From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871321F4C0 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 05:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2394044AbfJQFw5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:52:57 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:50446 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S2392533AbfJQFw4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:52:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 20170 invoked by uid 109); 17 Oct 2019 05:52:57 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 05:52:57 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 6033 invoked by uid 111); 17 Oct 2019 05:56:01 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:56:01 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:52:55 -0400 From: Jeff King To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: mention when increasing http.postBuffer is valuable Message-ID: <20191017055254.GC10253@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20191017005330.9021-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20191017005330.9021-4-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191017005330.9021-4-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:53:30AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > Users in a wide variety of situations find themselves with HTTP push > problems. Oftentimes these issues are due to antivirus software, > filtering proxies, or other man-in-the-middle situations; other times, > they are due to simple unreliability of the network. > > However, a common solution to HTTP push problems found online is to > increase http.postBuffer. This works for none of the aforementioned > situations and is only useful in a small, highly restricted number of > cases: essentially, when the connection does not properly support > HTTP/1.1. > > Document when raising this value is appropriate and what it actually > does, and discourage people from using it as a general solution for push > problems, since it is not effective there. Yeah, I've run into some voodoo advice about this config option before. I think your advice neatly explains the situation. -Peff