- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:59:52 -0700
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, "Adalberto Foresti (MS OPEN TECH)" <aforesti@microsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbeugXO1P+gcyYPBA4KEszu2fzEZ=mEprqLWO1=zVsCrdw@mail.gmail.com>
Excellent to see this kind of analysis being performed. A few comments inline.. On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen < henrikn@microsoft.com> wrote: [snip] > The SPDY proposal has been great for raising awareness of Web performance. > It takes a “clean slate” approach to improving HTTP. > > To compare the performance of SPDY with HTTP/1.1 we have run tests > comparing download times of several public web sites using a controlled > tested study. The test uses publically available software run with mostly > default configurations while applying all the currently available > optimizations to HTTP/1.1. You can find a preliminary report on the test > results here: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=170059. The > results mirror other data ( > http://www.guypo.com/technical/not-as-spdy-as-you-thought) that indicate > mixed results with SPDY performance. > > Our results indicate almost equal performance between SPDY and HTTP/1.1 > when one applies all the known optimizations to HTTP/1.1. SPDY’s > performance improvements are not consistent and significant. We will > continue our testing, and we welcome others to publish their results so > that HTTP/2.0 can choose the best changes and deliver the best possible > performance and scalability improvements compared to HTTP/1.1.**** > > ** > One of the frustrating issues for me, so far, is that nearly all of the discussion around HTTP/2.0 to date has centered around the requirements for browser clients; given the ever growing use HTTP as an enabler for integration APIs and the ever increasing number of non-browser HTTP client applications, it would be very interesting to formally compare and analyze the performance of SPDY vs. current HTTP/1.1 for *API* clients and servers. In my informal testing, I have seen very little difference, if any, between using SPDY* and a client using persistent HTTP/1.1 connections with pipelined API requests. * with the current http mapping defined in the spdy spec With a few tweaks here and there to the SPDY+HTTP mapping (e.g. the binary header encoding I had kicked around previously) I was able to squeeze a bit more out the SPDY option but the results were certainly not conclusive. This, of course, was not a formal study and my methodology was far from rigorous. A more thorough analysis would be required. - James
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:00:40 UTC