On 01.04.2016 16:35, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 4/1/2016 4:25 AM, Baptiste wrote: >> Do you guys, on the ML, really need HTTP/2? If so what's your deadline?? > > Need? Perhaps not. Want? Very much so. Deadline: ASAP, but don't be > in a hurry. I definitely prefer to have a battle-tested solution that > takes a year than a lousy implementation delivered tomorrow. > > We have been experimenting with technologies to make pages load faster > -- combining and minifying JS/CSS files, mod_pagespeed for Apache, etc. > A lot of those tricks won't be necessary once HTTP/2 support is > available. If I understand the situation correctly, we only need that > support in haproxy. I think the backend webservers can continue to run > older software, because latency is the killer, and there's not much > latency on a LAN.
What about the multiplexing of connections? If you use http 1.x to communicate with the servers you effectively nullify that 2.0 feature. At least in theory in order to actually get all the benefits from http/2 you need support for the client side and unencrypted support on the server side to prevent having to re-encrypt data (or some form of persistent connection pooling to minimize the new establishment of connections to the server). Regards, Dennis
