Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?

That isn't what phk@ is arguing, however. He is arguing that HTTP/1.1 is
more 'green'.
-=R


On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
>
>