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

Re: Performance implications of Bundling and Minification on HTTP/1.1

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:30:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYj+SgWE01Tx_1P6NVbDv56x6udssafPq=vK8-PQHCy-6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Howard Dierking <howard@microsoft.com>
Thanks for posting data here! Very much appreciated. I'm curious if you
have any normative claims to make about how this should impact HTTP/2.0
proposals. I can see arguments for how some of these techniques rightly
belong in the application layer, whereas some are working around issues in
HTTP, and we may want to address in HTTP/2.0. Oh, and I'm also curious
about your thoughts with regard to pipelining, since you brought it up in
this post and have noted that it has practical deployment issues.

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <
henrikn@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  We just published a blog [1] analyzing the performance implications of
> content optimizations such as bundling and minification on the performance
> of web pages. The data shows that by applying bundling and minification
> along with compression and pipelining it is possible to get significant
> gains in the time it takes to get the content necessary to render a page as
> well as the overall time it takes to download the data.****
>
> ** **
>
> Not only does optimizing the content save bytes but it also has savings in
> the number of requests and responses that need to be processed as well as
> faster render times due to being able to retrieve the HTML, CSS, and JS up
> front. In the test evaluated, the speedup was from 638 ms (uncompressed,
> unbundled, unminified, and not pipelined) down to 146 ms for the equivalent
> compressed, bundled, minified, and pipelined content. However, by just
> looking at the data necessary to lay out the page (HTML, CSS, and JS but
> not images), the time went from 631 ms to 126 ms with the images being
> finalized within the remaining timespan from 126 to 146 ms.****
>
> ** **
>
> It is the hope that this data can contribute to providing a baseline for
> evaluating HTTP/2.0 proposals compared to how an efficient HTTP/1.x
> implementation can perform while leverage optimizations throughout the
> stack to provide better user experience.****
>
> ** **
>
> Comments welcome!****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> Henrik****
>
> ** **
>
> [1]
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/henrikn/archive/2012/06/17/performance-implications-of-bundling-and-minification-on-http.aspx
> ****
>
> ** **
>
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 18:30:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 18:30:57 GMT