[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: HTTP protocol v2: rethunk.

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:23:54 -0600

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_mit.edu> wrote:

> If plan #1 is ever faster than plan #2, I strongly suspect it's only
> because it's grabbing a larger share of a congested pipe. I don't know
> why anyone would think four TCP connections between the same two
> endpoints would intrinsically have more bandwidth than a single
> connection.

I'm clearly out of my league here; perhaps a degree in computer
science would have helped me here.

From talking to a friend, the story I hear is that the parallel
solution might be faster only in the situation of a congested pipe.
That is, because TCP only allows a certain number of packets to be 'on
the wire' at once, sending the files serially over a congested network
may cause more waiting overall. (Send max data allowed; wait for
response; repeat.) In an uncongested LAN environment, there'd be no
noticeable speedup at all.

All that said, I'll let gstein and jerenkrantz speak up here... I
shouldn't be arguing their opinions for them. :-) Personally, I
much prefer the "whole commit in a single HTTP request" method -- it's
easier to code, easier to understand, and doesn't open up FSFS or
libsvn_fs_bigtable to data-stomping race conditions.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-06 17:24:13 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.