That makes most sense to me as well. Besides all the non-optimal things I discuss in the internals paper, the numbers - of my very limited measurements - show that mod_h2 is slightly less performant than plain httpd *if you only have a single request/connection at a time*. If you have 2 requests ongoing you break even or are slightly better. And then it grows up to 50% more requests/sec than with HTTP/1.1 (all measured over TLS). Of course this varies with resource size and such...
Since browsers will typically want to get quite some resources from the server for a page, this should already in 2.4 bring benefit for everyone. cheers, Stefan > Am 28.05.2015 um 16:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: > > My thoughts are that we use mod_h2 as a guide to how to > "better" implement things in trunk, but also allow for > mod_h2 to also work w/ 2.4 as well... So there will be > a 2.4 version of mod_h2 as well as a more significant > "merging" of mod_h2/trunk/2.6/3.0. > >> On May 28, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 22:42 +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote: >>> Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role in >>> motivating people to migrate away from 2.2. >> >> I've just looked at your "internals" page (which seems to me >> an excellent piece of work), and it tends to support the gut >> feeling that mod_h2 might be better targeting 2.6/3.0 than 2.4. >> We should be joining forces to address the issues you've >> encountered, from minor tweaks to core to more fundamental issues >> like bucket alloc across threads (or a suitable alternative). >> >> Time for me to download and take a proper look at your work, >> and put my money (or at least time&effort) where my mouth is! >> >> -- >> Nick Kew >> > <green/>bytes GmbH Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
