IETF Logo Mail Archive

[httpstreaming] Push Vs Pull (was Re: Current Status and Our Goal)

Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Fri, 15 October 2010 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
X-Original-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BEA3A6C67 for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.321, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6DpJi1o382pd for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AC03A6C4C for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=[172.16.18.188]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1P6g6L-0007lp-AM; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:57:21 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <051901cb6c38$8b640f30$30298a0a@china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:57:16 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DAB5D58F-58D0-41EE-BBB3-A3CDBF4A23B9@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
References: <00df01cb5de2$2ac49730$4f548a0a@china.huawei.com> <AANLkTimB3-=zWGnT=uq9Qcb-N8Pq+-RR0WMN12BZ9pr4@mail.gmail.com> <03f501cb65a1$50699d70$f13cd850$%roni@huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BEADB@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <03f901cb65a5$7ee4bc80$7cae3580$%roni@huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BEB08@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <074201cb66c1$1a192d50$4f548a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BF360@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <017101cb6924$bc093410$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BF70B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <03ce01cb6b67$fdb9d910$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D689385@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <009c01cb6c03$f2125320$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D689412@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <022c01cb6c0b$5fc75490$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D68946C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <051901cb6c38$8b640f30$30 298a0a@china.huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
Cc: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Subject: [httpstreaming] Push Vs Pull (was Re: Current Status and Our Goal)
X-BeenThere: httpstreaming@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <httpstreaming.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/httpstreaming>
List-Post: <mailto:httpstreaming@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:56:03 -0000

On 15 Oct 2010, at 08:14, Qin Wu wrote:

> From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
> 
>> But, in http streaming scenario, the ratio of download/upload (from the client's perspective) is much larger than 1. BTW, if
>> you keep your chunk duration relatively longer, the amount of requests that you will end up sending will be almost nil
>> compared to what you will receive.
>> 
>> [Qin]: No, I just compare pull and push with the same chunk duration.
> 
> You can choose whatever chunk size you wanna use. Does not matter. The fact remains the same. Unless someone uses chunks of a few hundreds of ms, it won't matter.
> 
> [Qin]: Suppose 10 chunks is available at the server side, in the pull model, the client need to send at least 10 requests and receive 10 responses.
>          in the push model, the client may only need to send one request and then receive 10 responses.
>          comparing with pull, push model save 9 requests.
>          also if you look at websocket, push has more lightweight header than pull.

However, unless the request/response time or the volume of requests per server is a significant bottleneck in the system then saving some requests doesn't provide any advantages.

Ben

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email