Tag Archives: HTTP

cURL and libcurl, Technology

US patent 6,098,180

5 Comments

(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice and these are not legal analyses, just my personal observations and ramblings. Please correct me where I’m wrong or add info if you have any!)

At 3:45 pm on March 18th 2011, the company Content Delivery Solutions LLC filed a complaint in a court in Texas, USA. The defendants are several bigwigs and the list includes several big and known names of the Internet:

  • Akamai
  • AOL
  • AT&T
  • CD Networks
  • Globalscape
  • Google
  • Limelight Networks
  • Peer 1 Network
  • Research In Motion
  • Savvis
  • Verizon
  • Yahoo!

The complaint was later amended with an additional patent (filed on April 18th), making it list three patents that these companies are claimed to violate (I can’t find the amended version online though). Two of the patents ( 6,393,471 and 6,058,418) are for marketing data and how to use client info to present ads basically. The third is about file transfer resumes.

I was contacted by a person involved in the case at one of the defendants’. This unspecified company makes one or more products that use “curl“. I don’t actually know if they use the command line tool or the library – but I figure that’s not too important here. curl gets all its superpowers from libcurl anyway.

This Patent Troll thus basically claims that curl violates a patent on resumed file transfers!

The patent in question that would be one that curl would violate is the US patent 6,098,180 which basically claims to protect this idea:

A system is provided for the safe transfer of large data files over an unreliable network link in which the connection can be interrupted for a long period of time.

The patent describes several ways in how it may detect how it should continue the transfer from such a break. As curl only does transfer resumes based on file name and an offset, as told by the user/application, that could be the only method that they can say curl would violate of their patent.

The patent goes into detail in how a client first sends a “signature” and after an interruption when the file transfer is about to continue, the client would ask the server about details of what to send in the continuation. With a very vivid imagination, that could possibly equal the response to a FTP SIZE command or the Content-Length: response in a HTTP GET or HEAD request.

A more normal reader would rather say that no modern file transfer protocol works as described in that patent and we should go with “defendant is not infringing, move on nothing to see here”.

But for the sake of the argument, let’s pretend that the patent actually describes a method of file transfer resuming that curl uses.

The ‘180 (it is referred to with that name within the court documents) patent was filed at February 18th 1997 (and issued on August 1, 2000). Apparently we need to find prior art that was around no later than February 17th 1996, that is to say one year before the filing of the stupid thing. (This I’ve been told, I had no idea it could work like this and it seems shockingly weird to me.)

What existing tools and protocols did resumed transfers in February 1996 based on a file name and a file offset?

Lots!

Thank you all friends for the pointers and references you’ve brought to me.

  • The FTP spec RFC 959 was published in October 1985. FTP has a REST command that tells at what offset to “restart” the transfer at. This was being used by FTP clients long before 1996, and an example is the known Kermit FTP client that did offset-based file resumed transfer in 1995.
  • The HTTP header Range: introduces this kind of offset-based resumed transfer, although with a slightly fancier twist. The Range: header was discussed before the magic date, as also can be seen on the internet already in this old mailing list post from December 1995.
  • One of the protocols from the old days that those of us who used modems and BBSes in the old days remember is zmodem. Zmodem was developed in 1986 and there’s this zmodem spec from 1988 describing how to do file transfer resumes.
  • A slightly more modern protocol that I’ve unfortunately found no history for before our cut-off date is rsync, as I could only find the release mail for rsync 1.0 from June 1996. Still long before the patent was filed obviously, and also clearly showing that the one year margin is silly as for all we know they could’ve come up with the patent idea after reading the rsync releases notes and still rsync can’t be counted as prior art.
  • Someone suggested GetRight as a client doing this, but GetRight wasn’t released in 1.0 until Febrary 1997 so unfortunately that didn’t help our case even if it seems to have done it at the time.
  • curl itself does not pre-date the patent filing. curl was first released in March 1998, and the predecessor was started around summer-time 1997. I don’t have any remaining proofs of that, and it still wasn’t before “the date” so I don’t think it matters much now.

At the time of this writing I don’t know where this will end up or what’s going to happen. Time will tell.

