4 ms·

The perf benefits are mainly for the big companies [namely, Google, Mozilla, and few others]. Hard to see any real ones for the rest of the world.

by xroche 8y ago

zamadatix 8y ago
The punishments for not "building/packaging/spriting" your website/app are way lower thanks to the multiplexing. Smaller shops either didn't know or didn't have the time to care about this and it added seconds to the page load in many cases. Now it's fixed (not that you shouldn't still build/package/sprite in appropriate cases) by just using HTTP/2.
- sametmax 8y ago
  A shop that doesn't do package/sprinting is unlikely to even know about http2 nor being able to deploy it. I doubt you can setup nginx if you can't even run a minifier from the command line.
  - SEJeff 8y ago
    CPanel hosted websites... Hold my css
  - londons_explore 8y ago
    They typically use web hosts who will deploy http/2 for you.
drewg123 8y ago
The problem is that QUIC, due to using UDP and not trusting the NIC to do segmentation or crypto offload, is incredibly expensive on the server side. You're paying costs upwards of a factor of 4 as compared to TCP for quality of experience gains that are questionable when compared to TCP. This doesn't matter for small sites, or for clients. But when you're serving 190Gb/s from a single box, paying 4x per byte really hurts.
- ldng 8y ago
  Which Google can afford. Oh look your small independent cloud provider is slow, come to Google Cloud. They've been subverting standards to push up the cost of entry and very few people have calling them out ...
  - dagenix 8y ago
    The article is literally about the IETF standards body making a decision. If working with the IETF to propose and refine a new technology is, by your definition, "subverting standards" I really am at a loss for what a company should be doing.
    - ldng 8y ago
      It's not one standard. It's about having a huge head on the on all the important internet standards and pushing their cloud interests. It designed to work well at their scale on their network you connect to directly. The standard group should taking into small and medium provider but there not really. Who has the resources to follow Google's multi-azimuth "standardisation" pace ?
      - dagenix 8y ago
        > It's not one standard. Do you have specifics? > It's about having a huge head on the on all the important internet standards and pushing their cloud interests Is Google not supposed to be trying to improve the services they offer? > It designed to work well at their scale on their network you connect to directly. I don't see any reason why QUIC won't be perfectly usable on most networks and that is what the article was about. I'm not sure what standard Google is spearheading which is only going to be useful on networks their size and will someone harm other networks. > The standard group should taking into small and medium provider but there not really. Again, what is an example of this? > Who has the resources to follow Google's multi-azimuth "standardisation" pace ? I really don't see what the issue here is - Google is spearheading new standards. In doing so, it's working with the IETF to develop those standards. I'm not aware of any indication that its working in bad faith or subverting IETF processes. The IETF process is fairly open. No one can follow everything happening in technology all the time - too much is going on. It seems like you are saying that Google should stop or artificially slow its work with standards bodies so that outside observers unaffiliated with those bodies can follow more closely?
theandrewbailey 8y ago
My (already minimal) blog's load time was almost halved by using HTTP2. There are real benefits for small sites/companies.
SquareWheel 8y ago
Not here. I've seen significant performance improvements from HTTP/2 across dozens of small sites.

The perf benefits are mainly for the big companies [namely, Google, Mozilla, and few others]. Hard to see any real ones for the rest of the world.

by xroche 8y ago

The perf benefits are mainly for the big companies [namely, Google, Mozilla, and few others]. Hard to see any real ones for the rest of the world.

zamadatix 8y ago

The punishments for not "building/packaging/spriting" your website/app are way lower thanks to the multiplexing. Smaller shops either didn't know or didn't have the time to care about this and it added seconds to the page load in many cases. Now it's fixed (not that you shouldn't still build/package/sprite in appropriate cases) by just using HTTP/2.

sametmax 8y ago
A shop that doesn't do package/sprinting is unlikely to even know about http2 nor being able to deploy it. I doubt you can setup nginx if you can't even run a minifier from the command line.
- SEJeff 8y ago
  CPanel hosted websites... Hold my css
- londons_explore 8y ago
  They typically use web hosts who will deploy http/2 for you.

drewg123 8y ago

The problem is that QUIC, due to using UDP and not trusting the NIC to do segmentation or crypto offload, is incredibly expensive on the server side. You're paying costs upwards of a factor of 4 as compared to TCP for quality of experience gains that are questionable when compared to TCP. This doesn't matter for small sites, or for clients. But when you're serving 190Gb/s from a single box, paying 4x per byte really hurts.

ldng 8y ago
Which Google can afford. Oh look your small independent cloud provider is slow, come to Google Cloud. They've been subverting standards to push up the cost of entry and very few people have calling them out ...
- dagenix 8y ago
  The article is literally about the IETF standards body making a decision. If working with the IETF to propose and refine a new technology is, by your definition, "subverting standards" I really am at a loss for what a company should be doing.
  - ldng 8y ago
    It's not one standard. It's about having a huge head on the on all the important internet standards and pushing their cloud interests. It designed to work well at their scale on their network you connect to directly. The standard group should taking into small and medium provider but there not really. Who has the resources to follow Google's multi-azimuth "standardisation" pace ?
    - dagenix 8y ago
      > It's not one standard. Do you have specifics? > It's about having a huge head on the on all the important internet standards and pushing their cloud interests Is Google not supposed to be trying to improve the services they offer? > It designed to work well at their scale on their network you connect to directly. I don't see any reason why QUIC won't be perfectly usable on most networks and that is what the article was about. I'm not sure what standard Google is spearheading which is only going to be useful on networks their size and will someone harm other networks. > The standard group should taking into small and medium provider but there not really. Again, what is an example of this? > Who has the resources to follow Google's multi-azimuth "standardisation" pace ? I really don't see what the issue here is - Google is spearheading new standards. In doing so, it's working with the IETF to develop those standards. I'm not aware of any indication that its working in bad faith or subverting IETF processes. The IETF process is fairly open. No one can follow everything happening in technology all the time - too much is going on. It seems like you are saying that Google should stop or artificially slow its work with standards bodies so that outside observers unaffiliated with those bodies can follow more closely?

theandrewbailey 8y ago

My (already minimal) blog's load time was almost halved by using HTTP2. There are real benefits for small sites/companies.

SquareWheel 8y ago

Not here. I've seen significant performance improvements from HTTP/2 across dozens of small sites.