Greg Hudson wrote:
>
> Aren't two connections good enough for maximum efficiency, then? If
> you're pipelining, I don't see why three connections for the GETs is
> better than one.
>
Aye, I was wondering the same thing. As long as you keep the
connection(s) pipelined so they are always pushing data as fast as they
can, then one is better than many since the many will compete with each
other and slow themselves down. The only way this would be otherwise is
if you are talking to a busy server whose upstream is saturated, in
which case having 4 of your own connections will steal more bandwidth
from other users, though that's really an unfair and inefficient setup.
> I'm actually unsure why you need more than one connection total. You
> can be sending GETs to the server as you're parsing the REPORT response,
> then start handling GET responses as soon as the REPORT response is
> done. The server should be sending data full-time, with only one
> round-trip delay at the beginning to send off the first GET request.
>
Exactly.
Seeing as how the one test done on a local server that isn't sharing
bandwidth with other users turned out to be slower than ra_dav, that
tends to support my theory. A single connection is more efficient, but
using multiple connections on a heavily used server enables you to steal
more bandwidth from other users. This is not a very good idea. If you
start using 4 connections to steal more bandwidth, then someone else is
going to start using 5, then 6, and so on. Eventually the server will
be hit with so many connections that at best, a lot of collisions will
happen and everyone's throughput will drop, and at worst, the server
will take a dump from the overload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 17 16:27:32 2006