Our blog post ‘Test Drive of the Google Hosted Ajax Libraries‘ looked at using Google’s CDN (Content Delivery Network) to serve up commonly used libraries such as jQuery and Prototype.

One significant advantage, that we found, was that downloading a library from a different hostname (i.e. ajax.googleapis.com) helps to avoid the HTTP connection limiting behavior that causes blocking in browsers:

There are other significant advantages to using Google hosted libraries:

• The libraries are hosted on Google’s high speed global network providing fast access from most locations world wide
• HTTP compression minimizes the size of the download
• Minimized versions of the each library are available to further reduce download size
• The library that your site uses may already be in the user’s browser cache if the user has visited another site that uses the Google hosted libraries
• You can specify which version of a library should be used with a hard coded URL or allow for automatic version upgrades using the google.load() function
• Google picks up the bandwidth bill for the hosted Javascript libraries

However, there was one issue that stopped us using the Google CDN. Its lack of HTTPS support caused this warning to be generated on secure pages:

The good news is that Google has added SSL support and we were able to change the script tag on our Ajax Demo page to:

<script type="text/javascript"
src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.2.6/jquery.min.js">
</script>

So, you can now have all the performance benefits of the Google CDN without the userability issues on secure pages.

Let’s start with a question. What download speed would you expect in this scenario?

If you just think of network connections as a simple pipe, then you might expect the download speed to be approximately the same as the slowest network connection, i.e. 20 Mbps. When we tested this out using a local UK based website with a ping time of 13 ms we saw this:

The download speed of 1.57 MB /s or 12.56 Mbps (i.e. 1.57 x 8 for 8 bits per byte) was over 60% of the theoretical maximum for the internet connection. That’s quite respectable if you allow you the overhead of the IP and TCP headers on each network packet.

However, the situation was quite different with our own web site that’s located in Dallas. It has a ping time of 137 ms from our office in the UK:

This time the download speed was 372 KB/s or 2.91 Mbps – less than 15% of the advertised internet connection speed.

At first we thought this was some sort of bandwidth throttling of transatlantic traffic by our ISP. However, when we tried using other networks to perform transatlantic downloads we could never get more than about 3 – 4 Mbps. The reason for this behavior became clear when we saw Aladdin Nassar’s talk about Hotmail Performance Tuning at Velocity 2008:

Slide 7 of his talk shows that with standard TCP connections the round trip time between client and server (i.e. ping time) imposes an upper limited on maximum throughput.

This upper limit is caused by the TCP flow control protocol, It requires each block of data, know as the TCP window, to be acknowledged by the receiver. The sender will not start transmitting the next block data until it receives the acknowledgement from the receiver for the previous block. The reasons for doing this are:

• It avoids the receiver getting swamped with data that it cannot process quickly enough. This is particularly important for memory challenged mobile devices
• It allows the receiver to request re-transmission of the last data block, if it detects data corruption or the loss of packets

The ping time determines how many TCP windows can be acknowledged per second and is often the limiting factor on high bandwidth connections as the maximum window size in standard TCP/IP is only 64 KB.

Let’s try putting some numbers into the bandwidth equation to see if it matches our results. For large downloads in IE the TCP window starts at 16 KB but is automatically increased to 64 KB.

So for our remote download test:

Maximum throughput = 8,000 x 64 / ( 1.5 x 137) = 2, 491 Kbps = 2.43 Mbps

This value agrees fairly well with the measured figure. The 1.5 factor in the equation represents the overhead of the IP / TCP headers on each network packet and may be a a little too high explaining some of the difference.

In the past, with dialup connections the maximum throughput value was much higher than the 56 Kbps available bandwidth. But with today’s high bandwidth connections, this limit becomes much more significant. You really need to geographically position your web server(s) or content close to your users if you want to offer the best possible performance over high bandwidth connections.

There are two solutions to this issue but neither is in widespread use:

• IPv6 allows window sizes over 64 KB
• RFC1323 allows larger window sizes over IPv4 and is enabled by default in Windows Vista. Unfortunately, many routers and modems not support it

In the case of interplanetary spacecraft, the round trip time may be colossal. For example, the ping time to Mars can be up to 40 minutes and would limit TCP throughput to approximately 142 bits / sec! With this in mind an interplanetary version of TCP/IP has been designed:

http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ebelding/courses/595/s04_dtn/papers/TCP-Planet.pdf

Conclusions

1. Distance doesn’t just increase round trip times; it can also reduce download speeds
2. Don’t blame your ISP for poor downloads from distant web sites
3. Consider using a Content Delivery Network (CDN) or geo-locating your web servers

We’ve added a page to our HTTP Gallery that provides an introduction to Ajax and some simple working examples. The new page is available here:

http://www.httpwatch.com/httpgallery/ajax/

BTW, you can view the AJAX requests made by this page using the free Basic Edition of HttpWatch.