4 ms·
I wouldn't expect HN to gain much by moving to HTTP/2 or HTTP/3. Loading this page with a cold cache is just 60kB, divided as 54kB of HTML, 2kB of CSS, and 2kB
by jefftk 3y ago
I wouldn't expect HN to gain much by moving to HTTP/2 or HTTP/3. Loading this page with a cold cache is just 60kB, divided as 54kB of HTML, 2kB of CSS, and 2kB of JS, plus three tiny images. And on follow-up pageviews you only need new HTML.
If the whole web was like this then we wouldn't need new versions of HTTP, but of course it isn't.
- netol 3y agoBut would it gain something? I'm wondering if HTTP/3 could be enabled in one of my websites, which is even much smaller, and which has no blocking requests. I don't mind if the gains are small, as long as the impact is not negative for most visitors. I'm mostly concerned about some of my visitors visiting the website through an unreliable connection (mobile).
- jefftk 3y agoIt should gain a small amount; it is a more efficient protocol, with better compression and including 0-RTT for repeat visitors. But I doubt it would be noticeable on such a light site.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agoThe main thing it would get is 2x faster loading on high latency networks (because the TLS handshake happens with the same packets as the QUIC handshake).
- qingcharles 3y agoYes, I use this site as the paragon of page weight. When other sites I visit are routinely throwing 200MB (MB!) pages at me, this site is throwing 60KB, of which 54KB is content! It's the benchmark I measure all my design against.