3 ms·
The argument about computing power and CO2 pollution is misguided. HTTP/2 no longer requires encryption, so the TLS/non-TLS trade-offs remain the same as before
by ak217 12y ago
The argument about computing power and CO2 pollution is misguided. HTTP/2 no longer requires encryption, so the TLS/non-TLS trade-offs remain the same as before (and their compute impact is mitigated by hardware AES support, etc.). The other relevant changes (SPDY, header compression, push) reduce the number of context switches and network round-trips required and the total time required for devices to spend in high power mode, and for the user to spend waiting. That results in a reduction, not increase, in total power consumption.
Taking server CPU utilization numbers as an indicator of total power consumption is pretty misguided in this context, and my understanding is that even those are optimized (and will continue to be optimized) to the point where TLS and SPDY have negligible overhead (or, in the case of SPDY, may even result in lower CPU usage).
- phkamp 12y agoShow me the mainstream browsers that will use HTTP/2 without SSL/TLS ? The difference between you and me, may be that I have spent a lot of time measuring computers power usage doing all sorts of things. You seem to be mostly guessing ?
- ak217 12y agoI don't have Kill-a-Watts or rack PDU data for fleets of webservers, unfortunately. What I do have is CPU performance data from running with and without SSL gateways and SPDY in production, and all I can say is that the server's CPU utilization is not significantly impacted by them. I also have client-side data that shows substantial load speed improvements when using SPDY. That should result in a C-state profile improvement on the CPU, but I'll need to collect more data to confirm.