This Software patent obviously is a concern mostly to US-based companies and those selling products in the US. I am neither a US citizen nor do I have or run any companies based in the US. However, since curl and libcurl are widely used products that are being used by several hundred companies already, I want to help bring out as much light as possible onto this problem.

The patent itself is of course utterly stupid and silly and it should never have been accepted as it describes trivially thought out ideas and concepts that have been thought of and implemented already decades before this patent was filed or granted although I claim that the exact way explained in the patent is not frequently used. Possibly the protocol using a method that is closed to the description of the patent is zmodem.

I guess I don’t have to mention what I think about software patents.

I’m convinced that most or all download tools and browsers these days know how to resume a previously interrupted transfer this way. Why wouldn’t these guys also approach one of the big guys (with thick wallets) who also use this procedure? Surely we can think of a few additional major players with file tools that can resume file transfers and who weren’t targeted in this suit!

I don’t know why. Clearly they’ve not backed down from attacking some of the biggest tech and software companies.

patent drawing

(Illustration from the ‘180 patent.)

Electronics, Network, Web

The cookie RFC 6265

4 Comments

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6265.txt is out!

Back when I was a HTTP rookie in the late 90s, I once expected that there was this fine RFC document somewhere describing how to do HTTP cookies. I was wrong. A lot of others have missed that document too, both before and after my initial search.

I was wrong in the sense that sure there were RFCs for cookies. There were even two of them (RFC2109 and RFC2965)! The only sad thing was however that both of them were totally pointless as in effect nobody (servers nor clients) implemented cookies like that so they documented idealistic protocols that didn’t exist in the real world. This sad state has made people fall into cookie problems all the way into modern days when they’ve implemented services according to those RFCs and then blame their browser for failing.

cookie

It turned out that the only document that existed that were being used, was the original Netscape cookie document. It can’t even be called a specification because it is so short and is so lacking in details that it leaves large holes open and forces implementers to guess about the missing pieces. A sweet irony in itself is the fact that even Netscape removed the document from their site so the only place to find this document is at archive.org or copies like the one I link to above at the curl.haxx.se site. (For some further and more detailed reading about the history of cookies and a bunch of the flaws in the protocol/design, I recommend Michal Zalewski’s excellent blog post HTTP cookies, or how not to design protocols.)

While HTTP was increasing in popularity as a protocol during the 00s and still is, and more and more stuff get done in browsers and everything and everyone are using cookies, the protocol was still not documented anywhere as it was actually used.

Somewhat modeled after the httpbis working group (which is working on updating and bugfixing the HTTP 1.1 spec), IETF setup a mailing list named httpstate in the early 2009 to start discussing what problems there are with cookies and all related matters. After lively discussions throughout the year, the working group with the same name as the mailinglist was founded at December 11th 2009.

One of the initial sparks to get the httpstate group going came from Bill Corry who said this about the start:

In late 2008, Jim Manico and I connected to create a specification for
HTTPOnly — we saw the security issues arising from how the browser vendors
were implementing HTTPOnly in varying ways[1] due to a lack of a specification
and formed an ad-hoc working group to tackle the issue[2].
When I approached the IETF about forming a charter for an official working
group, I was told that I was <quote> “wasting my time” because cookies itself
did not have a proper specification, so it didn’t make sense to work on a spec
for HTTPOnly.  Soon after, we pursued reopening the IETF httpstate Working
Group to tackle the entire cookie spec, not just HTTPOnly.  Eventually Adam
Barth would become editor and Jeff Hodges our chair.

In late 2008, Jim Manico and I connected to create a specification for HTTPOnly — we saw the security issues arising from how the browser vendors were implementing HTTPOnly in varying ways[1] due to a lack of a specification and formed an ad-hoc working group to tackle the issue[2].

When I approached the IETF about forming a charter for an official working group, I was told that I was <quote> “wasting my time” because cookies itself did not have a proper specification, so it didn’t make sense to work on a spec for HTTPOnly.  Soon after, we pursued reopening the IETF httpstate Working Group to tackle the entire cookie spec, not just HTTPOnly. Eventually Adam Barth would become editor and Jeff Hodges our chair.

