[hybi] WebSocket & Nagle
"Greg Longtin" <Greg@ChampionEnt.net> Fri, 18 March 2011 18:27 UTC
Return-Path: <Greg@ChampionEnt.net>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED38F3A69B7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 U4nhX8GURro6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout-2.iphouse.net (smtpout-2.iphouse.net [209.240.70.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6B23A69D0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout-2.iphouse.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by outbound-clamsmtpd.iphouse.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442691CDBE for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:29:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from GJL8710w (office1.championent.net [216.160.45.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtpout-2.iphouse.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE4A11CDAF for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:29:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Greg Longtin <Greg@ChampionEnt.net>
To: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:29:12 -0500
Message-ID: <000501cbe59a$62701cf0$275056d0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcvlmmEq+uTKsn+YT2i3IjzMz+KQwQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: [hybi] WebSocket & Nagle
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:49:56 -0000
To all, I have been working with WebSocket, based on it being a browser based socket interface for intranet use. I've created a Windows server, and have been testing with the MSFT 05 and 06 Silverlight prototypes and Pat McManus' WS 06 Minefield build (thank you.) I believe all three implementations allow the use of the Nagle algorithm for sending client packets. On my system, this intermittently introduces a 200 mS delay, along with the combining of packets. IMHO, for many applications, that amount of delay isn't acceptable. I'm not an Internet network type, so I'm not familiar with implications at that level. >From my perspective, it would be best if either Nagle was disabled for WebSocket packets, or the browser script API would allow one to do so. I realize that option is outside of hybi spec. Thanks, Greg
- [hybi] WebSocket & Nagle Greg Longtin
- Re: [hybi] WebSocket & Nagle Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
- Re: [hybi] WebSocket & Nagle Andy Green
- Re: [hybi] WebSocket & Nagle Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: [hybi] WebSocket & Nagle Pat McManus @Mozilla