On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, m brandenberg wrote:
>
>> LOW_SPEED_LIMIT is still useful. Or would be except that pipelining has
>> split the request and response phases of a request. The gap between these
>> two can be fairly long on a healthy connection and that gap will be
>> included in calculations.
>>
>> Proposal: break application of LOW_SPEED_LIMIT into two phases: request
>> and response. Disable and reset working counters/times between the phases.
>> Document appropriately.
>
> My general response to all requests for different and new timeouts is that we
> offer callbacks and information about transfers enough to allow applications
> that want fancier or more complicated ways to timeout the powers to do their
> own timeout logic that fits their needs better.

Sorry, I was unclear. I'm actually proposing that the implementation
be changed. The gap between request and response is included in the
speed calculation (at least that's my read). I don't think that this
is meaningful under pipelining. Instead, the LOW_SPEED_LIMIT logic
should be applied twice: once to the request phase, once to the
response phase.

--
Monty Brandenberg, Software Engineer                               MCB, Inc.
mcbinc_at_panix.com                                             P.O. Box 425292
mcbinc_at_pobox.com                                   Cambridge, MA  02142-0006
617.864.6907
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette:  http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html