4 ms·

Number of connections isn't that relevant with HTTP2

valarauca1 10y ago
Yes it is. The number of connections to one host isn't relevant in HTTP2. As ublock is blocking some ~20 connections these are going to different hosts. Connecting to a different host in HTTP2 is no different then HTTP1.1 If your HTTP2 is terminating at MANY boxes within your infrastructure you are failing to understand how HTTP2 works. Connections within a single TLS/TCP/IP connection are free, new TLS/TCP/IP connections cost exactly as much as before.
- majewsky 10y ago
  Come to think of it, it's pretty ironic. For years, admins have been told to move static content to a different domain to trim down the request size (since browsers won't include the cookies for the main site). Now that might reverse, and it might be best to send all HTTP requests to the same server (for large sites: most likely some load balancer or haproxy or whatever) in order to benefit from HTTP/2 multiplexing.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    HTTP/2 really seems more like a front end balancing and caching protocol. Handle your TLS/HTTP2 termination on the same boxes and use HTTP1.1 within the internal network.
jacquesm 10y ago
Unfortunately back here in the real world only about 10% or so of all websites support HTTP/2 so it is very relevant.
- jansenv 10y ago
  That can be fixed just as easily as reducing the number of requests.
- lclarkmichalek 10y ago
  Given this article is about how you can improve _your_ response times, I think the author and audience probably have the the ability to implement HTTP2.
- dalore 10y ago
  Adding http2 is easier then reducing the number of requests. And infact reducing the number of requests using things like spritemaps, bundling js and css is actually an antipattern with http2.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > And infact reducing the number of requests using things like spritemaps, bundling js and css is actually an antipattern with http2. Those are just ways to lose some of the impact of bloat without addressing the bloat itself. If you address bloat directly it will benefit all users.
    - tuxracer 10y ago
      If you migrate to HTTP2 or move to a host that already supports it then cutting down on "round trips" is an obsolete concern altogether.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        HTTP2 does not magically bundle all connections to one. It still very much depends on how you build up your page.
        floatboth 10y ago
        It does not magically split one connections into many. One domain == one connection. Sure it won't undo your "domain sharding" hacks and merge your CDNs, yeah :)
    - dalore 10y ago
      If you shard on http2 it will take longer since now it makes multiple ssl connections which have have the ssl handshake. With http2 it's all multiplexed into one connection. So you have the one ssl connection, but that one connection has multiplexed connections inside it. And since it's one tcp, the tcp sliding window has opened up and is actually faster then opening a new tcp connection.
- viggity 10y ago
  yeah, but we're talking about what website operators can do to speed up their site. you can try to dramatically reduce the number of files you need to send. OR, you can just enable HTTP2. HTTP2 seems like a more simple answer.
  - hueving 10y ago
    HTTP2 doesn't magically change the number of hosts you communicate with (CDNs, ad networks, tracking providers, etc) and most importantly, it doesn't reduce the amount of shit developers are piling onto web pages.

Yes it is. The number of connections to one host isn't relevant in HTTP2. As ublock is blocking some ~20 connections these are going to different hosts. Connecting to a different host in HTTP2 is no different then HTTP1.1 If your HTTP2 is terminating at MANY boxes within your infrastructure you are failing to understand how HTTP2 works. Connections within a single TLS/TCP/IP connection are free, new TLS/TCP/IP connections cost exactly as much as before.

majewsky 10y ago
Come to think of it, it's pretty ironic. For years, admins have been told to move static content to a different domain to trim down the request size (since browsers won't include the cookies for the main site). Now that might reverse, and it might be best to send all HTTP requests to the same server (for large sites: most likely some load balancer or haproxy or whatever) in order to benefit from HTTP/2 multiplexing.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  HTTP/2 really seems more like a front end balancing and caching protocol. Handle your TLS/HTTP2 termination on the same boxes and use HTTP1.1 within the internal network.

jacquesm 10y ago

Unfortunately back here in the real world only about 10% or so of all websites support HTTP/2 so it is very relevant.

jansenv 10y ago
That can be fixed just as easily as reducing the number of requests.
lclarkmichalek 10y ago
Given this article is about how you can improve _your_ response times, I think the author and audience probably have the the ability to implement HTTP2.
dalore 10y ago
Adding http2 is easier then reducing the number of requests. And infact reducing the number of requests using things like spritemaps, bundling js and css is actually an antipattern with http2.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > And infact reducing the number of requests using things like spritemaps, bundling js and css is actually an antipattern with http2. Those are just ways to lose some of the impact of bloat without addressing the bloat itself. If you address bloat directly it will benefit all users.
  - tuxracer 10y ago
    If you migrate to HTTP2 or move to a host that already supports it then cutting down on "round trips" is an obsolete concern altogether.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      HTTP2 does not magically bundle all connections to one. It still very much depends on how you build up your page.
      - floatboth 10y ago
        It does not magically split one connections into many. One domain == one connection. Sure it won't undo your "domain sharding" hacks and merge your CDNs, yeah :)
  - dalore 10y ago
    If you shard on http2 it will take longer since now it makes multiple ssl connections which have have the ssl handshake. With http2 it's all multiplexed into one connection. So you have the one ssl connection, but that one connection has multiplexed connections inside it. And since it's one tcp, the tcp sliding window has opened up and is actually faster then opening a new tcp connection.
viggity 10y ago
yeah, but we're talking about what website operators can do to speed up their site. you can try to dramatically reduce the number of files you need to send. OR, you can just enable HTTP2. HTTP2 seems like a more simple answer.
- hueving 10y ago
  HTTP2 doesn't magically change the number of hosts you communicate with (CDNs, ad networks, tracking providers, etc) and most importantly, it doesn't reduce the amount of shit developers are piling onto web pages.