884
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.884 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.715, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LnprQM9fgx1N for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7168911E809C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tvd41-00058q-3H for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:10:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:10:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tvd41-00058q-3H@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Tvd3x-00058B-HD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:10:33 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Tvd3w-0004K0-QG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:10:33 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.240.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B8C422E253; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:10:09 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOhdO069HvCTP4aJVqcyC8sxKgzh4gwvVpsab4BxCH7vhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:10:05 +1100
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <12735B8B-B03B-4FAA-B866-00E34366F6A4@mnot.net>
References: <CABP7RbeNFm3ZHdtDBUJb3idJjFj0q+fxDPzxKZBhSJqXw8zWaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhWm3XD57aX6oqxB50SO4KUL+b+fY0T6+ndk0G=q4BYbg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbeuk1DX+dKam=AHeUgfLAoa4XybOLFA+C1t1oQuQswdeA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhdO069HvCTP4aJVqcyC8sxKgzh4gwvVpsab4BxCH7vhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.294, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Tvd3w-0004K0-QG 28e95aa42094b583159d95e477ec0b9b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: bohe and delta experimentation...
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/12735B8B-B03B-4FAA-B866-00E34366F6A4@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/15930
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 17/01/2013, at 10:20 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> The question is: is it worth the trouble?  I don't have an answer to
> that, but I'm inclined to say that yes, we should represent dates/time
> in an already very small format.

I definitely think it's worth consideration. I just put a flag (compress_dates; you have to set it in source, at least for now) on the simple compressor that lets you see the difference between compression and none...

* Without date compression:

732 req messages processed
              compressed | ratio min   max   std
req  http1       195,386 | 1.00  1.00  1.00  0.00
req simple        82,768 | 0.42  0.16  0.87  0.18

732 res messages processed
              compressed | ratio min   max   std
res  http1       159,968 | 1.00  1.00  1.00  0.00
res simple        92,188 | 0.58  0.12  0.89  0.16

* With date compression:

732 req messages processed
              compressed | ratio min   max   std
req  http1       195,386 | 1.00  1.00  1.00  0.00
req simple        82,357 | 0.42  0.16  0.87  0.18

732 res messages processed
              compressed | ratio min   max   std
res  http1       159,968 | 1.00  1.00  1.00  0.00
res simple        79,930 | 0.50  0.13  0.87  0.15

Note that the traces we currently have don't have If-Modified-Since in them very much, since they were started with a clean cache; this is why there's little difference in requests (Date doesn't occur much in reqs). 

Of course, we can get to the similar results by many other means...

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/