3 ms·

>> Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? > I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. Could you explain that? I've

by ldng 7y ago

>> Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? > I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. Could you explain that? I've seen a few CDN having a page loading a grid of image in HTTP/1 at page load, and then load the same stuff with HTTP/2 on a button click. It indeed shows you a nice speed up. Except, when you block the first HTTP/1 load and start with loading with HTTP/2 first and flush cache between loads, the speedup vanishes. The test is disingenuous, it is not testing HTTP/2 but DNS cache velocity. So, those type of website makes me rather cautious. And the test, for the small scale workloads I work with, have not been very conclusive. Do you have serious articles on the matter to recommend ? Preferably not CDN provider trying to sell me there stuff.

klodolph 7y ago
> Except, when you block the first HTTP/1 load and start with loading with HTTP/2 first and flush cache between loads, the speedup vanishes. The test is disingenuous, it is not testing HTTP/2 but DNS cache velocity. The demos I’ve seen use different domain names for the HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 tests. This makes sense, because how else would you make one set of resources load with HTTP/1 and the other with HTTP/2? This deflates your DNS caching theory. I didn’t rely on tests by CDNs, though. I measured my own website! Accept no substitute! The differences are most dramatic over poor network connections and increase with the number of assets. I had the “privilege” of using a high-RTT, high congestion (high packet loss) satellite connection earlier this year and difference is bigger. What I like about it is that I feel like I have more freedom from CDNs and complicated tooling. Instead of using a complicated JS/CSS bundling pipeline, I can just use a bunch of <script>/<link>/"@import/import". Instead of relying on a CDN for large assets like JS libraries or fonts, I can just host them on the same server, because it’s less hassle with HTTP/2. If anything, I feel like HTTP/2 makes it easier to make a self-sufficient site. Finally, HTTP/2 is so dead-simple to set up on your own server, most of the time. It’s a simple config setting.

by ldng 7y ago

klodolph 7y ago

> Except, when you block the first HTTP/1 load and start with loading with HTTP/2 first and flush cache between loads, the speedup vanishes. The test is disingenuous, it is not testing HTTP/2 but DNS cache velocity. The demos I’ve seen use different domain names for the HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 tests. This makes sense, because how else would you make one set of resources load with HTTP/1 and the other with HTTP/2? This deflates your DNS caching theory. I didn’t rely on tests by CDNs, though. I measured my own website! Accept no substitute! The differences are most dramatic over poor network connections and increase with the number of assets. I had the “privilege” of using a high-RTT, high congestion (high packet loss) satellite connection earlier this year and difference is bigger. What I like about it is that I feel like I have more freedom from CDNs and complicated tooling. Instead of using a complicated JS/CSS bundling pipeline, I can just use a bunch of <script>/<link>/"@import/import". Instead of relying on a CDN for large assets like JS libraries or fonts, I can just host them on the same server, because it’s less hassle with HTTP/2. If anything, I feel like HTTP/2 makes it easier to make a self-sufficient site. Finally, HTTP/2 is so dead-simple to set up on your own server, most of the time. It’s a simple config setting.