Category: HTTP

The first batch of the latest materials for my Designing Scalable Web Applications course have been published on my free content web site.

Every now and then I get an email from a subscriber having video download problems. Most of the time the problem auto-magically disappears (and there’s no indication of packet loss or ridiculous latency in traceroute printout), but a few days ago Henry Moats managed to consistently reproduce the problem and sent me exactly what I needed: a pcap file.

TL&DR summary: you have to know a lot about application-level protocols, application servers and operating systems to troubleshoot networking problems.

Another day, another stateful debate, this time centered on the number of flows per hypervisor. Previously I guestimated 2.500 connections-per-second-per-(user-facing)gigabit and 37.500 concurrent sessions per user-facing gigabit, but wanted to align my numbers with reality before reaching any conclusions.

My web sites are way too small, so I asked a few of my friends to help me get more realistic figures.

In the TCP, HTTP and SPDY webinar I described the web application performance roadblocks caused by TCP and HTTP and HTTP improvements that remove most of them. Google went a step further and created SPDY, a totally redesigned HTTP. What is SPDY? Is it really the final solution? How much does it help? Hopefully you’ll find answers to some of these questions in the last part of the webinar.

In previous videos from the TCP, HTTP and SPDY webinar I described the network-related performance challenges experienced by web applications and did a deep dive into TCP and HTTP mechanisms underlying them.

Today’s video describes numerous TCP and HTTP enhancements – from increased initial congestion window (recently published as RFC 6928) and TCP fast open to persistent HTTP sessions and pipelining.

The deep dive into TCP and HTTP mechanisms that impact web application performance triggered numerous questions during the live webinar session – it took me almost 10 minutes to answer them all.

In the first part of the TCP, HTTP and SPDY webinar I explained why TCP and HTTP impact the end-to-end web application performance. In the second section of the webinar, we did a deep dive into the actual TCP and HTTP mechanisms that increase end-to-end latency (3-way handshake, initial congestion window, request/response nature of HTTP).

In the ideal world, you’d get a new web page within 100 milliseconds of clicking an active web page component (link, button ...). Reality is way harsher – sometimes it takes seconds till you can enjoy a web page served from a well-behaved web server (let’s pretend there are no server performance issues).

In the first part of my TCP, HTTP and SPDY webinar I explained how the transport mechanisms (TCP and HTTP) impact the end-to-end web application performance and what you could do to reduce the web page loading time.

Most web application developers remain blissfully unaware of the major performance roadblocks their applications face in the wild: access network bandwidth restrictions and unexpectedly high latency (see also Fallacies of Distributed Computing with an in-depth explanation). The impact of these two roadblocks is further amplified by behavior of TCP and HTTP, the protocols used by almost all web applications.

These issues are well documented in my Scalable Web Application Design course and in a free TCP, HTTP and SPDY webinar for those of you who won’t be able to make it to Ljubljana.

Stumbled across this marvel while updating my IPv6 presentations for a 2-day seminar in Milano and Rome (straight from 15.2M&T command reference):

With IPv6 support added in Cisco IOS Release 12.2(2)T, the ip http server command simultaneously enables and disables both IP and IPv6 access to the HTTP server. However, an access list configured with the ip http access-class command will only be applied to IPv4 traffic. IPv6 traffic filtering is not supported.

Wait ... WHAT? I cannot control who can access the HTTP(S) server running in Cisco IOS over IPv6 (apart from kludges like ingress ACLs on all interfaces or CoPP), and this stupidity has been left unfixed for nine(9) years?. Are we really in 2012, less than a month away from World IPv6 Launch or have I been transported to 1990’s?

You’re probably tired of this story by now: public IPv4 addresses are running out, lots of content is available only over IPv4, and so the service providers use NAT to give new clients (with no public IPv4 address) access to old content. It doesn’t matter which NAT variant the service provider is using, be it Carrier Grade Nat (CGN), NAT64, DS-Lite or A+P, the crucial problem is always the same: multiple users are hidden behind a single source IP address.

A while ago Matthew Norwood wrote an excellent article describing the troubleshooting process they used to figure out why a particular web application worked way too slowly. Greg Ferro was quick to point out that it doesn’t make sense to assume the network is the problem and work through the whole chain slowly eliminating every potential networking device as the source of the problem when you might be facing an application design issue. However, there’s an even more important consideration: your network troubleshooting toolbox lacks the right troubleshooting tools for this job.

A few days ago I wrote that you should always strive to understand the technologies beyond the reach of your current job. Stephen Foskett is an amazing example to follow: although he’s a storage guru, he knows way more about HTTP than most web developers and details of the web server architecture that most server administrators are not aware of. Read his High-Performance, Low-Memory Apache/PHP Virtual Private Server; you’ll definitely enjoy the details.

And then there’s the ultimate weekend fun: reading Greg’s perspectives on storage and FCoE. It starts with his Magic of FCoTR post (forget the FCoTR joke and focus on the futility of lossless layer-2 networks) and continues with Rivka’s hilarious report on the FCoTR progress. Oh, and just in case you never knew what TR was all about – it was “somewhat” different, but never lossless, so it would be as bad a choice for FC as Ethernet is.

Last but not least, there’s Kevin Bovis, the veritable fountain of common sense, this time delving with the ancient and noble art of troubleshooting. A refreshing must-read.

This looks like another April 1st RFC (but it's apparently not):

Several applications extending the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) require a feature to do partial resource modification. The existing HTTP PUT method only allows a complete replacement of a document. This proposal adds a new HTTP method, PATCH, to modify an existing HTTP resource.