W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: FYI: Tools to evaluate header compression algorithms

From: Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 12:34:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKRe7JF3hca6suaN=Jbzd5tiH-wyzY_eS1pwurKHh_mWZb+4Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you have some suggestions Martin?
> The obvious thing in my mind is to get submissions from site owners, but
> that takes interest on their part first. :/

HTTP Archive is now scanning ~300K top domains (at least according to
Alexa). While its still "top site" biased, I think that's a pretty good
sample to work with. I believe we should be able to get the HAR files from


> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:53 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> > wrote:
>> On 2013/01/06 14:57, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Quick follow-up:
>>> I posted more about this here:
>>>    http://www.mnot.net/blog/2013/**01/04/http2_header_compression<http://www.mnot.net/blog/2013/01/04/http2_header_compression>
>>> In particular, we have graphs for all of the HAR samples I took earlier:
>>>    http://http2.github.com/http_**samples/mnot/<http://http2.github.com/http_samples/mnot/>
>> These look very interesting. Just two points for the moment:
>> - Drawing connected curves seems misleading, because we are not
>> mesuring/showing a continuous quantity that varies over time, but discrete
>> requests and responses.
>> - The data sample includes big guys only. Some criticism of speedy has
>> said that it is geared towards the big guys. Is there a way to get some
>> more of an impression of how headers look at the long tail of websites?
>> Regards,   Martin.
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 20:35:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC