[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-2503?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14172955#comment-14172955 ]
Sudheer Vinukonda edited comment on TS-2503 at 10/15/14 9:17 PM: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Discussed with the stalwarts on IRC and here's the consensus (quote from [~jacksontj]): "use small TLS records that fit into a single TCP segment for the first ~1 MB of data, increase record size to 16 KB after that to optimize throughput, and then reset record size back to a single segment after ~1 second of inactivity—lather, rinse, repeat." The recommendation from [~zwoop], [~jacksontj], [~briang] etc is to use the below values: smaller TLS record size: MTU/MSS (1500) minus the TCP (20 bytes) and IP (40 bytes) overheads: 1500 - 40 - 20 = 1440 bytes larger TLS record size: maximum TLS record size which is 16383 (2^14 - 1) [~igrigorik] : Hi, it seems that you are on the "watch-list" on this jira. Can you please review and provide any suggestions/feedback you may have on the above proposal/values. was (Author: sudheerv): Discussed with the stalwarts on IRC and here's the consensus (quote from [~jacksontj]): "use small TLS records that fit into a single TCP segment for the first ~1 MB of data, increase record size to 16 KB after that to optimize throughput, and then reset record size back to a single segment after ~1 second of inactivity—lather, rinse, repeat." The recommendation from [~zwoop], [~jacksontj], [~briang] etc is to use the below values: smaller TLS record size: MTU/MSS (1500) minus the TCP (20 bytes) and IP (40 bytes) overheads: 1500 - 40 - 20 = 1440 bytes larger TLS record size: maximum TLS record size which is 16383 (2^14 - 1) > dynamic TLS record size tuning > ------------------------------ > > Key: TS-2503 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-2503 > Project: Traffic Server > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance, SSL > Reporter: James Peach > Fix For: 5.2.0 > > > From [~igrigorik] in TS-2365: > {quote} > FWIW, I think you may be interested in this discussion: > - http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2013-December/004703.html > - http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2014-January/004748.html > In a nutshell, static record size introduces an inherent tradeoff between > latency and throughput -- smaller records are good for latency, but hurt > server throughput by adding bytes and CPU overhead. It would be great if we > could implement a smarter strategy in ATS. The extra benefit is that it's one > less knob to tune: the out-of-the-box experience would be better optimized > for all ATS users, regardless of mix/type of traffic being proxies. > {quote} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)