- From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 16:01:49 -0500
- To: "Jason T. Greene" <jgreene@redhat.com>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 1, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Jason T. Greene <jgreene@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sure-- I'd love to see you measure the amount of energy spent by the radio, screen, etc. on mobile devices, and the cost in terms of wasted bandwidth in keeping the channel open! >> -=R >> p.s. this line of argumentation is silly... > > I think it's totally reasonable to require that http/2 be comparable to http/1.1 proxies, balancers and servers. Sorry, premature send. What I was saying that I think its totally reasonable to expect that http/2 should offer similar performance as http/1.1 for proxies, balancers, and servers (not just clients). Otherwise, if it’s going to cost x% more for providers to switch to http/2, they just might not do it. > > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> In message <CAP+FsNdv4V8JnkYnfNMg7m_ju6NtZu4ip0zW15yFCOXqTdMbMw@mail.gmail.com> >> , Roberto Peon writes: >> >> >So, lets see.. last time we looked, [...] >> >> Hand-waving about potential secondary effects won't be enough. >> >> Lets try to get some actual measurements. >> >> -- >> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 >> phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 >> FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe >> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. >> -- Jason T. Greene WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2014 21:02:21 UTC