> From: Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]>
>
> In message <[email protected]>, [email protected] writes:
> >
> > Agreed, however I could have opened several simultaneous connections
> > for the graphics, even before I had gotten the initial HTML response.
> > That delay can therefore be masked, unless the additional connection
> > establishment packets add to the loss.
>
> Then you send a bunch of SYNs and FINs without any data if there is no
> inlines as is the case on a good percentage of pages.
>
> You are starting to argue in favor of a great deal of additional
> inefficiency in order to avoid a performance problem that occur in the
> presence of loss with already inefficient HTTP 1.0 methods.
Good performance that is inefficient, to
avoid bad performance with already inefficient HTTP methods?
Sure, I'll buy that. I'm inefficient either way; this way at
least I get performance in the meantime.
Joe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch - [email protected] http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof. http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:28 EST