SPDY #875

Closed
Borkason opened this Issue Mar 24, 2013 · 5 comments

1 participant

@Borkason
Cherokee Project member

Original author: alobbs (October 05, 2011 09:18:32)

It seems that Google's SPDY is slowly attracting some attention from third parties. It would be good if we evaluated whether or not we want to support it.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/cherokee/issues/detail?id=1277

@Borkason
Cherokee Project member

From harkemas...@gmail.com on October 09, 2011 19:48:07
Patrick Manus' (network engineer) comment on the current Mozilla Firefox SPDY implementation:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.tech.network/ZS5MUdCTTCc

@Borkason
Cherokee Project member

From anonsph...@gmail.com on December 04, 2011 12:28:47
SPDY would be really nice as it should be integrated in Firefox within the next three month. => https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528288#c173

If you compare e. g. google maps on https in Firefox and Chrome you will notice a really huge performance boost and it might reduce requests and with it load.

@Borkason
Cherokee Project member

From Ilya.Veselov on January 28, 2012 11:03:18
SPDY Essentials at Google TechTalks with a brief overview of SPDY advantages over HTTP: http://youtu.be/TNBkxA313kk

@Borkason
Cherokee Project member

From anonsph...@gmail.com on March 26, 2012 12:22:23
Is this accepted now? If you compare at firefox it is a great performance win:

http://spdytest.com/ load time: 3092ms
vs.
https://spdytest.com/ load time: 1476ms

@Borkason
Cherokee Project member

Duplicate of #76

@Borkason Borkason closed this Mar 28, 2013
@Borkason Borkason reopened this Mar 29, 2013
@Borkason Borkason closed this Apr 1, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment