Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm
Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Fri, 22 March 2013 06:45 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 7780521F8DCF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.252
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SPEC_PROLEO_M2=0.692]
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 lr006pK4AryP for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D06821F8D65 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UIviQ-0001rQ-2F for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:44:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:44:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UIviQ-0001rQ-2F@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UIviE-0001q7-Vf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:44:27 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UIviD-0006vZ-Qb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:44:26 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id tb18so3727036obb.31 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:43:59 -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=F1Uu9OXbrmS7DGCVRKj4BtRNk0XtL5sLHKc0jilbQm8=; b=gxsiLTQFPvtQ5aYDTz/vG17S5lE6dslmQ2OIfZr7h4QdoLf463Gd4iimfsCOaEDLWU DAaFra+x04k1owonFZghtkzuznWoN0twxUw8+BjKZs1stNu9hTEyeRJyJTvYxETf+Gc0 9zo5Hl6iksLrW3HGmO8qRU7XomlbsA5jFXj6ODlfhD1/iMIAtaT4Ssn8xf25JfY+kA5a YdlRKwrIV+CvY+ONcPc0YtRzXYjPcqSBMYx7OWWns7A3sLQrLqqNWYVgkyQl/J93W8iD fwGQ3+9Nlt0yTE7+RZAt/BwoLi4IOJNnb1H8cDSYaccWhb0HNOLwUvQh38cCWhAWBAg/ WRYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.172.237 with SMTP id bf13mr584209oec.83.1363934639879; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.109.72 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A14105FB-ED1A-4B70-8840-9648847BCC3A@mnot.net>
References: <254AABEE-22B9-418E-81B0-2729902C4413@mnot.net> <A14105FB-ED1A-4B70-8840-9648847BCC3A@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:43:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdWwxN1hV7OoXu-_kQN1TjZ5JjKYYTQsrH9Jng8fvD-ag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec54b4aa2b5496804d87dc78e"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.662, 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: lisa.w3.org 1UIviD-0006vZ-Qb e55dcfac6351d18ba4d7cde376ea341c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNdWwxN1hV7OoXu-_kQN1TjZ5JjKYYTQsrH9Jng8fvD-ag@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17111
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>
I need to check in the newest version of the code which fixes that... -=R On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 21/03/2013, at 6:11 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > > 1) We need to do apples-to-apples comparison of these compressors to see > how they behave under a range of constraints (especially, memory). > > To this point, a few runs across the header corpus that I collected > (http_samples/mnot/*.har), using the current implementations (again, we > need to verify these are honouring these limits correctly, and I believe > headerdiff is going to be updated): > > 16384 Byte Buffer > ---------------------- > > * TOTAL: 5948 req messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 3,460,925 0.22 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=16384) 630,668 15.89 | 0.18 0.03 0.76 0.11 > headerdiff (buffer=16384) 1,699,918 9.65 | 0.49 0.03 0.90 0.21 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.26 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=16384) 575,345 24.39 | 0.26 0.02 1.06 0.12 > headerdiff (buffer=16384) 877,106 24.76 | 0.40 0.04 0.93 0.14 > > [ Note that the efficiency actually goes *down* on headerdiff for requests > when the buffer is larger here; Herve, any idea what's happening there? ] > > 8192 Byte Buffer > ---------------------- > > * TOTAL: 5948 req messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 3,460,925 0.24 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=8192) 646,431 15.78 | 0.19 0.03 0.76 0.12 > headerdiff (buffer=8192) 1,378,622 6.95 | 0.40 0.03 0.92 0.20 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.43 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=8192) 592,260 20.28 | 0.27 0.02 1.06 0.12 > headerdiff (buffer=8192) 914,362 15.55 | 0.42 0.05 0.93 0.14 > > > 4096 Byte Buffer > ---------------------- > > * 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) 665,642 13.35 | 0.19 0.03 0.77 0.12 > headerdiff (buffer=4096) 1,406,429 3.92 | 0.41 0.03 0.88 0.18 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.21 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=4096) 610,764 15.48 | 0.28 0.02 1.06 0.13 > headerdiff (buffer=4096) 1,009,185 7.58 | 0.46 0.05 0.93 0.13 > > 2048 Byte Buffer > ---------------------- > > * 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=2048) 692,579 11.66 | 0.20 0.03 0.77 0.12 > headerdiff (buffer=2048) 1,632,783 2.94 | 0.47 0.03 0.90 0.19 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.20 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=2048) 633,785 12.47 | 0.29 0.02 1.22 0.13 > headerdiff (buffer=2048) 1,088,829 4.75 | 0.50 0.05 0.93 0.13 > > 1024 Byte Buffer > ---------------------- > > * TOTAL: 5948 req messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 3,460,925 0.22 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=1024) 752,380 11.92 | 0.22 0.03 0.84 0.13 > headerdiff (buffer=1024) 1,700,325 1.82 | 0.49 0.03 0.91 0.19 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.23 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=1024) 671,975 11.42 | 0.31 0.02 1.22 0.13 > headerdiff (buffer=1024) 1,118,599 3.53 | 0.51 0.05 0.93 0.13 > > 512 Byte Buffer > --------------------- > > * TOTAL: 5948 req messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 3,460,925 0.17 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=512) 1,058,090 14.23 | 0.31 0.04 0.83 0.15 > headerdiff (buffer=512) 2,120,833 1.43 | 0.61 0.03 0.93 0.16 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.14 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=512) 721,525 12.22 | 0.33 0.03 1.22 0.13 > headerdiff (buffer=512) 1,199,608 2.09 | 0.55 0.05 0.93 0.12 > > 256 Byte Buffer > --------------------- > > * 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=256) 1,517,520 18.62 | 0.44 0.04 0.84 0.19 > headerdiff (buffer=256) 2,444,376 1.32 | 0.71 0.08 0.95 0.13 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.23 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=256) 856,632 13.21 | 0.39 0.04 1.22 0.14 > headerdiff (buffer=256) 1,201,814 1.65 | 0.55 0.05 0.93 0.12 > > 32 Byte Buffer > ------------------- > > * TOTAL: 5948 req messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 3,460,925 0.20 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=32) 2,357,457 28.18 | 0.68 0.51 0.84 0.05 > headerdiff (buffer=32) 2,791,039 1.16 | 0.81 0.58 0.96 0.08 > > * TOTAL: 5948 res messages > size time | ratio min max std > http1 2,186,162 0.21 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 > delta2 (max_byte_size=32) 1,197,019 17.92 | 0.55 0.16 0.89 0.07 > headerdiff (buffer=32) 1,434,721 1.32 | 0.66 0.19 0.95 0.07 > > [ smaller buffer sizes caused errors in delta2 (at least) ] > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > >
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Stephen Farrell
- Choosing a header compression algorithm Mark Nottingham
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm James M Snell
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Mark Nottingham
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Martin Thomson
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Mark Nottingham
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Mark Nottingham
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm James M Snell
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- RE: Choosing a header compression algorithm RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm Roberto Peon
- Re: Choosing a header compression algorithm James M Snell