3 ms·
What about HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 do you see poses large latency problems? Both of those do away with HTTP HOL blocking (not TCP HOL blocking) and allow parallel stre
by Karrot_Kream 4y ago
What about HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 do you see poses large latency problems? Both of those do away with HTTP HOL blocking (not TCP HOL blocking) and allow parallel streams. Homa proposes introducing a transport level protocol with request/response semantics specifically to accommodate protocols like HTTP which operate using requests and responses.
- KaiserPro 4y agoHTTP/2 is the king of HOL blocking. Its a single TCP connection in which everything is multiplexed at the app level. It was almost like it was designed to exploit the worst parts of TCP. It was and is a stupid design, they were clearly told about the drawbacks, both in mobile and for transfer of larger website. They chose to ignore it. The key thing is that HTTP is not designed to be low latency. If latency is important to you, then you need to make your protocol bespoke for that application. HTTP/3 has a much better TLS connection process, which means that the cost of creating a connection is much lower. QUIC is much more configurable in terms of per steam or connection flowcontrol. Yes, homa has request/reply semantics, but not in the way that HTTP needs. Homa is optimised for low latency small messages, in a small hop, transparent network. HTTP is a file access protocol with a general data channel hammered in. Sure it'll work in a DC type network, but its also got to deal with lossy, high latency networks.