37 ms·
> 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. Basic
by 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.