10 ms·

I choose HTTP/1.1 pipelining. Uncompressed headers are useful. Ordered records are returned (unlike SPDY), where "HTTP/1.1 200 OK" is the record separator. B

by osth 13y ago

I choose HTTP/1.1 pipelining. Uncompressed headers are useful. Ordered records are returned (unlike SPDY), where "HTTP/1.1 200 OK" is the record separator. Been using this for a decade. Can't see the benefit of SPDY. Anyway pipelining is only useful where numerous resources are coming from the same host. But the way the www has evolved, so much (unneeded) crap gets served from ad servers and CDN's. Pipelining isn't going to speed that up. HTTP/1.1 pipelining was never broken. It was usually just turned off (e.g. in Firefox), while most web servers have their max keep alive set around 100. In plain English, what does that mean? It means "Dear User, You have permission to download 100 files at a time from http://stupidwebsite.com http://stupidwebsite.com. That is you can make one request for 100 files, instead of 100 separate requests, each for a single file." And what do Firefox and other braindead web browsers do? They make a separate request for each file. But heay, never mind all those numerous connections to ad servers to retrieve marketing garbage (i.e. not the content you are after), lets concentrate on compressing HTTP headers instead. Brilliant. It's trivial to use pipelining: 1. Feed your HTTP requests through netcat or some equivalent to retrieve the files and save them to a concatenated file, 2. split the concatenated file into separate files if desired, 3. view in your favorite browser. No ad server BS. Now that's "SPEEDY".

dcsommer 13y ago
Pipelining falls short of SPDY in several respects. The biggest problem is that it suffers from head of line blocking. One slow request or response prevents others from making progress.
- osth 13y ago
  I trust in theory this is true, but I've never personally observed this in practice. I guess SPDY fans' marketing of this "feature" would be more convincing if I could see a demonstration. I just don't see any noticeable delays when using pipelining. What strikes me as peculiar about the interest in SPDY is that I never saw any interest in pipelining before SPDY. And I really doubt it was because of potential head of line blocking or lack of header compression. I think users just were not clued in about pipelining. The speed up between not using pipelining and using it is, IME, enormous. 1 connection for 100 files versus 100 connections for 100 files. It is a huge efficiency gain. Yet most users have never even heard of HTTP pipelining, or never tried it. If they really wanted such a big speed up, why wouldn't they use pipelining, or at least try it? Why wouldn't they demand that browsers implement it and turn it on by default? Users are being encouraged to jump right into SPDY, a very recent and relatively untested internal project (e.g. see the CRIME incident) of one company, most users, if not all, having never previously experimented with even basic pipelining, which has been around since the 1999 HTTP/1.1 spec and has support via keep alives in almost all web servers. Noticeable speed gains would be seen if www pages were not so burdened with links to resources on external hosts. That's what's really slowing things down, as browsers make dozens of connections just to load a single page with little content. The speed gains from cutting out all that third party host cruft would make any speed gains from avoiding theoretical potential head of line blocking during pipelining seem miniscule and hardly worth all the effort. If you want to see how much pipelining speeds up getting many files from the same host, you do not need SPDY to do that. Web servers already have the support you need to do HTTP/1.1 pipelining. (Though on rare occasions site admins have keep-alives disabled, like HN for example. In effect these admins are saying, "Sorry, no pipelining for you.")
  - akalin 13y ago
    HTTP pipelining is turned off by default in most browsers due to concerns with buggy proxies and servers (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264354 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264354 ). It may work for you and the particular set of servers you visit, but I suspect browser developers would rather have a browser that by default works with the widest possible range of configurations. Unfortunately, it being turned off by default in most browsers means that most people won't see the benefits from it. Hopefully, the upcoming HTTP/2 standard will fare better (latest draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unicorn-httpbis-http2-01 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unicorn-httpbis-http2-01 ). Note that HTTP/2 will be based on SPDY (in particular, SPDY/4 with the new header compressor). Hopefully, when the standard is finalized and we have multiple strong implementations, that will allay the concerns you seem to have with SPDY today. (Disclaimer: I work on SPDY / HTTP/2 for Chromium.)
