4 ms·

This comment has a real grain of truth to it: reducing request load on your users has way more bang for the buck than changing protocols. At my company we did

This comment has a real grain of truth to it: reducing request load on your users has way more bang for the buck than changing protocols. At my company we did a test for HTTP2 and HTTP3 versus HTTP 1.1 in South America on a 4G connection. We found that Netflix loaded in less than 2 and 1/2 seconds regardless of what protocols the client supported. We determined that if we enable the HTTP2 or 3, We would save perhaps a second or two load time, but that if we reduced the request load we could perhaps save on the order of tens of seconds.

redundantly 3y ago
<insert 'Why Don't We Have Both?' meme here> Joking aside, we should be happy for any improvement that can be obtained. A single second saved for a single connection on its own is insignificant, but dozens or hundreds of connections for a single user, multiplied by the thousands or possibly millions of users, that's a huge amount of time saved.
- djha-skin 3y ago
  Sure, yeah, it's all sunshine and roses for the client, but I'm a DevOps engineer. It is very difficult on the server side. You can enable it on CDNs pretty easily these days, but enabling it on the API side is more difficult. The nginx ingress controller for kubernetes doesn't support HTTP3 yet. It supports HTTP2, but I've heard that you can get into trouble with timeouts or something if you don't tune HTTP2 right. It does look like it's doable though, certainly more doable than HTTP3. HTTP2 is a moderate lift from a systems administration standpoint, but it's also a risk. It means changing the infrastructure enough that outages can occur, so that I'd rather do this lift when things are more stable and the holiday season is over.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
BitPirate 3y ago
I'm pretty sure that Netflix operates a decent amount of servers in South America which would result in low latency connections. HTTP/3 really starts to shine once high latency and/or packetloss are involved.

redundantly 3y ago

<insert 'Why Don't We Have Both?' meme here> Joking aside, we should be happy for any improvement that can be obtained. A single second saved for a single connection on its own is insignificant, but dozens or hundreds of connections for a single user, multiplied by the thousands or possibly millions of users, that's a huge amount of time saved.

djha-skin 3y ago
Sure, yeah, it's all sunshine and roses for the client, but I'm a DevOps engineer. It is very difficult on the server side. You can enable it on CDNs pretty easily these days, but enabling it on the API side is more difficult. The nginx ingress controller for kubernetes doesn't support HTTP3 yet. It supports HTTP2, but I've heard that you can get into trouble with timeouts or something if you don't tune HTTP2 right. It does look like it's doable though, certainly more doable than HTTP3. HTTP2 is a moderate lift from a systems administration standpoint, but it's also a risk. It means changing the infrastructure enough that outages can occur, so that I'd rather do this lift when things are more stable and the holiday season is over.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

BitPirate 3y ago

I'm pretty sure that Netflix operates a decent amount of servers in South America which would result in low latency connections. HTTP/3 really starts to shine once high latency and/or packetloss are involved.