On 2010-09-01 10:36, Tateru Nino wrote: > > On 2/09/2010 12:20 AM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: >> On 2010-09-01 9:46, Francesco Rabbi wrote: >>> No, this is a client side problem in file handling, not an HTTP >>> problem... You can parallelize billions of download, >> Whether or not you _can_, you _shouldn't_. The HTTP spec is quite clear >> on this point. > RFC2616 makes for great reading, and the *majority* of it is superbly > thought through. I spent years with a copy close-to-hand at all times. >> We'd get much better performance than we're getting now if we fixed the >> servers to support persistent connections; there's a lot of overhead in >> setting up a new connection - extra round trips plus TCP slow-start. > Concur. However, persistent connections (and possibly pipelining) will > pretty much mean that you'll need to make sure you're maintaining a > priority-queue of textures to fetch. Otherwise it will *feel* slower to > the end-user even if it is actually faster in total fetch-and-render > time. I've been down this road before.
Correct, but that's also something we should improve anyway - doing a better job of prioritizing which textures are loaded and in what order could make things _seem_ faster, even if the total time was the same. Doing both that and the connection handling together would be a big win (file under "Faster"). _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
