51–60 of 100 posts
Cheaper and faster than AWS Cloudfront with free custom SSL. So what is the catch? One issue is our data is on S3 and I believe that any outgoing S3 traffic to this CDN would be slow and cost money, but S3 to CloudFront is is likely prioritized and free.
Outgoing traffic from S3 has no bandwidth cost associated with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From memory request pipelining is disabled in most browsers as many intermediaries (proxies etc) screw it up, it's still vulnerable to head-of-line blocking even when it's enabled. You'd be surprised how many servers don't have keep-alive enabled, it's much more common than I'd like. I'm a great fan of HTTP/2 but I'd like to see realistic tests!
Yup, and clients also mess it up, especially when it comes to pipelining. Should also not forget about TLS session resumption. I've seen it boost server performance over 10x, TLS session negotiation is CPU bound.
Hm, HTTP/1.1 at 15.5s, HTTP/2 at 23.72s Yeah, I "can see the difference clearly", but I don't think it is the kind of difference they expected or intended. Edit: Firefox 40 on Windows 7 at work. Will try at home as well. Oddly enough, the Akamai demo someone else posted gives me 18.47s for HTTP/1.1 and 2.24s for HTTP/2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outgoing traffic from S3 has no bandwidth cost associated with it.
That isn't true. S3 has no bandwidth cost for incoming traffic, but it certainly does outgoing to the internet: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ .
This is a copy of the Akamai's http2 demo: http://http2.akamai.com
This is a copy of the Akamai's http2 demo: http://http2.akamai.com
...and if you enable pipelining in Firefox, it's only 20% slower than HTTP/2 (~1.6s vs ~1.3s).
It is a real world demo though? Similar to many of the other demo's of HTTP/2 (Gopher Tile, Akamai) it's written in a way that presents HTTP/1.x in the worst light and manages to screw things up even more. HTTP/1.1 is really latency prone so when you have a demo that uses lots of smalls requests that don't fill up the congestion window you run into a couple of problems. 1. The browser can only use a limited number of…
Regarding #4 isn't this a bit cheating, who doesn't use keep-alive. Also what about request pipelining? Doesn't that basically do the sane thing what http/2 is doing?
Ran this a couple of times in Firefox 40/Linux x86_64, HTTP/1.1 was always faster by 10-20% (~1s vs. ~1.15s).
I assume I was supposed to see the opposite result? :P
