On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:21:05 +0400: >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: >> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 23:22:12 +0200: >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Philip Martin >> >> >> <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> I'm really not a fan of this config knob. Anyone who carries their >> >> >>>> laptop around will effectively have to set this as the default, >> >> >>>> because >> >> >>>> you never know when the next weird proxy will pop up in front of your >> >> >>>> server. And disabling chunked requests by default is a lot worse than >> >> >>>> the extra non-pipelined request for broken proxies, IMO. >> >> >> >> >> >> Right. >> >> >> >> >> >> Though I suspect most of the problems are reverse proxies in front of >> >> >> a particular server, so you can put the config option into a [server] >> >> >> config block instead of global. That will help to limit the problem, >> >> >> but lack of dynamic detection is still a problem. >> >> >> >> >> > What is the benefit of dynamic detection enabled by some knob in config >> >> > file? >> >> >> >> The dynamic detection has a cost (1 extra request per connection), >> >> that you might want to avoid by default (most environments won't need >> >> the dynamic detection (especially corporate environments)). Only >> >> enable the dynamic detection if you know the proxy has a problem with >> >> chunkness, or if you're not sure it will stay that way, or ... >> >> >> >> (not interfering with the rest of the discussion right now :-) >> > >> > AIUI the cost is only incurred by set-ups that have the so-called >> > "busted" proxies. And a config option has a cost too: it would need to >> > be supported until 2.0 (aka, indefinitely). >> Please note that this extra request is per session and currently we >> create many sessions even during one operation. And I'm also not happy >> to make performance worse for users who doesn't use reverse proxies >> and etc. > > Please define "etc". > > Also, I just said that the cost is only incurred only by people who use > a "so-called 'busted' proxy". If you think that is not true, please say > that explicitly, I don't want to have to fish from your words whether > you think that is the case or not.
What you say is not correct, the reason has been explained earlier in this thread: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-06/0530.shtml > (We have enough bad implications on IRC right now; don't need more on list)