Since then Adam Barth has worked fiercely as author of the specification and lots of people have joined in and contributed their views, comments and experiences, and we have over time really nailed down how cookies work in the wild today. The current spec now actually describes how to send and receive cookies, the way it is done by existing browsers and clients. Of course, parts of this new spec say things I don’t think it should, like how it deals with the order of cookies in headers, but as everything in life we needed to compromise and I seemed to be rather lonely on my side of that “fence”.
I must stress that the work has only involved to document how things work today and not to invent or create anything new. We don’t fix any of the many known problems with cookies, but we describe how you write your protocol implementation if you want to interact fine with existing infrastructure.

The new spec explicitly obsoletes the older RFC2965, but doesn’t obsolete RFC2109. That was done already by RFC2965. (I updated this paragraph after my initial post.)

Oh, and yours truly is mentioned in the ending “acknowledgements” section. It’s actually the second RFC I get to be mentioned in, the first being RFC5854.

Future

I am convinced that I will get reason to get back to the cookie topic soon and describe what is being worked on for the future. Once the existing cookies have been documented, there’s a desire among people to design something that overcomes the problems with the existing protocol. Adam’s CAKE proposal being one of the attempts and ideas in the pipe.

Another parallel IETF effort is the http-auth mailing list in which lots of discussions around HTTP authentication is being held, and as they often today involve cookies there’s a lot of talk about them there as well. See for example Timothy D. Morgan’s document Weaning the Web off of Session Cookies.

I’ll certainly track the development. And possibly even participate in shaping how this will go. We’ll see.

(cookie image source)

cURL and libcurl, Network, Web

HTTP transfer compression

HTTP is a protocol that looks simple in its simplest form and its readability can easily fool you into believing an implementation is straight forward and quickly done.

That’s not the reality though. HTTP is a very big protocol with lots of corners and twisting mazes that one can get lost in. Even after having been the primary author of curl for 13+ years, there are still lots of HTTP things I don’t master.

To name an example of an area with little known quirks, there’s a funny situation when it comes to how HTTP supports and doesn’t support compression of data and compression of data in transfer.

No header compression

A little flaw in HTTP in regards to compression is that there’s no way to compress headers, in either direction. No matter what we do, we must send the text as-is and both requests and responses are sometimes very big these days. Especially taken into account how cookies are always inserted in requests if they match. Anyway, this flaw is nothing we can do anything about in HTTP 1.1 so we need to live with it.

On the other side, compression of the response body is supported.

Compressing data

Compression of data can be done in two ways: either the actual transfer is compressed or the body data is compressed. The difference is subtle, but when the body data is compressed there’s really nothing that mandates that the client has to uncompress it for the end user, and if the transfer is compressed the receiver must uncompress it in order to deal with the transfer properly.

For reasons that are unknown to me, HTTP clients and servers started out supporting compression only using the Content-Encoding style. It means that the client tells the server what kind of content encodings it supports (using Accept-Encoding:) and the server then sends the response data using one of the supported encodings. The client then decides on its own that if it gets the content in one of the compressed formats that it said it can handle, it will automatically uncompress that on arrival.

The HTTP protocol designers however intended this kind of automatic compression and subsequent uncompress to be done using Transfer-Encoding, as the end result is the completely transparent and the uncompress action is implied and intended by the protocol design. This is done by the client telling the server what transfer encodings it supports with the TE: header and the server adds a Transfer-Encoding: header in the response telling how the transfer is encoded.

HTTP 1.1 introduced a mandatory encoding that all servers can use whenever they feel like it: chunked encoding, so all HTTP 1.1 clients already have to deal with Transfer-Encoding to some degree.

Surely curl is better than all those other guys, right?

Not really. Not yet anyway.

curl has a long history of copying its behavior from what the browsers do, in order to allow users to basically script anything imaginable that is HTTP-like with curl. In this vein, we implemented compression support the same way as all the browsers did it: the content encoding style. (I have reason to believe that at least Opera actually supports or used to support compressed Transfer-Encoding.)

