3 ms·
It's fine on a simple site. But lack of SSL/TLS also effectively disables http2 which is a performance hit, not just a security concern.
by kdmtctl 2y ago
It's fine on a simple site. But lack of SSL/TLS also effectively disables http2 which is a performance hit, not just a security concern.
- drpixie 2y ago>>I don't force you to use SSL/TLS to connect here. Use it if you want, but if you can't, hey, that's fine, too. She accepts http AND https requests. So it's your choice, you want to know who you're talking to, or you want speed :)
- GuB-42 2y agoHTTP/2 doesn't matter in this case, there are only 4 files to transfer. The webpage itself (html), then the style sheet (css), then the feed icon and favicon. You can do with only the html, the css makes it look better, and the other two are not very important. It means that HTTP/2 will likely degrade performance because of the TLS handshake, and you won't benefit from multiplexing because there is not much to load in parallel. The small improvement in header size won't make up for what TLS adds. And this is just about network latency and bandwidth. HTTP/2 takes a lot more CPU and RAM than plain HTTP/1.1. Same thing for HTTP/3. Anyways, it matters even less here because this website isn't lacking SSL/TLS, it just doesn't force you to use it.
- homebrewer 2y agoI have pings in excess of 300 ms to her site. TCP connections need a lot of time to "warm up" before speeds become acceptable. It's easy to say things like "http2 does not matter" when you're single digit milliseconds away from all major datacenters.
- GuB-42 2y agoHTTP/2 matters on bloated websites with tons of external resources, it is not the case here. HTTP/2 will not get you the first HTML page faster and this is the only thing needed here to start showing you something. In terms of round trips, HTTP/1.1 without TLS will do one less than HTTP/2 with TLS, and as much as HTTP/3 with TLS.