Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 07 October 2014 17:11 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA1B1ACED0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 rAIucAboGO1y for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:11:42 -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 E6F081ACEC1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XbYG4-0003lv-K0 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:09:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:09:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XbYG4-0003lv-K0@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1XbYG1-0003l9-53 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:09:05 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1XbYG0-0005v8-8g for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:09:05 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s97H8bc6018486; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:08:37 +0200
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:08:37 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20141007170837.GD16764@1wt.eu>
References: <20141007052847.GA11117@1wt.eu> <B47FA4E6-6F91-44A1-8257-AE5086EF4DC1@mnot.net> <20141007054917.GB4566@1wt.eu> <28897143-3030-4500-829A-4199CE17CA22@mnot.net> <20141007061650.GD4566@1wt.eu> <C2C61B19-E738-4B90-BE0F-A4346C095FA4@mnot.net> <1412698245.2163945.176189617.6D3084E5@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20141007162640.GC16764@1wt.eu> <1412699732.2170145.176199249.48C58FAE@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E53BE7808B@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E53BE7808B@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.053, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XbYG0-0005v8-8g 10ef848c60abd8c285b5a574c721cab4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20141007170837.GD16764@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27493
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 Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:49:05PM +0000, RUELLAN Herve wrote:
> I did some quick testing and the second proposal from Willy has almost no
> impact on the compaction size (on the HR test set from the compression
> testing suite).
> 
> I implemented it in a slightly different way: I use a 1-bit flag to determine
> if an index is into the static table or the dynamic table. It seemed much
> simpler to implement and less prone to errors.

That's what I wanted initially but didn't find a spare bit.
It would be nice if Jeff could pass you some example data which exhibit
the trouble he faces so that we know if that can fix his issue or not.

Thanks,
Willy