Starting now (code pushed to git repo just after the 7.21.5 release), we’ve taken steps to improve things. We’re changing gears and we’re introducing support for asking for and using compressed Transfer-Encoding. This will start out as an optional feature/flag (–tr-encoding / CURLOPT_TRANSFER_ENCODING) so that we can start out and see how servers in the wild behave and that we can deal with them properly. Then possibly we can switch the default in the future to always ask for compressed transfers. At least for the command line tool.

We know from the little tests we are aware of, that there are at least one known little problem or shall we call it a little detail to keep on eye at, with introducing compressed Transfer-Encoding. As has been so fine reported several years ago in the opera blog Browser sniffing gone wrong (again): Cars.com, there are cases where this may cause the server to send data that gets compressed twice (using both Content and Transfer Encoding) and that needs to be taken care of properly by the client.

At the time of this writing, I’ve not yet taken care of the double-compress case in the code, but I intend to get on to it within shortly.

I’m otherwise very interested in hearing what kind of experience people will have from this. What servers and sites will support this as documented and intended?

Web

Today I am Chinese

5 Comments

Google thinks I'm ChineseI’m going about my merry life and I use google every day.

Today Google decided I’m in China and redirects me to google.com.hk and it shows me all text in Chinese. It’s just another proof how silly it is trying to use the IP address to figure out location (or even worse trying to guess language based on IP address).

Click on the image to get it in its full glory.

I haven’t changed anything locally, but it seems Google has updated (broken) their database somehow.

Just to be perfectly sure my browser isn’t playing any tricks behind my back, I snooped up the headers sent in the HTTP request and there’s nothing notable:

GET /complete/search?output=firefox&client=firefox&hl=en-US&q=rockbox HTTP/1.1
Host: suggestqueries.google.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.6.13-1.fc13 Firefox/3.6.13
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 115
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: PREF=ID=dc410 [truncated]

Luckily, I know about the URL “google.com/ncr” (No Country Redirect) so I can still use it, but not through my browser’s search box…

Network, Web

Cookies and Websockets and HTTP headers

So yesterday we held a little HTTP-related event in Stockholm, arranged by OWASP Sweden. We talked a bit about cookies, websockets and recent HTTP headers.

Below are all the slides from the presentations I, Martin Holst Swende and John Wilanders did. (The entire event was done in Swedish.)

Cookies och Websockets

Martin Holst Swende’s talk:

WebSockets för applikationstestare

John Wilander’s slides from his talk are here:

Kommer nya HTTP-headers rädda oss?
Network, Security, Technology

HTTP security, websockets and more

4 Comments
owasp

Together with friends in OWASP I’m happy to mention that we will do an event on January 31st on the topic “HTTP security, websockets and more” where I’ll talk. Starting at 17:30, the exact location is not decided yet and it’ll depend a bit on popularity, but it will be in Stockholm, Sweden.

The two other speakers to appear at the event are, apart from myself, John Wilander and Martin Holst-Swende. My part of the session will be about the WebSockets protocol, about the upcoming cookie RFC and some bits about the ongoing HTTPbis work.

Sign up to attend, the opportunity is only open one week.

Omegapoint will sponsor with something to eat and drink, and we do plan to go out and grab a beer afterwards and continue the discussion.

See you!

Network, Web

WebSockets now: handshake and masking

In August 2010 I blogged about the WebSockets state at the time. In some aspects nothing has changed, and in some other aspects a lot has changed. There’s still no WebSockets specification that approaches consensus (remember the 4 weeks plan from July?).

Handshaking this or that way

We’ve been reading an endless debate through the last couple of months on how the handshake should be made and how to avoid that stupid intermediaries might get tricked by HTTP-looking websocket traffic. In the midst of that storm, a team of people posted the paper Transparent Proxies: Threat or Menace? which argued that HTTP+Upgrade would be insecure and that CONNECT should be used (Abarth’s early draft of the CONNECT handshake).

CONNECT to the server is not kosher HTTP and is not being appreciated by several people – CONNECT is meant to get sent to proxies and proxies are explicitly setup to a client.

The idea to use a separate and dedicated port is of course brought up every now and then but is mostly not considered. Most people seem to want this protocol to go over the “web” ports 80 and 443 and thus to be able to share the proxy environment used for HTTP.

