2 ms·
Yeah, but you don't need SPDY as much on the application servers as you do the frontline servers (Apache, nginx, lighttpd...) where its benefits are more pronou
by LeafStorm 15y ago
Yeah, but you don't need SPDY as much on the application servers as you do the frontline servers (Apache, nginx, lighttpd...) where its benefits are more pronounced.
- dhotson 15y agoExcellent point. A SPDY->HTTP proxy or SPDY support in tools like perlbal, squid and Varnish would go a long way.
- wycats 15y agoApache already has a mod-spdy (https://code.google.com/p/mod-spdy/ https://code.google.com/p/mod-spdy/), and varnish is in wait-and-see mode (https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/2011-April/006084.html https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/2... "SPDY isn't even an official IETF draft yet") I agree. Getting SPDY into Apache, ngnix, varnish, squid etc. would be all we need to get the benefits of this new protocol. The front-end SPDY server could then communicate via HTTP via a low-latency connection.
- pingswept 15y agoNginx reports that it is in the works, but no ETA: http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,217299,217325 http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,217299,217325