Only a limited subset of proxies, ingresses, and API gateways currently support a complete and well-tested implementation of HTTP/3, such as Ambassador Edge Stack, which is powered by Envoy Proxy. It’s worth mentioning that with average packet loss on the Internet clocking in at 2%, investing in HTTP/3 support for your application can provide a forward-looking capability to handle any increased geographic-specific degradation in the network. If performance is important to your use case, you can get benefits from using HTTP/3, and you can also rest assured that you can use this without much of a penalty (even if worse case the connection falls back to HTTP/2). Much of the motivating factors for HTTP/3 are for specific use cases, such as lossy connections with mobile/cell phone applications, the Internet of Things (IoT), or emerging markets. Small site performance:īoth HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 quite handily outperform HTTP/1.1, but between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, it’s a much closer call. As expected, the higher the latency, the more difference there is in performance across different protocol versions. These first graphs show how each protocol combination fared under different site sizes with small (US) and large (Europe) latencies. The Results: High vs Low Latency (Europe -> US vs US -> US) browsing during lunch, streaming after dinner, etc. Tests were performed at two different times during the day (t0 and t1) in order to account for any potential effect of global congestion trends, e.g. The Networkįor a baseline comparison, the client is tested from two different locations, one in us-central and one in europe-west in order to get a low latency measurement and a high latency measurement. The HTTP and TLS protocol versions were captured at the client to ensure the expected outcome of protocol negotiations.Įach tested configuration was sampled 10, 25, and 50 times with pauses between in order to get a representative set of samples of the network conditions at that time. Each page load was measured as the point when all round trips for the given site were completed. In order to accurately assess real-world performance, the Chrome web browser was used via Puppeteer scripting. One of these hosts is configured to serve TLS v1.2 and the other host is configured to serve TLS v.1.3. The backend sets cache-control headers in order to ensure no content is cached by the client.Īmbassador Edge-Stack is configured to serve the exact same backend via two different hostnames. The Large size/chattiness site is 14MB total consisting of 101 1.4K round trips and 101 141K round trips.Īll content is served with a custom backend deployed behind Ambassador Edge-Stack 3.0.The Medium size/chattiness site is 7MB total consisting of 51 1.4K round trips and 51 141K round trips.The Small size/chattiness site is 1.5MB total consisting of 11 1.4K round trips and 11 141K round trips.Three different websites (“Small”, “Medium”, and “Large”) are used to provide a representative range of content size and chattiness: Not all of these factors are easy to control for, but this benchmark does the following: The Server TLS protocol negotiated between client and server.HTTP protocol negotiated between client and server.congestion of the network between client and server.latency of the network between client and server.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |