Streaming Compression Beats Framed Compression

Posted7 days agoActive2d ago

bouk

21 points

13 comments

bou.keTech Discussionstory

informativepositive

Debate

40/100

Compression AlgorithmsData CompressionAI Performance Analysis

Key topics

Compression Algorithms

Data Compression

AI Performance Analysis

Discussion Activity

Active discussion

First comment

Peak period

84-96h

Avg / period

5.3

Comment distribution16 data points

Loading chart...

Based on 16 loaded comments

Key moments

01Story posted
Dec 26, 2025 at 9:39 AM EST
7 days ago
Step 01
02First comment
Dec 30, 2025 at 12:11 AM EST
4d after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
14 comments in 84-96h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Dec 31, 2025 at 1:28 AM EST
2d ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (13 comments)

Showing 16 comments

lambdaloop

3d ago

3 replies

Does streaming compression work if some packets are lost or arrive in a different order? Seems like the compression context may end up different on the encoding/decoding side.. or is that handled somehow?

duskwuff

3d ago

1 reply

[delayed]

dgoldstein0

3d ago

Yes, or by http3's in order guarantees on the individual streams (as http3 is udp)

dgoldstein0

3d ago

I think the underlying protocol would have to guarantee in order delivery - either via tcp (for http1, 2, or spdy), or in http3, within a single stream.

gkbrk

3d ago

WebSockets [1] run over TCP, and the messages are ordered.

There is RFC 9220 [2] that makes WebSockets go over QUIC (which is UDP-based). But that's still expected to expose a stream of bytes to the WebSocket, which still keeps the ordering guarantee.

[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6455

[2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9220/

duskwuff

3d ago

2 replies

Before you get too excited, keep two things in mind:

1) Using a single compression context for the whole stream means you have to keep that context active on the client and server while the connection is active. This may have a nontrivial memory cost, especially at high compression levels. (Don't set the compression window any larger than it needs to be!)

2) Using a single context also means that you can't decompress one frame without having read the whole stream that led up to that. This prevents some possible useful optimizations if you're "fanning out" messages to many recipients - if you're compressing each message individually, you can compress it once and send the same compressed message to every recipient.

yellow_lead

3d ago

2 replies

> This may have a nontrivial memory cost, especially at high compression levels. (Don't set the compression window any larger than it needs to be!)

It sounds like these contexts should be cleared when they reach a certain memory limit, or maybe reset periodically, i.e every N messages. Is there another way to manage the memory cost?

treyd

3d ago

That's a misunderstanding. Compression algorithms are typically designed with a tunable state size paramter. The issue is if you have a large transfer that might have one side crash and resume, you need to have some way to persist the state to be able to pick up where you left off.

michaelt

3d ago

LZ77 compression (a key part of gzip and zip compression) uses a 'sliding window' where the compressor can tell the decompressor 'repeat the n bytes that appeared in the output stream m bytes ago'. The most widely used implementation uses a 15 bit integer for m - so the decompressor never needs to look more than 32,768 bytes back in its output stream.

Many compression standards include memory limits, to guarantee compatibility, and the older the standard the lower that limit is likely to be. If the standards didn't dictate this stuff, DVD sellers could release a DVD that needed a 4MB decompression window, and it'd fail to play on players that only had 2MB of memory - setting a standard and following it avoids this happening.

adzm

3d ago

The analogy to h264 in the original post is very relevant. You can fix some of the downsides by using the equivalent of keyframes, basically. Still a longer context than a single message but able to be broken up for recovery or etc.

masklinn

3d ago

1 reply

Surely that is obvious to anyone who has compared zip and tgz? As long as you’re not affected by the drawbacks obviously.

skulk

3d ago

MUD clients and servers use MCCP which is essentially keeping a zlib stream open, adding text to it, and flushing it whenever something is received. I think this has been around since 2000.

https://tintin.mudhalla.net/protocols/mccp/

efitz

3d ago

When I worked at Microsoft years ago, me and my team (a developer and a tester) built a high volume log collector.

We used a streaming compression format that was originally designed for IBM tape drives.

It was fast as hell and worked really well, and was gentle on CPU and it was easy to control memory usage.

In the early 2000s on a modest 2-proc AMD64 machine we ran out of fast Ethernet way before we felt CPU pressure.

We got hit by the SOAP mafia during Longhorn; we couldn’t convince the web services to adopt it; instead they made us enshittify our “2 bytes length, 2 bytes msgtype, structs-on-the-wire” speed demon with their XML crap.

almaight

2d ago

mwss https://github.com/go-gost/x/blob/master/dialer/mws/dialer.g...

vlovich123

3d ago

Using zstd with a tuned small file custom dictionary probably gets you most of the benefit without giving up independence of compression.

bob1029

3d ago

There is a proposal out there for serving & using custom compression dictionaries over HTTP:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-compressi...

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 46392382Type: storyLast synced: 12/30/2025, 10:56:04 AM