Re: [hybi] SPDY protocol from google frame

Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> Wed, 18 November 2009 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fenix@google.com>
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 2FAA428C0EF for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.603, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ulx19+MUd8Gz for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.45.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FD328C0E9 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zps78.corp.google.com (zps78.corp.google.com [172.25.146.78]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id nAIFxs1j019344 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:55 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1258559995; bh=Q7EQ0cpBKYtrqF9qp5mo11oCgPc=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=hgHrgnz6j3oPL5wWcEHAaVdWFjgI2KlXcBU2NgWlQq99RuCavOoXPgRgfOjSR+afH 1B3yKdFht2+NjGhYnMdAw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=VKoAft474soBpT1swTVoIgKt+IixNJc2rPArBy0nCVtYlUwtdtzl2XMEed52IqsOg gxgQTHoXW9KVCpu5OuCrg==
Received: from qyk16 (qyk16.prod.google.com [10.241.83.144]) by zps78.corp.google.com with ESMTP id nAIFxqQn003265 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:52 -0800
Received: by qyk16 with SMTP id 16so651714qyk.15 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.75.141 with SMTP id y13mr962894qaj.355.1258559992085; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F0F35D4F7@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <4AFC869C.9090403@webtide.com> <F4C6CDAD-1ABE-4A2A-A65B-0C8EEA95D90B@surrey.ac.uk> <4AFC9936.8090007@webtide.com> <803EA6E6-F94E-4F8D-9026-86C6EB33422A@icesoft.com> <3a880e2c0911121751q22b3929bwc5d7dbcaa0731226@mail.gmail.com> <bbeaa26f0911121800m6ee5e014n327b1dee77dafd54@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F0F35CBBC@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <ad99d8ce0911121900p18554bf8u27e604cbfa5a414c@mail.gmail.com> <3f5bf96b0911161940g61231369w35ec99c8c7130834@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F0F35D4F7@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:51 -0800
Message-ID: <ad99d8ce0911180759w1c9a1bd7g5ead89d963babb9d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485ec0da241c2b80478a75539"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] SPDY protocol from google frame
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: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:00:00 -0000

All we know that, at Google, we see TCP retransmits which are seemingly
indicative of a 1% packet loss rate.

One of the things that we're trying to convince people to do is a
internet-wide study of packet loss. No-one really has a good model for
it. No-one really understands it beyond their little corner of the 'net..
and that isn't good enough. For instance, when packet loss occurs, is it
truly random? Or is it "correlated" (e.g. if you had 6 tcp connections to
the same host would they likely all drop packets at the same time). We
suspect that it is correlated.. but have no proof.

In any case, we'll start real world testing soon-- in the next few weeks
(certainly before the end of Q4) we'll have a Chromium dev-channel (i.e.
pre-beta) release out as well as some public facing machines at Google.
Thus, you'll be able to test against Google soon. Unfortunately, it will
likely only be Google for the immediate future :/, though I hope that others
will join in the experiment soon.

-=R

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Thomson, Martin
<Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>wrote:

> The 11% speedup is probably more indicative of real world performance.  I
> note that 1% packet loss is quite high for the sorts of connections
> simulated in the tests.  TCP doesn't like those sorts of loss rates,
> especially for larger payloads.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Dierken [mailto:mike@dierken.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 12:40 PM
> > To: Roberto Peon
> > Cc: Thomson, Martin; hybi@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [hybi] SPDY protocol from google frame
> >
> > Was the reduced page load time due to fewer TCP packets needing to be
> > exchanged (due to smaller HTTP request and response headers)?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> wrote:
> > > http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-whitepaper
>
>
>