> On Jun 24, 2019, at 22:01, Sudheer Vinukonda
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 24, 2019, at 8:33 PM, Dk Jack wrote:
>>
>> I suspect connection pools would be using the http pipeline feature to
>> multiplex multiple client connections on to the pool connections towards
>> ATS.
>
> Right. But, yo
> On Jun 24, 2019, at 22:42, Dk Jack wrote:
>
> Perhaps. I think we are talking two different things. I was trying to say,
> it’s a bad idea to stall a client connection when multiple clients are
> getting multiplexed on the same connection (between cdn and ats). From that
> perspective, th
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:28 PM Sudheer Vinukonda
> wrote:
> > @Weixi Li,
> >
> > The more I read about your use case, it seems like you could probably
> > directly leverage the rate limiting that ATS core already supports (unless
> > you’ve other custom requirements). You can configure the bel
I think DK is referring to pipelining here. The CDN client can potentially send
requests from separate clients on the same ATS connection when pipelining is
used.
As to disabling the pipelining, you are right - the settings that were on ATS
would not actually do anything (I got mixed up with an
> I'm still thinking about a possible solution using a global queue and a
> global
> timer (and the timer just resuming queued transactions at pre-defined
> internal), but to implement that:
> 1. Is it ok to put/store a transaction in an external queue?
> 2. Is it safe to not call transaction.r
On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:42 AM, wli...@bloomberg.net wrote:
>> I'm still thinking about a possible solution using a global queue and a
>> global
>> timer (and the timer just resuming queued transactions at pre-defined
>> internal), but to implement that:
>> 1. Is it ok to put/store a transacti
