[Ono-Sendai]

Pretty stupid article, -1 flamebait.

One thing I have always wondered about these waterfall comparisons is why http 1.1. is slower. Since http 1.1 has keepalive, a browser should be able to send multiple requests upfront to the server, and the server can then stream them back. The lower limit on transfer time should therefore depend only on bandwidth.

[JonathonW]

The big thing that HTTP/2 brings as far as pipelining is concerned is that requests and responses can be multiplexed over the same connection to avoid the head-of-line blocking problem with HTTP/1.1. HTTP/1.1 requires pipelined responses to be sent strictly in the order they're requested; HTTP/2 can send responses in any order or even multiplexed/interleaved (hence the network activity graph from the OP).

Also, most browsers don't enable HTTP pipelining by default-- they'll reuse a connection if possible, but won't make multiple requests at once for compatibility reasons. Chrome even supported it for a while, but had to remove it because it didn't work (bugs in Chrome, bugs in servers, and the head-of-line blocking problem made it not worth keeping) [1].

[1] https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/network...

[bsdetector]

Head of line blocking is mostly a theoretical concern not a practical one. Since browsers use 6+ connections at once, a large slow request will only hold up a few resources and usually doesn't affect the page load speed by much. In fact, as shown recently interleaving can actually slow down the page rendering. Then there's the priority system, an inversion of which caused Google Maps to load far more slowly over HTTP/2. The main problem solved by interleaving responses is when there are 6 slow resources that tie up all the connections causing deadlock, which is because of browsers capping the number of connections.

Google spread a lot of FUD in their push to get SPDY standardized. For instance they never compared to pipelining, which is relevant because Microsoft found that with pipelining HTTP was essentially just as fast. Google's mobile test where they claimed ~40% speedup used 1 SPDY TCP connection for the entire simulated test run of many sites vs new connections per site for HTTP -- a simple mistake? Maybe, but they didn't take any steps to correct it once they were made aware of it.

[johntb86]

https://http2.github.io/faq/#why-is-http2-multiplexed

[Ono-Sendai]

From the link

"HTTP/1.x has a problem called “head-of-line blocking,” where effectively only one request can be outstanding on a connection at a time."

Does it? Why?

[JonathonW]

In HTTP/1.1, more than one request can be outstanding at a time, but responses must be delivered by the server in the order they're received (this is required by the HTTP/1.1 spec).

The head-of-line blocking problem actually refers to that behavior-- if I have two requests, one of which is for a 2 MB file and one of which is for a 1 KB file, and I send the 2 MB request first, the server's obligated to completely finish the 2 MB response before it can send the 1 KB file. This isn't great for perceived performance, and runs contrary to how a user expects their web browser to behave (let the small stuff appear first, then let the big stuff finish downloading as it can). HTTP/2 corrects this oversight and allows (through multiplexing) a single connection to behave more like multiple connections would in HTTP/1.1 (multiple transfers can happen simultaneously).

[Ono-Sendai]

I agree that the case of 1 large 2MB image and a small 1KB file is a good case for multiplexing.

What annoys me somewhat is that HTTP2.0 was basically sold on the back of such demonstrations as 'load 256 identical images'. In that case a proper implementation of HTTP 1.1 with keepalive/pipelining would be just as fast (or even slightly faster due to avoiding multiplexing overhead) as HTTP 2.0.

I think it's pretty pathetic that people can't implement this properly, and I find it worrying that the solution to not being able to implement a protocol properly is to replace it with a more complex protocol.

[umwhat999]

A cool thing about HTTP/2 is that it's really mostly just an optimization for HTTP/1.1.

Which means that if and when we come up with something better, we can deprecate HTTP/2 support, and support only HTTP/next + HTTP/1.1. This helps avoid legacy cruft.

Google did that for SPDY with Chrome - it's no longer supported.

While I'm not convinced that a proper implementation of HTTP 1.1 would actually be just as fast as HTTP 2.0, if you are right, there will be data to show it, and it's not too late for us to change the ecosystem based on that data.

[kartickv]

While I understand and agree with what you said, HTTP 2 still runs on top of TCP, which means that when you lose a packet, subsequent packets belonging to other responses can't be delivered to the application layer, even though there's no reason to delay them. TCP's strict byte order semantics is the problem.

If only the HTTP/2 implementation on the receiving side could tell the underlying TCP stack that it wants to opt out of byte order semantics and to deliver data as it's available. That will decrease latency while not requiring any protocol changes on the sending side.

[JelteF]

This is one of the advantages of the QUIC protocol [1]. Which basically implements what you're saying over UDP.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC