- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:10:24 +1100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <2434962A-9DEF-411A-BB56-B36A065F39CC@mnot.net>
Works for me (Chrome 35 and 42). > On 20 Jan 2015, at 10:28 pm, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > > Agreed that if Chrome is quietly taking ftp: off the list, then that is a cause for this list's concern > > I suggest one change the subject in the hope that the thread fork will be managed by some mail readers. > (like e.g. above). > > timbl > > > > On 2015-01 -20, at 02:25, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote: > >> Chris Palmer wrote: >>> >>> Noah Mendelsohn wrote: >>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NoSnooping.html >>> >>> """This takes a lot of server CPU cycles, making server farms more >>> expensive. It would slow the user's computer. It would effectively >>> slow down the whole net.""" >>> >>> That was not true in 2009, and it's certainly not true now. >>> >> >> Show me any review of Celeron or Sempron server CPUs on tomshardware or >> anandtech which support your contention. I'm a dinosaur who'd rather >> purchase old systems vs. new CPUs in the $50-$60 range to handle way >> more unencrypted Web traffic, but I see TBL's point (then and now) vis- >> a-vis server farms. Especially when I look at "cloud" hosting rates >> nowadays -- at these prices I can't cost-justify retaining independence >> by running my own hardware, assuming ubiquitous HTTPS. >> >> User CPUs are now soldered on with integrated GPUs, but I think we can >> agree that's irrelevant to user-perceived performance nowadays, even >> back in 2009. Network slowdowns are ulikely, but more expensive server >> farms is spot-on from my POV. >> >> Please don't leave it to me, or TBL, to undertake the research showing >> how much of the Web is hosted on Celeron and Sempron processors, or >> shows how badly their performance degrades when handling HTTPS-centric >> loads. IMNSHO, claiming that even 5+ years ago this was a fallacy, puts >> the onus on you to back it up with verifiable numbers which discount >> what I've been reading on tomshardware, anandtech, etc. regarding CPU >> performance on Web workloads over that timeframe. >> >> Your arguments assume various processor enhancements which have yet to >> filter down, with no guarantee they will anytime soon; after this many >> years I'm not willing to bank on promises they will at the $50-$60 CPU >> cost driving the commodity webhosting/cloud industries. I'm also not >> willing to assume that budget hosting plays on Celeron and Sempron CPUs >> falls under the 80/20 Mendoza line. >> >> What I don't have, is the wherewithal to undertake such research >> myself. Had it occured to me, I'd certainly have collected an arsenal of >> bookmarks supporting my contention for the sake of future mailing-list >> discussions. My first multi-core CPU was what, 2002-ish? But just made >> it to Celeron last year? This tells me that optimizations for ubiquitous >> HTTPS are a ways off for budget server CPU purchasers, unless proven >> otherwise, based on experience. >> >> -Eric >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 23:11:01 UTC