Currently it seems as if we’re back to a HTTP+Upgrade handshake.

Masking the traffic

A lot of people also questioned the very binary outcome of the Transparet Proxies report mentioned above, and later on it seems the consensus that by “masking” WebSocket traffic it should be possible to avoid the risk that stupid intermediaries misinterpret the traffic as HTTP. The masking is currently being discussed to be XOR with a frame-specific key, so that a typical stream will change key multiple times but is still easy for a WebSocket-aware tool (say Wireshark and similar) to “demask” on purpose.

The last few weeks have been spent on discussing how the masking is done, if it is to become optional and if the masking should include the framing or not.

This is an open process

I’m not sure I’ve stressed this properly before: IETF is an open organization. Anyone can join in and share their views and opinions, but of course you need to argue technical merits.

cURL and libcurl, Network

Byte ranges for FTP

In the IETF ftpext2 working group there have been some talks around clients’ and servers’ ability to do and support “ranged” file transfers, that is transferring only a piece of any given file. FTP supports the REST command and has done so since the dawn of man (RFC765 – June 1980), and using that command, a client can set the starting point for a transfer but there is no way to set the end point. HTTP has supported the Range: header since the first HTTP 1.1 spec back in January 1997, and that supports both a start and an end point. The HTTP header does in fact support multiple ranges within the same header, but let’s not overdo it here!

Currently, to avoid getting an entire file a client would simply close the data connection when it has got all the data it wants. The unfortunate reality is that some servers don’t notice clients doing this, so in order for this to work reliably a client also has to send ABOR, and after this command has been sent there is no way for the client to reliably figure out the state of the control connection so it has to get closed as well (which is crap in case more files are to be transferred to or from the same host). It primarily becomes unreliable because when ABOR is sent, the client gets one or two responses back due to a race condition between the closing and the actual end of transfer etc, and it isn’t possible to tell exactly how to continue.

A solution for the future is being worked on. I’ve joined up the effort to write a spec that will suggest a new FTP command that sets the end point for a transfer in the same vein REST sets the start point. For the moment, we’ve named our suggested command RANG (as short for range). “We” in this context means Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa, Anthony Bryan and myself but we of course hope to get further valuable feedback by the great ftpext2 people.

There already are use cases that want range request for FTP. The people behind metalinks for example want to download the same file from many servers, and then it makes sense to be able to download little pieces from different sources.

The people who found the libcurl bugs I linked to above use libcurl as part of the Fedora/Redhat installer Anaconda, and if I understand things right they use this feature to just get the beginning of some files to check them out and avoid having to download the full file before it knows it truly wants it. Thus it saves lots of bandwidth.

In short, the use-cases for ranged FTP retrievals are quite likely pretty much the same ones as they are for HTTP!

The first RANG draft is now available.

Network, Open Source, Web

Websockets right now

5 Comments

Lots of sites today have JavaScript running that connects to the site and keeps the connection open for a long time (or just doing very frequent checks if there is updated info to get). This to such an wide extent that people have started working on a better way. A way for scripts in browsers to connect to a site in a TCP-like manner to exchange messages back and forth, something that doesn’t suffer from the problems HTTP provides when (ab)used for this purpose.

Websockets is the name of the technology that has been lifted out from the HTML5 spec, taken to the IETF and is being worked on there to produce a network protocol that is basically a message-based low level protocol over TCP, designed to allow browsers to do long-living connections to servers instead of using “long-polling HTTP”, Ajax polling or other more or less ugly tricks.

Unfortunately, the name is used for both the on-the-wire protocol as well as the JavaScript API so there’s room for confusion when you read or hear this term, but I’m completely clueless about JavaScript so you can rest assured that I will only refer to the actual network protocol when I speak of Websockets!

I’m tracking the Hybi mailing list closely, and I’m summarizing this post on some of the issues that’s been debated lately. It is not an attempt to cover it all. There is a lot more to be said, both now and in the future.

The first versions of Websockets that were implemented by browsers (Chrome) was the -75 version, as written by Ian Hickson as editor and the main man behind it as it came directly from the WHATWG team (the group of browser-people that work on the HTML5 spec).

