3 ms·
I think it was clear enough - it didn't say "Why Turning On HTTP/2 Is A Mistake" or "Why HTTP/2 Was A Mistake," either which would have implied universal badnes
by geofft 8y ago
I think it was clear enough - it didn't say "Why Turning On HTTP/2 Is A Mistake" or "Why HTTP/2 Was A Mistake," either which would have implied universal badness. The phrasing had me expecting a specific war story, which is what it ended up being.
Besides, I think it's quite reasonable to argue that it's a majority bad idea, even if it's not a universally bad idea. I think many people are probably in the same boat.
- otterley 8y agoWithout data, one cannot say either way. What we have before us is a single anecdotal tale. And even that tale, even if you believe it rises to the level of "data," doesn’t provide clear guidance to others, because the details of their stack and capacity are unspecified.
- titanomachy 8y agoDo you mean "anecdotal" rather than "apocryphal"? Apocryphal suggests you have reason to believe this story is untrue.
- otterley 8y agoYes - thank you for the correction.
- ricardobeat 8y agoYour argument makes sense as a generic statement, but we don’t need a statistically significant sample here. The behaviour described is a logical consequence of how the network and application layers interact and will be seen by anyone with a similar setup, not a natural event that demands more data.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- otterley 8y agoI’m not denying the probability that others similarly situated could experience similar problems. But without the data, there’s no way to know whether the author’s situation would be experienced by a majority of website operators, or even a significant minority.
- geofft 8y agoSure there is—it is my experience as a website operator and as someone familiar with the field of website operation that architectures like theirs are more common than architectures unlike theirs. Professional experience is a (highly compensated) form of gathering data.
- otterley 8y agoAnd I’ve got 20 years of such experience that concludes their architecture is less important than the fact that they simply ran out of peak capacity; and that we do not know how many sites operate so near capacity for us to conclusively determine whether a majority of them are at risk. Who’s right?
- intertextuality 8y agoThere's little difference in using "why turning on http/2 (is/was) a mistake". Is is stronger, but both imply that there is/was something wrong with it, to the point of writing an article about it. A better title would be "why turning on http/2 was a mistake (for us)." The current one implies failure due to http/2 itself, and not architectural decisions that lead to making the upgrade to http/2 not as easy as imagined.