3 ms·

Apart from it's a couple of years old… There are also a number of potential shortcomings and details missing from the study e.g. you've only got to look at htt

Apart from it's a couple of years old… There are also a number of potential shortcomings and details missing from the study e.g. you've only got to look at httparchive.org, to see the dummy page isn't representative of real world pages, and then they used similar small pages for the other sites. We also don't have any information on the TLS setup e.g. was it well optimized etc. The study provides some interesting datapoints but would benefit from further research

bsdetector 12y ago
> to see the dummy page isn't representative of real world pages, and then they used similar small pages for the other sites. If you believe the SPDY marketing material that one of the reasons behind it is to reduce delay from TCP window expansion then small sites should be where it shines. A small site is more influenced by time to 'ramp up' connections. Yet it appears to be slower on small sites. Also, bbc.com and greenweddingshoes.com (now 10 MiB) are small pages? Hardly. It's pretty clear to me with the slew of basic errors and oversights in Google's numbers that performance wasn't the motivation behind this protocol. I'm scratching my head trying to understand what they were thinking.