He also published a -76 version (that was implemented by Firefox) before it was taken over by the IETF’s Hybi working group, who published that same document as its -00 draft.

There are representatives for a lot of server software and from browsers like Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome on the list (no Internet Explorer people seem to be around).

Some Problems

The 76/00 version broke compatibility with the previous version and it also isn’t properly HTTP compatible that is wanted and needed by many.

The way Ian and WHATWG have previously worked on this (and the html5 spec?) is mostly by Ian leading and being the benevolent dictator of what’s good, what’s right and what goes into the spec. The collision with IETF’s way of working that include “everyone can have a say” and “rough consensus” has been harsh and a reason for a lot of arguments and long threads on the hybi mailing list, and I will throw out a guess that it will continue to be the source of “flames” even in the future.

Ian maintains – for example – that a hard requirement on the protocol is that it needs to be “trivial to implement for amateurs”, while basically everyone else have come to the conclusion that this requirement is mostly silly and should be reworded to “be simple” or similar, that avoids the word “amateur” completely or the implying that amateurs wouldn’t be able to follow specs etc.

Right now

(This is early August 2010, things and facts in this protocol are likely to change, potentially a lot, over time so if you read this later on you need to take the date of this writing into account.)

There was a Hybi meeting at the recent IETF 78 meeting in Maastricht where a range of issues got discussed and some of the controversial subjects did actually get quite convincing consensus – and some of those didn’t at all match the previous requirements or the existing -00 spec.

Almost in parallel, Ian suggested a schedule for work ahead that most people expressed a liking in: provide a version of the protocol that can be done in 4 weeks for browsers to adjust to right now, and then work on an updated version to be shipped in 6 months with more of the unknowns detailed.

There’s a very lively debate going on about the need for chunking, the need for multiplexing multiple streams over a single TCP connection and there was a very very long debate going on regarding if the protocol should send data length-prefixed or if data should use a sentinel that marks the end of it. The length-prefix approach (favored by yours truly) seem to have finally won. Exactly how the framing is to be done, what parts that are going to be core protocol and what to leave for extensions and how extensions should work are not yet settled. I think everyone wants the protocol to be “as simple as possible” but everyone has their own mind setup on what amount of features that “the simplest” possible form of the protocol has.

The subject on exactly how the handshake is going to be done isn’t quite agreed to either by my reading, even if there’s a way defined in the -00 spec. The primary connection method will be using a HTTP Upgrade: header and thus connect to the server’s port 80 and then upgrade the protocol from HTTP over to Websockets. A procedure that is documented and supported by HTTP, but there’s been a discussion on how exactly that should be done so that cross-protocol requests can be avoided to the furthest possible extent.

We’ve seen up and beyond 50 mails per day on the hybi mailing list during some of the busiest days the last couple of weeks. I don’t see any signs of it cooling down short-term, so I think the 4 weeks goal seems a bit too ambitious at this point but I’m not ruling it out. Especially since the working procedure with Ian at the wheel is not “IETF-ish” but it’s not controlled entirely by Ian either.

Future

We are likely to see a future world with a lot of client-side applications connecting back to the server. The amount of TCP connections for a single browser is likely to increase, a lot. In fact, even a single web application within a single tab is likely to do multiple websocket connections when they re-use components and widgets from several others.

It is also likely that libcurl will get a websocket implementation in the future to do raw websocket transfers with, as it most likely will be needed in a future to properly emulate a browser/client.

I hope to keep tracking the development, occasionally express my own opinion on the matter (on the list and here), but mostly stay on top of what’s going on so that I can feed that knowledge to my friends and make sure that the curl project keeps up with the time.

chinese-socket

(The pictured socket might not be a websocket, but it is a pretty remarkably designed power socket that is commonly seen in China, and as you can see it accepts and works with many of the world’s different power plug designs.)

cURL and libcurl

curl performance

Benchmarks, speed, comparisons, performance. I get a lot of questions on how curl and libcurl compare against other tools or libraries, and I rarely have any specific answers as I personally basically never use or test any other tools or libraries!

