Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81875
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54D32D89.7010509@php.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 09:44:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>, 
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <DDA98D4F-2105-415A-B921-01A622091FA9@php.net> <54D217E7.8030407@php.net> <54D2AE91.8090800@gmail.com> <54D3271E.2080207@php.net> <54D32A38.9050004@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D32A38.9050004@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

Hi Stas!

On 05/02/15 09:30, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>> think raphf is far more of practical use. Why should HTTP, or even more
>> HTTPS or HTTP2, be any different than another service, especially when
> 
> Which "another service"?

Databases (see my pecl/pq example in the RFC), key/value stores, message
queues, whatever you can think of.

> 
>> HTTP APIs are so common nowadays.
> 
> HTTP APIs are common, but almost none of them ever require persistent
> connections. The nature of HTTP is a stateless protocol oriented for
> short-lived connections (yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are
> rare and mostly abuse HTTP rather than use it for intended purposes).

All of that is true, but it's also true that HTTP has Keep-Alive which
we should take advantage of if supported. Nothing else is happening here.

>> With default of raphf.persistent_handle.limit=-1 (unlimited):
>> █ mike@smugmug:~$ time php -r 'for ($i=0;$i<20;++$i) {(new
>> http\Client("curl","google"))->enqueue(new http\Client\Request("GET",
>> "http://www.google.at/"))->send();}'
> 
> I'm not sure why you need persistence here - it's all happening within
> one request - or why would you make 20 connections to the same service?

To demonstrate to ou how it would work out over multiple requests.

> If some service is used for multiple requests, it should implement
> either batching or HTTP keepalive should be used, but simulating it
> through keeping HTTP connection open when it is supposed to be closed by
> the protocol sounds wrong. If you want to keep HTTP connection, why not
> just have the client keep it?

Why do you think the connection should automatically be closed?
That's not the default case since HTTP/1.1, except the server is
explicitely configured to close each connection after serving.

> 
>> 0.03s user 0.01s system 2% cpu 1.530 total
>>
>>
>> With raphf effectively disabled:
>> █ mike@smugmug:~$ time php -d raphf.persistent_handle.limit=0 -r 'for
>> ($i=0;$i<20;++$i) {(new http\Client("curl","google"))->enqueue(new
>> http\Client\Request("GET", "http://www.google.at/"))->send();}'
>>
>> 0.04s user 0.01s system 1% cpu 2.790 total
> 
> So, the difference is microscopic even here. But with proper HTTP
> handling - like batch requests or keepalive - it would be even less.

Microscopic?! 50%?! Could you please elaborate? :)


-- 
Regards,
Mike