[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-2503?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14174499#comment-14174499
]
Bryan Call edited comment on TS-2503 at 10/17/14 12:01 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. dynamic_tls_record_size can be scoped within the else if for max record == -1
2. I would set ink_hrtime now = 0 at the top and move most of the code that is
for dynamic tls record size into the else if. There is no reason to do the
work if nothing else is going to use it.
3. didn't understand:
+ if (l > SSL_MAX_TLS_RECORD_SIZE) {
+ l -= (l % SSL_MAX_TLS_RECORD_SIZE);
+ }
Why not just set l equal to SSL_MAX_TLS_RECORD_SIZE?
4. In line 100 in the patch you shouldn't have to check for ||
msec_since_last_write > SSL_DEF_TLS_RECORD_MSEC_THRESHOLD since the size would
be set to 0 line 82 in the patch based on the same conditional.
was (Author: bcall):
1. dynamic_tls_record_size can be scoped within the else if for max record == -1
2. I would set ink_hrtime now = 0 at the top and move most of the code that is
for dynamic tls record size into the else if. There is no reason to do the
work if nothing else is going to use it.
3. didn't understand:
+ if (l > SSL_MAX_TLS_RECORD_SIZE) {
+ l -= (l % SSL_MAX_TLS_RECORD_SIZE);
+ }
Why not just set l equal to SSL_MAX_TLS_RECORD_SIZE?
4. In line 100 in the patch you shouldn't have to check for ||
msec_since_last_write > SSL_DEF_TLS_RECORD_MSEC_THRESHOLD since the size would
be set to 0 line 82 in the patch based on the same conditional.
5. documentation
> 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
> Assignee: Sudheer Vinukonda
> Fix For: 5.2.0
>
> Attachments: TS-2503.diff
>
>
> 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)