    - osth 13y ago
      Yes, I understand there are buggy servers and proxies... and I use a browser that has settings to accomodate them. However... I do not know about HTTP bugs that affect <emphasis>pipelining<emphasis>. And... in addition, for pipelining, I do not use a browser to do the initial retrieval. I use something like netcat to fetch and then I view the results with a browser. Can you give me a list of buggy servers where my HTTP/1.1 pipelining will not work as desired? I've been doing pipelining for 10 years (that's quite a few servers I've tried) with no problems. The arguments made by SPDY fans (e.g. Google employees) all seem plausible. But I wonder why they are never supported by evidence? IOW, please show me, don't just tell me. SPDY seems to solve "problems" I'm not having. Where can I see these HTTP/1.1 pipelining problems (not just problems with browsers like Firefox or Chrome) in action? I'd love to try some of the buggy servers you allude to and see if they slow down pipelining with netcat.
      - akalin 13y ago
        I didn't have to look hard to find bug reports for pipelining. An example is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/948461 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/948461 for Amazon's S3. I'd be interested if the problem is still reproducible now. Also, one of the comments mentions Squid 2.0.2 as being buggy. Also, see https://insouciant.org/tech/status-of-http-pipelining-in-chromium/ https://insouciant.org/tech/status-of-http-pipelining-in-chr... for a link to Firefox's blacklist of buggy servers (and a good discussion of pipelining in Chromium). Most of the improvements in SPDY are latency improvements, so if you're downloading sites with netcat and then viewing them in a browser, I'm pretty sure the overhead of that would dwarf anything SPDY would save. That having been said, there's ample evidence of SPDY improving things. From http://bitsup.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-brief-note-on-pipelines-for-firefox.html http://bitsup.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-brief-note-on-pipelines... : "Also see telemetry for TRANSACTION_WAIT_TIME_HTTP and TRANSACTON_WAIT_TIME_HTTP_PIPELINES - you'll see that pipelines do marginally reduce queuing time, but not by a heck of a lot in practice. (~65% of transactions are sent within 50ms using straight HTTP, ~75% with pipelining enabled).... Check out TRANSACTON_WAIT_TIME_SPDY and you'll see that 93% of all transactions wait less than 1ms in the queue!"
- thwarted 13y ago
  This isn't a problem when the primary request is dynamic and served from one server/domain/connection and the remaining requests are for static assets stored on and served from another server/domain/connection.
  - dcsommer 13y ago
    Consider if the client makes a large POST followed by a few GETs. If the client has little upload bandwidth, the GETs will be delayed until the POST completes. With SPDY, they all can proceed concurrently. Similarly, if the client makes 5 GET requests, with the first being a heavy/slow/expensive resource for the server, the cheap resources can't be delivered until the slow resource finally is computed and returned.
    - thwarted 13y ago
      Yes, that's the reason that SPDY exists, but my point is that that's actually a rare implementation in the real world. As was said elsewhere in this thread, and what I was saying, is that the most likely implementation is that one request goes to, say, www.example.com, which serves a single HTML file, and remaining requests for resources that that HTML references go to outsourced-cdn.example.com. So it's actually more important to have pipelining and SPDY support on outsourced-cdn.example.com than it is on www.example.com. That is, chances are you don't need to worry about it, that's why you pay outsourced-cdn to. There is less of a need for multiple simultaneous requests when you have good client-side caching of resources too. The usefulness of multiplexed requests is negated if you only serve one request. The above has been the exact case at a number of companies I've worked at. Sites and companies like Google or Facebook, that serve all their own traffic, it becomes more important for.

