Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by coldtea 3608 days ago
Yes, anybody who runs a large site and gets far better performance out of it for the majority by now of clients who support it.
1 comments
omginternets 3607 days ago
I'm replying to your post, specifically, but the other comments seem to be making the same point: HTTP2 confers a performance advantage.

So I repeat my question: is this speed advantage stricto-sensu necessary? Why can't one "just" spin up a few more EC2 instances until this is fixed?

Is there a case in which HTTP2 is necessary, and HTTP1 just won't cut it? I think that's the sense of the original question, and I think it's a valid question when talking about hacking one's way around bugs that are going to get fixed anyway.

I'm open to being wrong about this, but I'm surprised at the resistance to this question.

link
MichaelGG 3607 days ago
The perf advantage is in user loading times. HTTP1 won't cut it, and no amount of hardware on the server will, either.

Just adding "SPDY" to nginx on some customer sites was enough to reduce load times by double digit %. (10-30 IIRC)

I think SPDY might be a workaround for a bit; it's still supported this year right?

link
coldtea 3607 days ago
>I think SPDY might be a workaround for a bit; it's still supported this year right?

No, Nginx dropped it (they only offer HTTP2 since 1.9.5) and Chrome dropped it from the client too this year IIRC.

link