[Seaside] Seaside redirects, really?

[Norbert Hartl]

Am 04.10.2011 um 18:28 schrieb Sebastian Sastre:

> On Oct 4, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Bob Arning wrote:
> 
>> And I still cannot tell you if
>> - redirects have ever helped me
>> - redirects have ever hurt me
>> 
>> Just a simple FWIW.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Bob
> 
> 
> in one hand it got you here.
> 
> In the other:
> 
> what's the average ping going from:
> 1. where your audience is to
> 2. where your server is located?
> 
> that duration times 2 is the minimum default latency you didn't get rid of
> 
I don't know if that leads to anywhere. Just as extra information for understanding. An average ping doesn't tell you much. It is 56 bytes which fits in one packet. So the number you get is the minimum time data could travel because a ping packet has only headers and no payload.
The overall latency is not dependent on request-response cycles but on data transferred. You can only send data that fits in a MTU which is the physical restriction on the size of a packet (1492 bytes or lower). For every data that is bigger a new packet is created which is transferred individually. For a bunch of packets (defined in TCP window) the receiver must acknowledge that window which means there is an extra round trip. 
The empty POST response and the GET request both fit into a single packet. If you you have a response that is more than 16k you are likely to have at least one acknowldge packet travelling backward (which prevents the sender from sending until the acknowledgement has been received). If you look at your data transferred it might be that produces two or three times more roundtrips than the extra request-response.

And still what you are saying is correct that whatever I tell you the extra request goes on top. I just want to add that the effect is not as big as you might think.

Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside/attachments/20111004/5b78f7b0/attachment.htm