Hi, On 11/24/13 8:22 AM, Mike Belshe wrote: > But I don't want to hold up progress on HTTP/2.0 for everyone because > of a very minority claim that legacy hardware performance is bad. You're arguing a false premise. That is- web sites that are looking at aggregate costs in a competitive market compare against performance of their peers. This factors out legacy h/w. I hesitate to go further because the data here can lead to ambiguous interpretations, but it's a sure bet that there will be classes of environments that have certain performance characteristics that make HTTP/2 palatable, and others where perhaps that tradeoff isn't worth it. Wang et. al. at the University of Washington have recently done some excellent work on SPDY/3 that gives us a taste for this.[1] Eliot [1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi13/nsdi13-final177.pdfReceived on Monday, 25 November 2013 07:31:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:39 UTC