Re: haproxy and google SPDY

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:58:02 +0100, Karsten Elfenbein <karsten.elfenbein#erento.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I still don't seen any real advantage of spdy over http/1.1 with
> pipelining.
>
> Maybe the issues with pipelining should be addressed first in the
> browser to webserver chain.
>
> The other big issue in relation to haproxy is currently the keepalive
> support as only the first header of a connection is used for L7
> inspection. Breaking that up to support keepalive and pipelining
> would be a big issue. (one connection could result in different
> backends to deliver the content) (SSL/TLS would be nice to have while
> we are talking about that :) )
>
> Also while translating spdy:// to http:// you would run into issues
> with the backend app needs to output spdy:// links on a http://
> request.
>
> Am Freitag, 20. November 2009 schrieben Sie:
> > I am not sure if people are aware of a proposed new protocol for
> > web from google called SPDY.
>
>

I think "advantage" is, as this is "new" protocol, not new version of old protocol, apps either will support it or not, u dont have problem that some apps will say "hey, let's implemetent some parts so it will look like we use new version but completely ignore other parts"  

-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666#gmail.com>
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
http://devrandom.pl




application/pgp-signature attachment: signature.asc