6 ms·
http://www.http2demo.io/ http://www.http2demo.io/
by AdrianRossouw 11y ago
http://www.http2demo.io/ http://www.http2demo.io/
- anc84 11y agoHTTP/1.1 1.37s HTTP/2 1.46s
- matt4077 11y ago14s vs. 0.5s (Safari / OS X El Capitan). Quite impressive. I wonder if there's some setting wrong that makes this take 14s for me using http/1. Any ideas? Edit: same with Chrome and similar on Sarafi/iPhone (6s vs 0.6). I wonder if the difference is magnified by higher latency because I'm in Europe? If yes, I guess http/2 is a godsend for all non-Americans.
- odonnellryan 11y agoI've run it a few times. It seems to depend on normal networking conditions, which makes sense. I've had 1 run as low as 1sec and as high as 6.
- Vespasian 11y agoEurope is not the main cause. I'm getting 1.2s vs 0.6s consistently.
- callesgg 11y agoYour ISP is doing some nasty stuff.
- seiji 11y agoMine was HTTP/1.1 at 1.44s versus HTTP/2 at 0.54s. (connection speed: 330 mbps (ethernet->cable modem); client: chrome 46.0.2490.22)
- IMTDb 11y agoGot 1.71 (HTTP/1) vs 2.40 (HTTP/2) at the first test And 2.31 vs 0.64 at the second
- pbz 11y agoFor me it was: HTTP/1.1 => 3.07s vs HTTP/2 => 0.76s
- takeda 11y agoI was getting similar result in FF until :/ disabled caching, then 1&2 got very close values. So the 0.76 doesn't look accurate.
- pbz 11y agoIn incognito I got 3.33s for v1.1 and 1.24s for v2 in Chrome and 3.30s (v1.1) and 1.43s (v2) in FF. You're right that in FF/Chrome for runs N+2 I get about half of the first run (0.86s for v2) so it looks like there's some kind of caching going on -- it's still twice as fast with v2.
- jjuhl 11y agoI got 3.14s vs 1.01s on my Android smartphone with Chrome. Nice improvement.
- jdjb 11y agoBrowser? OS? HTTP/1.1: 2.06s HTTP/2: 0.45s with Chrome 45 on 64-bit Debian 8
- Pxtl 11y agoI think this website is now going through a bit of Hug of Death, since was seeing reasonable numbers before (1.3ish for http/1.1, and 0.6ish for http/2) and now I'm seeing multiple seconds for both.
- takeda 11y agoI don't think this test is accurate. I do get better times for 2 on Firefox, but if I start Firebug and disable caching, the http 1 time does not change, but http 2 is bigger and at that point 2 is better by fraction of second (sometimes worse). Interestingly on Konqueror http is consistently worse than http 1. If a page that was designed to highlight performance of something that http 2 should be better at (making many small requests) doesn't show drastic improvement and sometimes http 2 looks worse, makes me doubt whether http 2 brings anything to the table
- tracker1 11y agoBecause users are typically running with firebug enabled, and caching disabled. This could be an issue with inspection of http2 traffic having more overhead when you are listening in... not an issue with the protocol or the test. I'm not saying the test is "fair" but what you're describing isn't a fair scenario at all. I'm not sure if the latest fiddler or other dev proxy supports http2, but that might be a better way to judge. Also, are you sure the the version of Konqueror you are using is actually using http2, or a fallback to 1.1?
- Rangi42 11y agoHTTP/1.1: 1.53s, 1.97s, 1.32s, 1.65s, 1.48s = average 1.59s HTTP/2: 1.09s, 0.87s, 1.19s, 0.92s, 1.30s = average 1.07s The slowest of five HTTP/2 results is still faster than the fastest HTTP/1.1 result, and on average it's nearly 50% faster. (I'm on a 37 Mbps network in New York, using Firefox 40.0.3 on Windows 8.1 with a cleared cache.)
- bjeanes 11y agoIn Australia, where the median latency to the rest of the internet is 200-300ms the difference would be remarkably higher. On this page, I get 5s vs 1.5s.
- Steltek 11y agoHTTP 1.1 - 0.64s, 2.0 - 0.60s. Firefox Aurora, Linux. I'd like to know more about how this benchmark runs and what it's actually measuring. Page load times and responsiveness are notoriously hard to define. I don't mean to nitpick the benchmark too much, it's obviously measuring something, but it's also nice to be able to weigh it against other tests and design goals.
- knd775 11y agoIt tells you what it is measuring on the page. It downloads an array of 200 small images from a CDN to make a single larger image and times the process.
