[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-2503?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14174537#comment-14174537 ]
Brian Geffon commented on TS-2503: ---------------------------------- [~sudheerv], but you're not doing what the user would expect in either case. If I set a config called {SSL_MAX_TLS_RECORD_SIZE} I would expect that that's the largest flush I would ever get, not a single byte more and not a multiple of it. So by allowing flushes on multiples you're not honoring what the user would expect. > 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)