Chrome still hasn't changed its opinion about dropping JPEG XL support

Re:Chrome still hasn't changed its opinion about dropping JP... by andrewaylett on Wednesday June 07, 2023 @05:54AM (#36224855)

Yes, we do that. Well, the CDN does the caching -- but we still get a 99.99% hit rate.

Please forgive the case study format, but I'm quite proud of what we did and this is the easiest way to back up my assertion with data: https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/skyscanner-clo...

We're currently generating JPG, WebP, and PNG, depending on the source and the target. The problem with doing this on-demand is that formats that are great for delivery but slow to encode aren't useful. I did try to add AVIF, but the latency on the first request was too high for it to be practical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome still hasn't changed its opinion about dropping JP... by ilyt on Wednesday June 07, 2023 @04:47PM (#36233319)

I guess "preheating" cache with preemptively encoding and putting new content in cache before it is shown to client could work?

But still, anything AV1 based just needs a lot performance to encode that just doesn't feel worth it at the moment. Our system to encode videos was tooled for that but developers eventually decided it's too slow/cpu hungry to bother. It was some time ago tho, encoders did get better...

[ Parent | on HN ]