5 ms·

>And yet it's somehow being pushed as a be-all solve-all replacement But it isn't a be-all solve-all replacement. The whole point of HTTP/3 is that you can sti

>And yet it's somehow being pushed as a be-all solve-all replacement But it isn't a be-all solve-all replacement. The whole point of HTTP/3 is that you can still use HTTP/2 all you want in your build-outs, and it uses as appropriate. If large file, many packet, high speed sustained performance is your thing and you've got problems with HTTP/3, deploy it on an HTTP/2 server. Go nuts. Positively nothing will go awry. Everything will be fine. You're arguing a strawman. >Additionally, if your performance degrades even in these ideal conditions, what does this promise for non-ideal conditions? This is an absolutely nonsensical statement. HTTP/3 is quite literally built for situations where you have many small requests, often in suboptimal situations. The average web user interacting with an average web page over something other than their local ethernet connection, exchanging tens of thousands of back and forths for different resources and navigations and posts. Screeching, with moral superiority I might add, that if it pins the CPU using their oddball no-name server -- oh, and where they bizarrely forced the HTTP/3 server to use HTTP/2 congestion control because that made the results funner -- with their client machine with a CPU 1/4 the performance of my smartphone, downloading a many GB file, isn't the big win you seem to think it is.

troupo 2y ago
> If large file, many packet, high speed sustained performance is your thing and you've got problems with HTTP/3, deploy it on an HTTP/2 server. Ah yes. Basically back to some links I discussed. Oh, it's amazing but you have to be careful what you deploy, and when, and you have to switch between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 for some unspecified criteria which may or may not be better in one or another while the article we're in comments to decries "why oh why so few implement HTTP/3" > HTTP/3 is quite literally built for situations where you have many small requests, often in suboptimal situations. That is what Google markets it as, for sure. The rest of that sentence I could not parse.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  >That is what Google markets it as, for sure. Can you point me to this Google "marketing"? Google doesn't particularly care if you use HTTP/3. They don't even build it into the tools they build like Go or Dart, at least not in a timely manner. There was a passing bit of technical notes for RFCs and as they added it in Chromium, but otherwise they've been remarkably silent about it. Yet they moved trillions of web requests to HTTP/3. Maybe they really don't know what they're doing. Cloudflare also clearly hasn't the slightest, right? Fools! >while the article we're in comments to decries HTTP/3 is complex to implement. Very complex. It's pretty simple to understand why it hasn't seen wide implementation in every random tool. And for many people HTTP/2 is fine, especially as you're probably just going to drop Cloudflare (which has HTTP/3) with caching in front of it anyways.

troupo 2y ago

> If large file, many packet, high speed sustained performance is your thing and you've got problems with HTTP/3, deploy it on an HTTP/2 server. Ah yes. Basically back to some links I discussed. Oh, it's amazing but you have to be careful what you deploy, and when, and you have to switch between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 for some unspecified criteria which may or may not be better in one or another while the article we're in comments to decries "why oh why so few implement HTTP/3" > HTTP/3 is quite literally built for situations where you have many small requests, often in suboptimal situations. That is what Google markets it as, for sure. The rest of that sentence I could not parse.

llm_nerd 2y ago
>That is what Google markets it as, for sure. Can you point me to this Google "marketing"? Google doesn't particularly care if you use HTTP/3. They don't even build it into the tools they build like Go or Dart, at least not in a timely manner. There was a passing bit of technical notes for RFCs and as they added it in Chromium, but otherwise they've been remarkably silent about it. Yet they moved trillions of web requests to HTTP/3. Maybe they really don't know what they're doing. Cloudflare also clearly hasn't the slightest, right? Fools! >while the article we're in comments to decries HTTP/3 is complex to implement. Very complex. It's pretty simple to understand why it hasn't seen wide implementation in every random tool. And for many people HTTP/2 is fine, especially as you're probably just going to drop Cloudflare (which has HTTP/3) with caching in front of it anyways.