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

Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com> Fri, 15 October 2010 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sunseawq@huawei.com>
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 5D8C33A6C52 for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.611, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 6-h+aFdaNHaO for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0C13A6C4C for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LAB00AC3QGX8S@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:02:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LAB00GBKQGUUY@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:02:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from w53375 ([10.138.41.48]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LAB00FUJQGUEQ@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:02:54 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:02:54 +0800
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Message-id: <076d01cb6c47$c0e10000$30298a0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <00df01cb5de2$2ac49730$4f548a0a@china.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$3 0298a0a"@china.huawei.com> <DAB5D58F-58D0-41EE-BBB3-A3CDBF4A23B9@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Cc: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 09:01:51 -0000

Thank you for separate this issue out.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: "Qin Wu" <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Cc: <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 4:57 PM
Subject: Push Vs Pull (was Re: [httpstreaming] Current Status and Our Goal)



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.

[Qin]: Good point. Such bottleneck could happen in case of concurrence of thousands of consumers accessing the same content. 

Ben