4 ms·

There has been one realistic test that I know of, done by Microsoft Research, and they found pipelining to be basically equivalent to HTTP/2. But that doesn't

There has been one realistic test that I know of, done by Microsoft Research, and they found pipelining to be basically equivalent to HTTP/2. But that doesn't fit the narrative. Did Google ever test against pipelining? Did IETF? No, they didn't. Did Google ever show the effect of head-of-line blocking on page load speed, especially when spread over several independent TCP connections? No, they didn't. Why didn't they do this basic research before pushing their new protocol? They just said "it's 40% faster! rubber stamp this because it's in Chrome!" and some of their fans even created stacked demos where pipelining wouldn't be used (perhaps unintentionally, but still invalid comparisons).

youngtaff 11y ago
Is it this paper - http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/170059/A%20comparison%20of%20SPDY%20and%20HTTP%20performance.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/170059/A%20comparison%20o... I think if you read back though people like Will Chan's and others blogs it becomes clear that pipelining doesn't work reliably enough outside a test lab environment plus HoL blocking is still an issue for it
- bsdetector 11y ago
  "Doesn't work reliably enough" doesn't answer the question of why Google didn't test HTTP/2 against pipelining. None of Google's performance improvement claims compared to pipelining, and they've never demonstrated or quantified an actual real-world head of line blocking problem (ironically, other than Google Maps loading very slowly in HTTP/2 because of a priority inversion). Will Chan is the guy that wrote "it’s unclear what these intermediaries are". Oh well, there's some bad software out there, let's just make a whole new protocol /s. Fix the bad software, or at least find out what it is. If it's malware causing the problems, you don't need to make a whole new protocol you can just get rid of the malware.

youngtaff 11y ago

Is it this paper - http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/170059/A%20comparison%20of%20SPDY%20and%20HTTP%20performance.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/170059/A%20comparison%20o... I think if you read back though people like Will Chan's and others blogs it becomes clear that pipelining doesn't work reliably enough outside a test lab environment plus HoL blocking is still an issue for it

bsdetector 11y ago
"Doesn't work reliably enough" doesn't answer the question of why Google didn't test HTTP/2 against pipelining. None of Google's performance improvement claims compared to pipelining, and they've never demonstrated or quantified an actual real-world head of line blocking problem (ironically, other than Google Maps loading very slowly in HTTP/2 because of a priority inversion). Will Chan is the guy that wrote "it’s unclear what these intermediaries are". Oh well, there's some bad software out there, let's just make a whole new protocol /s. Fix the bad software, or at least find out what it is. If it's malware causing the problems, you don't need to make a whole new protocol you can just get rid of the malware.