3 ms·

Great, but interested in why it still loads up pages only marginally faster than PayPal? Seems to have kept the same page load performance this despite all the

by da_n 13y ago

Great, but interested in why it still loads up pages only marginally faster than PayPal? Seems to have kept the same page load performance this despite all the news about better servers etc. I know we don't want this place to become Reddit[1] but is there also a built-in delay implemented? [1] I can only imagine this is why the pagination still appears completely broken (unknown or expired link).

powertower 13y ago
From the looks of it, real world SPDY performance increases are non-existent for most websites due to how they are organized and served. You have to really change how your website gets served (at the cost to non-SPDY users) to get an increase in performance. Which usually ends up not even being 25%. From what I've been able to gather, especially with little to no reports of any real-world benefits (I've only seen criticism of "bad" tests from SDPY supporters, but at the same time no one has posted a "good" test), I have to say SDPY is turning out to be hot air. I'm hoping I'm wrong.
- lucb1e 13y ago
  > From the looks of it, real world SPDY performance increases are non-existent for most websites due to how they are organized and served. That, and the sites that care to implement it probably were speedy already.
- hobohacker 13y ago
  http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper has data on improvements in lab tests. http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-web-speedier-and-safer-with-spdy.html http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-web-speedier-a... has a blurb where Google announces that they've made search (already highly optimized) faster with SPDY. This is a fascinating result, because this result was obtained after Google Search switched to using HTTPS, which typically makes websites slower, but in Google's case, made it faster because of SPDY. Note that Twitter and Facebook have also adopted SPDY. I'd be rather skeptical that Google, Twitter, and Facebook would all switch to SPDY if there weren't real world benefits.
  - powertower 13y ago
    When you enable SPDY for your average website, you'll get some real world results. When you talk about Google, or Facebook, or Twitter using it to squeeze out a few extra percentage points out of their latency or bandwidth or load-time - in their very highly specialized and optimized and conditional and resourceful environment, that's about as non real world as it get for the rest of us. The fact that SPDY adaptation has mostly failed for the rest of the internet, says more about it than any white-paper or lab-result can. Again, I hope I'm wrong here.
    - lstamour 13y ago
      I can say you're going to be wrong ;-) Lots of sites are adopting it through services like CloudFlare and large shared ISPs will likely turn it on as a feature (or for all users) once the Apache/Nginx pagespeed plugins stabilize and SSL grows cheaper thanks to IPv6 addresses. The main problem is that SPDY adoption basically goes hand-in-hand with SSL adoption, and SSL hasn't taken off though it should. You wouldn't say SSL has failed, would you? ;-)

by da_n 13y ago

powertower 13y ago

From the looks of it, real world SPDY performance increases are non-existent for most websites due to how they are organized and served. You have to really change how your website gets served (at the cost to non-SPDY users) to get an increase in performance. Which usually ends up not even being 25%. From what I've been able to gather, especially with little to no reports of any real-world benefits (I've only seen criticism of "bad" tests from SDPY supporters, but at the same time no one has posted a "good" test), I have to say SDPY is turning out to be hot air. I'm hoping I'm wrong.

lucb1e 13y ago
> From the looks of it, real world SPDY performance increases are non-existent for most websites due to how they are organized and served. That, and the sites that care to implement it probably were speedy already.
hobohacker 13y ago
http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper has data on improvements in lab tests. http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-web-speedier-and-safer-with-spdy.html http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-web-speedier-a... has a blurb where Google announces that they've made search (already highly optimized) faster with SPDY. This is a fascinating result, because this result was obtained after Google Search switched to using HTTPS, which typically makes websites slower, but in Google's case, made it faster because of SPDY. Note that Twitter and Facebook have also adopted SPDY. I'd be rather skeptical that Google, Twitter, and Facebook would all switch to SPDY if there weren't real world benefits.
- powertower 13y ago
  When you enable SPDY for your average website, you'll get some real world results. When you talk about Google, or Facebook, or Twitter using it to squeeze out a few extra percentage points out of their latency or bandwidth or load-time - in their very highly specialized and optimized and conditional and resourceful environment, that's about as non real world as it get for the rest of us. The fact that SPDY adaptation has mostly failed for the rest of the internet, says more about it than any white-paper or lab-result can. Again, I hope I'm wrong here.
  - lstamour 13y ago
    I can say you're going to be wrong ;-) Lots of sites are adopting it through services like CloudFlare and large shared ISPs will likely turn it on as a feature (or for all users) once the Apache/Nginx pagespeed plugins stabilize and SSL grows cheaper thanks to IPv6 addresses. The main problem is that SPDY adoption basically goes hand-in-hand with SSL adoption, and SSL hasn't taken off though it should. You wouldn't say SSL has failed, would you? ;-)