This text will instead be more elaborate on how we work on libcurl, why I believe libcurl will remain the fastest alternative.

cURL

libcurl is low-level

libcurl is written in C and uses the native function calls of the operating system to perform its network operations. It features a lot of features, but when it comes to plain sending and receiving data the code paths are very short and the loops can’t be shortened or sped up by any significant amount. Based on these facts, I am confident that for simple single stream transfers you really cannot write a file transfer library that runs faster. (But yes, I believe other similarly low-level style libraries can reach the same speeds.)

When adding more complicated test cases, like doing SSL or perhaps many connections that need to be kept persistent between transfers, then of course libraries can start to differ. libcurl uses SSL libraries natively so if they are fast, so will libcurl’s SSL handling be and vice versa. Of course we also strive to provide features such as connection pooling, SSL session id reuse, DNS caching and more to make the normal and frequent use cases as fast as we possibly can. What takes time when using libcurl should be the underlying network operations, not the tricks libcurl adds to them.

event-based is the way to grow

If you plan on making an app that uses more than just a few connections, libcurl can of course still do the heavy lifting for you. You should consider taking precautions already when you do your design and make sure that you can use an event-based concept and avoid relying on select or poll for the socket handling. Using libcurl’s multi_socket API, you can go up and beyond tens of thousands of connections and still reach maximum performance. And this using basically all of the protocols libcurl supports, this is not limited to a small subset. (There are unfortunate exceptions, like for example “file://” URLs but there are completely technical reasons for this.)

Very few file transfer libraries have this direct support for event-based operations. I’ve read reports of apps that have gone up to and beyond 70,000 connections on the same host using libcurl like this. The fact that TCP only has a 16 bit field in the protocol header for “source port” of course forces users who want to try this stunt to use more than one interface as source address.

And before you ask: you cannot grow a client to that amount using any other technique than event-based using many connections in the same thread, as basically no other approach scales as well.

When handling very many connections, the mere “juggling” of the connections take time and can be done in good or bad ways. It would be interesting to one day measure exactly how good libcurl is at this.

Binding Benchmark and Comparisons

We are aware of something like 40 different bindings for libcurl to make it possible to use from just about any language you like. Lots, if not just every, language also tend to have its own native version of a transfer or at least HTTP library. For many languages, the native version is the one that is most preferred and most used in books, articles and promoted on the internet. Rarely can the native versions compete with the libcurl based ones in actual transfer performance. Because of what I mentioned above: libcurl does little extra when transferring stuff but the actual and raw transfer. Of course there still needs to be additional glue and logic to make libcurl work fine with the different languages’ own unique environments, but it is still often proven that it doesn’t make the speed gain get lost or become invisible. I’ll illustrate below with some sample environments.

Ruby comparisons

Paul Dix is a Ruby guy and he’s done a lot of work with HTTP libraries and Ruby, and he’s also done some benchmarks on libcurl-based Ruby libraries. They show that the tools built on top of libcurl run significantly faster than the native versions.

Perl comparisons

“Ivan” wrote up a benchmarking script that performs a number of transfers using three different mechanisms available to perl hackers. One of them being the official libcurl perl binding (WWW::Curl), one of them being the perl standard one called LWP. The results leaves no room for doubts: the libcurl-based version is significantly faster than the “native” alternatives.

PHP comparisons

The PHP binding for libcurl, PHP/CURL, is a popular one. In PHP the situation is possibly a bit different as they don’t have a native library that is nearly as feature complete as the libcurl binding, but they do have a native version for doing things like getting HTTP data etc. This function has been compared against PHP/CURL many times, for example Ricky’s comparisons, and Alix Axel’s comparisons. They all show that the libcurl-based alternative is faster. Exactly how much faster is of course depending on a lot of factors but I’m not going into such specific details here and now.

We miss more benchmarks!

I wish I knew about more benchmarks and comparisons of speed. If you know of others, or if you get inspired enough to write up and publish any after reading my rant here, please let me know! Not only is it fun and ego-boosting to see our project win, but I also want to learn from them and see where we’re lacking and if anyone beats us in a test, it’d be great to see what we could do to improve.