Re: [hybi] preliminary WebSockets compression experiments

Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> Sat, 24 April 2010 02:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jamie@shareable.org>
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 D0C9B3A683C for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.83
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.090, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 u1hilZW6Smc3 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.shareable.org (mail2.shareable.org [80.68.89.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A703A67A6 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1O5VNe-0007C4-Sp; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:46:06 +0100
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:46:06 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Message-ID: <20100424024606.GH15349@shareable.org>
References: <q2z3f94964f1004231247zc7b60dc3l5fbb4748d129c3c@mail.gmail.com> <z2o2a10ed241004231448l7a63e329p98e04fbe1a750539@mail.gmail.com> <z2w3f94964f1004231511u57f0d702z78e582b5481a2877@mail.gmail.com> <v2oad99d8ce1004231523jcd948913g3606dfc340a9d1a0@mail.gmail.com> <q2v3f94964f1004231533n82ad655bucf2eadc2a5ca89e4@mail.gmail.com> <i2lad99d8ce1004231545u72b35a5dj57ec77633b88d744@mail.gmail.com> <o2s3f94964f1004231600tad127bf6l51acca8bbe933d7c@mail.gmail.com> <y2nad99d8ce1004231620t7772f401ia2e5cf703038efdb@mail.gmail.com> <q2j3f94964f1004231629t31ce8c1axd227ccdc074188d3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <q2j3f94964f1004231629t31ce8c1axd227ccdc074188d3@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] preliminary WebSockets compression experiments
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: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:46:20 -0000

John Tamplin wrote:
>    Also, what about very low-end devices -- is it really a good idea to
>    require them to support compression? Â Granted, what constitutes a
>    low-end device these days is rapidly moving up, but still I could
>    imagine some microcontroller wanting to use WebSockets to talk to a
>    server.

Yup, I know someone who is thinking about that on a tiny
microcontroller with less than 64kB of RAM, and who is quite likely to
use it on a device with about 4MB spare.

With that 250kB/connection memory use that was mentioned, and the fact
that deflate isn't all that fast at compression (LZO is better),
if serving a 10GB link on a LAN, it's not hard to imagine some servers
turning it off too.  Why compress if your network is 10 times faster
than your CPU can compress?  That's making it slower.

-- Jamie