by osth 13y ago

dcsommer 13y ago

Pipelining falls short of SPDY in several respects. The biggest problem is that it suffers from head of line blocking. One slow request or response prevents others from making progress.

osth 13y ago
I trust in theory this is true, but I've never personally observed this in practice. I guess SPDY fans' marketing of this "feature" would be more convincing if I could see a demonstration. I just don't see any noticeable delays when using pipelining. What strikes me as peculiar about the interest in SPDY is that I never saw any interest in pipelining before SPDY. And I really doubt it was because of potential head of line blocking or lack of header compression. I think users just were not clued in about pipelining. The speed up between not using pipelining and using it is, IME, enormous. 1 connection for 100 files versus 100 connections for 100 files. It is a huge efficiency gain. Yet most users have never even heard of HTTP pipelining, or never tried it. If they really wanted such a big speed up, why wouldn't they use pipelining, or at least try it? Why wouldn't they demand that browsers implement it and turn it on by default? Users are being encouraged to jump right into SPDY, a very recent and relatively untested internal project (e.g. see the CRIME incident) of one company, most users, if not all, having never previously experimented with even basic pipelining, which has been around since the 1999 HTTP/1.1 spec and has support via keep alives in almost all web servers. Noticeable speed gains would be seen if www pages were not so burdened with links to resources on external hosts. That's what's really slowing things down, as browsers make dozens of connections just to load a single page with little content. The speed gains from cutting out all that third party host cruft would make any speed gains from avoiding theoretical potential head of line blocking during pipelining seem miniscule and hardly worth all the effort. If you want to see how much pipelining speeds up getting many files from the same host, you do not need SPDY to do that. Web servers already have the support you need to do HTTP/1.1 pipelining. (Though on rare occasions site admins have keep-alives disabled, like HN for example. In effect these admins are saying, "Sorry, no pipelining for you.")
- akalin 13y ago
  HTTP pipelining is turned off by default in most browsers due to concerns with buggy proxies and servers (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264354 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264354 ). It may work for you and the particular set of servers you visit, but I suspect browser developers would rather have a browser that by default works with the widest possible range of configurations. Unfortunately, it being turned off by default in most browsers means that most people won't see the benefits from it. Hopefully, the upcoming HTTP/2 standard will fare better (latest draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unicorn-httpbis-http2-01 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unicorn-httpbis-http2-01 ). Note that HTTP/2 will be based on SPDY (in particular, SPDY/4 with the new header compressor). Hopefully, when the standard is finalized and we have multiple strong implementations, that will allay the concerns you seem to have with SPDY today. (Disclaimer: I work on SPDY / HTTP/2 for Chromium.)
  - osth 13y ago
    Yes, I understand there are buggy servers and proxies... and I use a browser that has settings to accomodate them. However... I do not know about HTTP bugs that affect <emphasis>pipelining<emphasis>. And... in addition, for pipelining, I do not use a browser to do the initial retrieval. I use something like netcat to fetch and then I view the results with a browser. Can you give me a list of buggy servers where my HTTP/1.1 pipelining will not work as desired? I've been doing pipelining for 10 years (that's quite a few servers I've tried) with no problems. The arguments made by SPDY fans (e.g. Google employees) all seem plausible. But I wonder why they are never supported by evidence? IOW, please show me, don't just tell me. SPDY seems to solve "problems" I'm not having. Where can I see these HTTP/1.1 pipelining problems (not just problems with browsers like Firefox or Chrome) in action? I'd love to try some of the buggy servers you allude to and see if they slow down pipelining with netcat.
    - akalin 13y ago
      I didn't have to look hard to find bug reports for pipelining. An example is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/948461 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/948461 for Amazon's S3. I'd be interested if the problem is still reproducible now. Also, one of the comments mentions Squid 2.0.2 as being buggy. Also, see https://insouciant.org/tech/status-of-http-pipelining-in-chromium/ https://insouciant.org/tech/status-of-http-pipelining-in-chr... for a link to Firefox's blacklist of buggy servers (and a good discussion of pipelining in Chromium). Most of the improvements in SPDY are latency improvements, so if you're downloading sites with netcat and then viewing them in a browser, I'm pretty sure the overhead of that would dwarf anything SPDY would save. That having been said, there's ample evidence of SPDY improving things. From http://bitsup.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-brief-note-on-pipelines-for-firefox.html http://bitsup.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-brief-note-on-pipelines... : "Also see telemetry for TRANSACTION_WAIT_TIME_HTTP and TRANSACTON_WAIT_TIME_HTTP_PIPELINES - you'll see that pipelines do marginally reduce queuing time, but not by a heck of a lot in practice. (~65% of transactions are sent within 50ms using straight HTTP, ~75% with pipelining enabled).... Check out TRANSACTON_WAIT_TIME_SPDY and you'll see that 93% of all transactions wait less than 1ms in the queue!"
thwarted 13y ago
This isn't a problem when the primary request is dynamic and served from one server/domain/connection and the remaining requests are for static assets stored on and served from another server/domain/connection.
- dcsommer 13y ago
  Consider if the client makes a large POST followed by a few GETs. If the client has little upload bandwidth, the GETs will be delayed until the POST completes. With SPDY, they all can proceed concurrently. Similarly, if the client makes 5 GET requests, with the first being a heavy/slow/expensive resource for the server, the cheap resources can't be delivered until the slow resource finally is computed and returned.
  - thwarted 13y ago
    Yes, that's the reason that SPDY exists, but my point is that that's actually a rare implementation in the real world. As was said elsewhere in this thread, and what I was saying, is that the most likely implementation is that one request goes to, say, www.example.com, which serves a single HTML file, and remaining requests for resources that that HTML references go to outsourced-cdn.example.com. So it's actually more important to have pipelining and SPDY support on outsourced-cdn.example.com than it is on www.example.com. That is, chances are you don't need to worry about it, that's why you pay outsourced-cdn to. There is less of a need for multiple simultaneous requests when you have good client-side caching of resources too. The usefulness of multiplexed requests is negated if you only serve one request. The above has been the exact case at a number of companies I've worked at. Sites and companies like Google or Facebook, that serve all their own traffic, it becomes more important for.