4 ms·

I 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 res

I 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Except, 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 ago
    Realistically, 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 ago
      I 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.
      - dc_gregory 11y ago
        I feel like it simplifies workflow, site design etc; serving your content from several domains is a hack and a half. I can see your point for non-greenfield dev, can't say there is a large amount of motivation to switch it out (aside from new toys!!!).
  - nl 11y ago
    >> where HTTP/1.1 can load at most 2-6 in parallel > So, to me, HTTP2 is not that interesting If you have more than 2-6 of your own resources (scripts, CSS, images) on a page it should be. Third party resources is orthogonal to that.

BrandonY 11y ago

It'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 ago
Except, 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 ago
  Realistically, 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 ago
    I 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.
    - dc_gregory 11y ago
      I feel like it simplifies workflow, site design etc; serving your content from several domains is a hack and a half. I can see your point for non-greenfield dev, can't say there is a large amount of motivation to switch it out (aside from new toys!!!).
- nl 11y ago
  >> where HTTP/1.1 can load at most 2-6 in parallel > So, to me, HTTP2 is not that interesting If you have more than 2-6 of your own resources (scripts, CSS, images) on a page it should be. Third party resources is orthogonal to that.