4 ms·

> That's just plain false across most dimensions. https://css-tricks.com/http2-real-world-performance-test-ana https://css-tricks.com/http2-real-world-performan

by mhitza 5y ago

> That's just plain false across most dimensions. https://css-tricks.com/http2-real-world-performance-test-ana https://css-tricks.com/http2-real-world-performance-test-ana... I always feel like any performance claims are nowhere near my real life experience, not even when talking about synthetic benchmarks. For example I recently set up an Apache server that returned a 304 response, on an AWS t3.micro instance and with the Apache Benchmark tool I got around 3.5k[0] requests per second. Once I've enabled HTTPS that fell to around 500 requests per second. From what I've read at the time (because I was aware of the general consensus that they should have comparable performance), there is some type of underlying hardware feature the TLS decryption/encryption routine can use to speed things up, but it's only available in AWS in m3 type instances and above. Read it from a Mozilla (I think) article, that I couldn't find again right now. [0] that 3.5k/500 rps might be higher for you because I used maxminddb IP mapping on each requests which I'm sure adds some considerable factor to the rps.

SahAssar 5y ago
If all your server does is respond with a single small no-body response, then yes http will be much quicker. If you do a somewhat normal page (even something considered small by current standards like 5-10 resources each being 10-ish kb) it will be a wash or http2 will be better.
kadoban 5y ago
Relying on microbenchmarks is always dangerous.
- naniwaduni 5y ago
  Still, it's not a great look when your claim that something is "just plain false" is readily disproved by the obvious microbenchmark. You can certainly argue that it doesn't matter, other factors mitigate it, &c., but at least then you can have the honest talk about how that's true and why you need encryption to make those optimizations. ... except that you don't, they're flagged behind https expressly to strongarm https implementation.

by mhitza 5y ago

SahAssar 5y ago

If all your server does is respond with a single small no-body response, then yes http will be much quicker. If you do a somewhat normal page (even something considered small by current standards like 5-10 resources each being 10-ish kb) it will be a wash or http2 will be better.

kadoban 5y ago

Relying on microbenchmarks is always dangerous.

naniwaduni 5y ago
Still, it's not a great look when your claim that something is "just plain false" is readily disproved by the obvious microbenchmark. You can certainly argue that it doesn't matter, other factors mitigate it, &c., but at least then you can have the honest talk about how that's true and why you need encryption to make those optimizations. ... except that you don't, they're flagged behind https expressly to strongarm https implementation.