Slashdot Mirror
HTTP Intermediary Layer From Google Could Dramatically Speed Up the Web
grmoc writes "As part of the 'Let's make the web faster' initiative, we (a few engineers — including me! — at Google, and hopefully people all across the community soon!) are experimenting with alternative protocols to help reduce the latency of Web pages. One of these experiments is SPDY (pronounced 'SPeeDY'), an application-layer protocol (essentially a shim between HTTP and the bits on the wire) for transporting content over the web, designed specifically for minimal latency. In addition to a rough specification for the protocol, we have hacked SPDY into the Google Chrome browser (because it's what we're familiar with) and a simple server testbed. Using these hacked up bits, we compared the performance of many of the top 25 and top 300 websites over both HTTP and SPDY, and have observed those pages load, on average, about twice as fast using SPDY. Thats not bad! We hope to engage the open source community to contribute ideas, feedback, code (we've open sourced the protocol, etc!), and test results."
remove flash, java applets ad's
20X faster!
And all other "add this piece of Javascript to your Web page and make it more awesomer!"
Yes, yes, they're useful. And you can't fathom a future without them. But in the meantime I'm watching my status bar say, "completed 4 of 5 items", then change to "completed 11 of 27 items", to "completed 18 of 57 items", to "completed... oh screw this, you're downloading the whole Internet, just sit back, relax and watch the blinkenlights".
Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast? Because all it had to download was some simple HTML, maybe some gifs?
I want my old Internet back. And a pony.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
IAWTP. With NoScript on and off, the web is a totally different place.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
So which ports are you planning to use for it?
Deleted
They need start with practicing what they preach...
http://code.google.com/speed/articles/caching.html
http://code.google.com/speed/articles/prefetching.html
http://code.google.com/speed/articles/optimizing-html.html
They turn on caching for everything but then spit out junk like
http://v9.lscache4.c.youtube.com/generate_204?ip=0.0.0.0&sparams=id%2Cexpire%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Calgorithm%2Cburst%2Cfactor&fexp=903900%2C903206&algorithm=throttle-factor&itag=34&ipbits=0&burst=40&sver=3&expire=1258081200&key=yt1&signature=8214C5787766320D138B1764BF009CF62A596FF9.D86886CFF40DB7F847246D653E9D3AA5B1D18610&factor=1.25&id=ccbfe79256f2b5b6
Most cache programs just straight up ignore this. Because of the '?' in there. It ends up being a query to static data.
Then never mind the load balancing bits they put in there with 'v9.lscache4.c.'. So even IF you get your cache to keep the data you may end up with a totally different server and the same piece of data just served from another server. There have been a few hacks to 'rewrite' the headers and the names to make it stick. But those are just hacks and while they work they seem fragile.
The real issue is at the HTTP layer and how servers are pointed at from inside the 'code'. So instead of some sort of indirection that would make it simple for the client to say 'these 20 servers have the same bit of data' they must assume that the data is different from every server.
Compression and javascript speedups are all well and good but there is a different more fundamental problem of extra reload of data that has already been retrieved. As local network usage is almost always faster than going back out to the internet. In a single user environment this is not too big of a deal. But in a 10+ user environment it is a MUCH bigger deal.
Even the page that talks about optimization has issues
http://code.google.com/speed/articles/
12 cr/lf right at the top of the page that are not rendered anywhere. They should look at themselves first.
CSS can make things shorter and faster if they just remember to link to it as a static file.
You can't cache something that changes, and anything, like CSS and Javascript, that's caught in the on-the-fly generation of dynamic and uncacheable text in spite of actually being static, is just going to clog up the tubes.
In fact, thanks to slashdot's no-edits-allowed policy, each comment itself is a static unchangeable snippet of text. Why not cache those?
Sending only the stuff that changes is usually a good optimization no matter what you're doing.
CSS and javascript themselves aren't bad. Failing to offlink and thus cacheable-ize them however, is.
People take their slashdot comments way too seriously. Mod me whatever, it means nothing and I'll move on.
e have a semantic language (HTML) and a language that describes how to present that (CSS), right? This is good, let's keep it that way.
But things aren't as good as they could be. On the semantic side, we have many elements in the language that don't really convey any semantic information, and a lot of semantics there isn't an element for. On the presentation side, well, suffice it to say that there are a _lot_ of things that cannot be done, and others that can be done, but only with ugly kludges. Meanwhile, processing and rendering HTML and CSS takes a lot of resources.
The problem is that worrying about semantic vs presentation is something that almost no one gives a s**t about, because it is an artificial division that makes sense for computer science reasons, not human reasons. I don't sit down to make a web page and completely divorce the content vs the layout; the layout gives context and can be just as important as the content itself in terms of a human brain grasping an attempt at communication.
I know I shouldn't use tables for presentation but I just don't care. They are so simple and easy to visualize in my head, and using them has never caused a noticeable slowdown in my app, caused maintenance headaches, cost me any money, etc. The only downside is listening to architecture astronauts whine about how incorrect it is while they all sit around and circle-jerk about how their pages pass this-or-that validation test.
In oh so many ways writing a web app is like stepping back into computer GUI v1.0; so much must be manually re-implemented in a different way for every app. Heck, you can't even reliably get the dimensions of an element or the currently computed styles on an element. Lest you think this is mostly IE-vs-everyone else, no browser can define a content region that automatically scrolls its contents within a defined percentage of the parent element's content region; you've gotta emit javascript to dynamically calculate the size. This is double-stupid because browsers already perform this sort of layout logic for things like a textarea that has content that exceeds its bounds. And guess what? This is one of the #1 reasons people want to use overflow:auto. Don't waste screen real-estate showing scrollbars if they aren't necessary, but don't force me to hard-code height and width because then I can't scale to the user's screen resolution.
This kind of crap is so frustrating and wastes MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of man-hours year after year, yet we can't even get the major browser vendors to agree to HTMLv5 and what little bits (though very useful) it brings to the table. So please spare me the semantic vs presentation argument. If just a few people gave a s**t and stopped stroking their own egos on these bulls**t committees and actually tried to solve the problems that developers and designers deal with every day then they wouldn't have to worry about forcing everyone to adopt their standard (IPv6), the desire to adopt it would come naturally.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)