From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 29 22:41:30 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 826FD24F for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:41:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from o3.shared.sendgrid.net (o3.shared.sendgrid.net [208.117.48.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 111811E8C for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:41:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.info; h=from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpapi; bh=mhVJ0Yq/zPQUMKI6gdQ0YDkDyFs=; b=qvK8csQjwAmSardnF8 +8U3SadPMJwIdSfjiCme7orfZrLju2b8qFTj3xW87m2s9ibQ/24Y/AqoX8dE2AV4 FJwakIbaqmxHfV8ExVJmOeV8PCjhGML94shodSqra7XREJ4+K2ofUfw4un0cI8dq uApW+6Pwx27stbRxkvFd/4+QQ= Received: by mf247.sendgrid.net with SMTP id mf247.13819.52E98399B Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tarsnap.com (unknown [10.100.60.108]) by ismtpd-022 (SG) with ESMTP id 143e02a0f2b.34c1.2823af for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:41:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 78878 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2014 22:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clamshell.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by ec2-107-20-205-189.compute-1.amazonaws.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2014 22:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 18609 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2014 22:41:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clamshell.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by clamshell.daemonology.net with SMTP; 29 Jan 2014 22:41:13 -0000 Message-ID: <52E98389.2050404@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:41:13 -0800 From: Colin Percival User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: freebsd-update References: <5F09668C-0DEA-4074-A06C-BC4D29F92368@FreeBSD.org> <201401211149.45793.jhb@freebsd.org> <52E2C1BC.10202@allanjude.com> <20140125113236.GX86491@e-new.0x20.net> <1390662664.13404.75208481.39F16B29@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20140129205157.GB86491@e-new.0x20.net> <52E977FB.8020105@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SG-EID: XhyBwObMhraAR+zdwMupjQ6BIqbhdEfc+6p+uBxS7S/9Y/Fh5sbsx7ry4PbSYsVMt0QXguuZxwtnKA4zz8lLyaYn6tDrUq3TYmtL8cV8UU1hkkUnrh5RyvtdILJJDx51guPuqzff5Cl7R30tUZtt8kbBoFzQmMGCmtJ3thvnn/s= Cc: freebsd-current , Lars Engels X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:41:30 -0000 On 01/29/14 14:26, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 29 January 2014 13:51, Colin Percival wrote: >> FWIW, the performance problems with proxies are limited to HTTP proxies >> which don't speak HTTP/1.1. > > Did you / others ever actually benchmark this? The fact that performance sucks when proxies break HTTP pipelining? Yes, but it's also implied by the RTT/request limit for non-pipelined requests. > I know that Squid supports pipelined requests but only a handful > (defaulting to 1) at a time, as the actual error semantics for > HTTP/1.1 pipelining wasn't well defined. I'm not sure what the poorly defined error semantics are, but I suppose that doesn't matter. Does Squid now reply with HTTP/1.1 headers? The phttpget code won't even try to pipeline requests unless it sees that -- as required by the HTTP specification. > So flipping it around - which intermediaries that are actually in use > by companies and such actually support pipelining at the level that > you're doing it? I don't know. People usually don't tell me when things work. -- Colin Percival Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid