1 / 8

On the Effect of Server Adaptation for Web Content Delivery

On the Effect of Server Adaptation for Web Content Delivery. IMW ’ 02, Marseille, Nov. 2002. Internet. foobar.com. Motivation. Web sites have a strong incentive to reduce time-to-glass Challenge client connectivity is heterogeneous Natural solution – server adaptation

goldy
Download Presentation

On the Effect of Server Adaptation for Web Content Delivery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the Effect of Server Adaptation for Web Content Delivery IMW ’02, Marseille, Nov. 2002

  2. Internet foobar.com Motivation • Web sites have a strong incentive to reduce time-to-glass • Challenge • client connectivity is heterogeneous • Natural solution –server adaptation • client connectivity + content characteristics +client capability + server load + … action to take IMW 2002

  3. Study: What? • Basic question – What exactly is the performance impact of server adaptation? • When and how much can server adaptation help? • Which action should the server take? • Lots of previous work … but typically focusing on one individual action • This study – • Provides a unified framework for assessing the impact of different server actions • Obtains useful insights through multi-site wide-area measurements IMW 2002

  4. Factors Considered • Client connectivity • Latency, bandwidth • Content characteristics • Criteria: total bytes, container bytes, #objects • 3x3x3 = 27 buckets • derived from large proxy logs • further justified by examining popular Websites’ pages • Server actions • Altering the content • reducing number of images, reducing image size • Altering the location of the content • using a Content Distribution Network (CDN) • Altering manner of delivery • compression, bundling • Altering protocol options • using persistent connections • Combination of different actions IMW 2002

  5. Experiment Methodology • A multi-site study • Server: Apache • West coast: icir • East coast: wpi • Client: httperf • US: att, modem, isdn • Intl: de, au, uk • Canonical content served at each site • covering the space of buckets • Experiments repeated at different times of day IMW 2002

  6. Results • Compression of HTML is not universally useful • It only works for bandwidth-constrained clients • Persistent connections alone has limited benefit • Little improvement for all client/server combo • Pipelining gives significant improvement • Exception: bandwidth-constrained clients • Bundling gives significant improvement • Bundling alone is similar to pipelining • Compressed bundles help a lot under all conditions • CDN-served bundles – good idea for well-connected clients • Reducing image size by half has little benefit • Reducing the number of objects by half helps a lot under most conditions Baseline: 4 parallel HTTP/1.0 connections IMW 2002

  7. Contribution and Further Work • Contribution • A unified framework for evaluating the impact of server adaptation • Can be applied by individual Web site • Insights we gained can be useful for improving client performance • Further work • Evaluation of the feasibility of online client classification and server adaptation through real implementation • Our results are encouraging IMW 2002

  8. Acknowledgments • People who gave us accounts / logs IMW 2002

More Related