W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: SPDY Review

From: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:29:53 +0200
To: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wfler3eyiw9drz@riaa>
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:57:38 +0200, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Can you tell us more about your or Opera's operational experience with
> equivalent features?
> I'd be rapt at any such presentation!
>

We have Opera Mini that uses several different protocols, both similar to  
HTTP as well as of the persistent TCP connection type. These are all  
binary protocols using different versions of request-response, RPC, push  
features, as well as compression of different sorts. We have Opera Turbo,  
which is essentially a modified HTTP with prioritized, out-of-order  
pipelining and some simple compression. Finally we have integrations with  
different 3rd party technologies, some of which are mentioned on the press  
release pages
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2004/11/04/
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/02/06/

Not really an answer to your question though, I'm afraid. I would need  
more time (and meetings) to collect that...

>
> I agree totally that better approaches on the compression side likely  
> exist.
> I'm surprised at the numbers, though. Our experience in the past was that
> headers were significantly more compressed than you're seeing here.
>

I'm using the same data as the  
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~amer/PEL/poc/pdf/SPDY-Fan.pdf and when using  
the evaluation set they use I actually get somewhat better compression  
values (probably due to better header normalization).

/Martin Nilsson

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 16:30:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 June 2012 16:30:30 GMT