Re:HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 explained
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Thursday March 14, 2024 @07:04PM
(#39710033)
It is imposible to meaningfuly evaluate these different protocols against each other without considering the "use case". For example, if someone is requesting 100 pages from a site, all hosted on the same domain, and nothing else,1 then HTTP/1.1 is the best of the three. The requests can be sent over a single connection. HOL blocking is not an issue. I have tested this exhaustively outside the browser for over a decade. (People promoting HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, and HN commenters submitting snarky replies every time I mention the utility of HTTP/1.1 pipelining, apparently have not tested this at all.)
1. This is text retrieval. The www is not a handful of browsers controlled by companies that seek to profit from advertising. It was and still is a facility that provides for (hyper)text retrieval.
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 come from an advertising commpany and a CDN that expect ads hosted on different domains in every page. That is what _they_ want. Is that want _www users_ want. We do not know because www users were never asked. We do know that www users do not like ads. When given the choice, they say, "No."
The advertising company keeps repeating this HOL blocking as a problem of HTTP/1.1, and now it gets parroted everywhere, and few even know what it means. HOL blocking is not a problem if the www user is not requesting ads and tracking from different domains. How many www users actually want to request ads and tracking and particpate in telemetry. The so-called "tech" company might try to argue that all of them do, or more commonly that, "They do not care." Meanwhile its own employees call ad blocking a "right of passage" (direct quote from a reply I got on HN).
The truth is that when evaluating these new HTTP protocols, it matters what the www user is trying to do. Many users are simply trying to retrieve information as text. But the advertising company believes that www users only want to do what is in the interest of the advertising company: let the advertising company's browser automatically send requests for ads, tracking and telemetry purposes. (Except for employees of so-called "tech" companies profiting from the sale of online ad services. They exempted and are free to block the ads and tracking.)
1. This is text retrieval. The www is not a handful of browsers controlled by companies that seek to profit from advertising. It was and still is a facility that provides for (hyper)text retrieval.
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 come from an advertising commpany and a CDN that expect ads hosted on different domains in every page. That is what _they_ want. Is that want _www users_ want. We do not know because www users were never asked. We do know that www users do not like ads. When given the choice, they say, "No."
The advertising company keeps repeating this HOL blocking as a problem of HTTP/1.1, and now it gets parroted everywhere, and few even know what it means. HOL blocking is not a problem if the www user is not requesting ads and tracking from different domains. How many www users actually want to request ads and tracking and particpate in telemetry. The so-called "tech" company might try to argue that all of them do, or more commonly that, "They do not care." Meanwhile its own employees call ad blocking a "right of passage" (direct quote from a reply I got on HN).
The truth is that when evaluating these new HTTP protocols, it matters what the www user is trying to do. Many users are simply trying to retrieve information as text. But the advertising company believes that www users only want to do what is in the interest of the advertising company: let the advertising company's browser automatically send requests for ads, tracking and telemetry purposes. (Except for employees of so-called "tech" companies profiting from the sale of online ad services. They exempted and are free to block the ads and tracking.)