2 ms·

I 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 h

by takeda 11y ago

I 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 ago
Because 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?