4 ms·
Fair warning: Page 1 transfers about 8.3MB with 1,000+ HTTP requests. And will likely bring back memories of the 90s.
by cmg 5y ago
Fair warning: Page 1 transfers about 8.3MB with 1,000+ HTTP requests. And will likely bring back memories of the 90s.
- GloriousKoji 5y agoSo... on par with any modern website (minus the 90s)?
- cmg 5y agoAs theandrewbailey said, it would absolutely benefit from HTTP/2 - it took about 30 seconds to complete on my fast cable connection on a laptop.
- chrismorgan 5y agoAnd with higher latency it’s even worse: from Australia, latency to the server was over 350ms (going the long way round, via the USA, for some reason), and it took 80 seconds to load. With HTTP/2, it could have taken as little as two seconds to load, and I’d expect it to take less than eight seconds.
- NelsonMinar 5y agoImagine loading this page in the 90s though! One new HTTP connection at a time, a full TCP handshake. Maybe if you were lucky you were using Netscape which would load up to 4 resources at once!
- chrisco255 5y ago8MB would take all night on my 2400 baud modem.
- cyberge99 5y agoWe were hacking back then too. pipelining:true (Not really a hack, but a lesser known optimization)
- andai 5y agoI remember enabling this in Firefox. Why wasn't it the default?
- mook 5y agoI believe they had reports of popular transparent proxies that broke with it set, and the users involved typically weren't in a situation to not use those proxies.
- wolrah 5y agoThis is of course why we now have QUIC now, and why it's explicitly designed to be as opaque as practically possible to middleboxes.
- sverhagen 5y agoI saw the slow loading of the page, and it made me confident that Hacker News will take it down soon enough.
- theandrewbailey 5y agoThis site would benefit greatly from HTTP 2.0, but it's kinda cool to see each banner load one after another.
- coldacid 5y agoYeah, the speed at which it loaded definitely brought back that 90s feeling.
- rasz 5y agoLoads as fast as modern YouTube.