3 ms·
I think what OP was trying to convey in very few words: HTTP2 is much faster than HTTP, offsetting 50-150% (depending on what you're measuring) of the costs of
by endymi0n 10y ago
I think what OP was trying to convey in very few words: HTTP2 is much faster than HTTP, offsetting 50-150% (depending on what you're measuring) of the costs of encryption, as it's basically TLS only. For HTTP1, this is obviously false.
- zzzcpan 10y agoIn the context of streaming videos TLS encryption overhead is basically the only overhead that matters.
- erelde 10y agoIn fact in the dev blog of Youtube they showed it wasn't true. Can't find the post right now.
- zzzcpan 10y agoYou are incorrect, TLS overhead is too big to say something like that. Also on large requests, that you have in streaming, overhead of HTTP/1.1 protocol itself becomes negligible.
- Matthias247 10y agoAs someone who is implementing HTTP/2 I would also say that HTTP/2 has no advantage for high-bandwidth requests, e.g. video streaming. I would rather guess that even the unencrypted HTTP/2 variant might be slower than HTTP/1.1 in this scenario, since you now can't directly write into a TCP stream but have to interleave it with multiplexing info and have two flow control mechanisms working on top of each other. HTTP/2 will be mainly a large win for short requests, where it can avoid the large overhead of creating additional TCP connections and make header exchange more efficient.