- Twirrim 11y agoTry https://http2.golang.org/ https://http2.golang.org/, while it's not benchmarking per se, there are some fun examples under https://http2.golang.org/gophertiles https://http2.golang.org/gophertiles and the code is all here: https://github.com/bradfitz/http2/tree/master/h2demo https://github.com/bradfitz/http2/tree/master/h2demo
- chucky_z 11y agoThis test 'cheats' in favor of HTTP 2.0. The problem is that there are ways around the HTTP 1.1 limitation of 'one connection, one thing,' and this test uses absolutely none of those ways. It makes a connection, receives an image, closes a connection, opens a connection, receives an image,... 200 times. The HTTP/2 test does exactly what it's designed to do: opens a lot of connections and receives the images pretty much all at once. This isn't to downplay HTTP/2, but it's something that should be noted for _this_ test.
- efaref 11y agoHmmm... http://imgur.com/WyjSpBK http://imgur.com/WyjSpBK I'm probably an outlier.
- tychuz 11y agoMy tests at home also show only ~200 ms difference.
- brobinson 11y agoNearly a 3x speedup for me. I'm about 39ms latency from the CDN hosts. (I'm in Taiwan, FF 40.0.3) http://i.imgur.com/DjTycqt.jpg http://i.imgur.com/DjTycqt.jpg
- cpeterso 11y agoThe first time I load the page in Chrome (45), the HTTP/1.1 test takes 3–5 seconds but subsequent refreshes take about 1.5s, so there must be some caching or connection keep alive that probably invalidates this test. HTTP/2 is always less than 1 second.
- solidpy 11y agoI think the caching makes it more like a real world scenario and even with it the benefits of HTTP/2 are notable.
- chc 11y agoI noticed something similar when this was posted before, but after refreshing the page a bunch of times and noting how long the resources took in Chrome Inspector, it looks to me like the CDN just occasionally takes a really long time (like, several seconds) to serve one or two images, which can easily throw the results one way or the other if it happens.
- jfoutz 11y agoHoly cow. Moto g, android 5.0.2, HSPA, chrome. http/1.1 29.75, http/2 12.87
- sandstrom 11y agoNice test. There is world map at the bottom of the page. Feels like they may have exaggerated their fiber coverage of Greenland :) http://www.http2demo.io/ http://www.http2demo.io/
- billyhoffman 11y agoI love HTTP/2 and all, but keep in mind this is literally the worst possible scenario for HTTP/1.1 and the best possible scenario for HTTP/2. - Loading 250 resources from the exact same domain, where HTTP/1.1 can load at most 2-6 in parallel - Head of line blocking since all requests are going to the same host - 4-6x as many TCP connections with HTTP/1.1, so 4-6x more likely to encounter TCP congestion/flow issues. This test is only relevant to you if your website only uses a single hostname, and loads all dependent resources from that same hostname. Sadly the median number of domains accessed for a typical webpage is 18... http://httparchive.org/trends.php http://httparchive.org/trends.php
- BrandonY 11y agoIt's certainly true that real websites use many different hostnames, but keep in mind that one of the reasons why (apart from ad networks and such) is to help pages load faster over HTTP/1.1. If that factor were removed, it'd remove the need to put together a fleet of static content servers with numbered hostnames.
- ldng 11y agoExcept, in real life, you're also loading stuff like social buttons (facebook, twitter, google plus and so on) and tracking^W marketing probes from third parties. So, to me, HTTP2 is not that interesting.
- dc_gregory 11y agoRealistically, how many sites load those assets synchronously and how many sites need them loaded to provide the main functionality? Its a stretch to write off http/2 just for that!
- ldng 11y agoI did not write off HTTP2, I just said that it is not has interesting as marketed. It's great for some usecase like tiled maps for instance. Not worth the trouble for other usecase. That's all. Akamaï already demonstrated so, not long ago.
- Sir_Cmpwn 11y agoThis demo is better, lets you adjust latency: http://http2.golang.org/gophertiles http://http2.golang.org/gophertiles
- ori_b 11y agoOdd. For me, on my work connection, HTTP 2 is consistently worse: 1.1 2.0 --- --- 2.03 3.60 2.00 3.19 1.85 1.92 1.72 3.69 2.11 4.64 2.13 4.13 1.92 2.35
- AReallyGoodName 11y agoNetwork congestion is one of those areas where the multiple parallel TCP connections used in the HTTP1 demo can improve performance for you. It's just netting you a larger share of the limited network resources at the expense of others on the network.
- Yaggo 11y agoHTTP 1.1: 2.0 s HTTP 2.0: 1.6 s Not very dramatic diffence. Location Europe, using 4G connection. HTTP 2.0 is surely nice for initial page load but for subsequent data loads I prefer websocket (in the context of SPAs).
- itsbits 11y ago"for subsequent data loads I prefer websocket" There is notable difference here. Developer needs to write code to implement server-push in Websockets but HTTP2 servers will do that for you by sending all dependancy files with a single request.