Mike Belshe

https://developers.google.com/speed/articles/spdy-for-mobile - doesn't include DNS lookup times - doesn't include packet loss - doesn't compare to pipelining First two mean the claimed speedup isn't measuring the whole real time. Third is just amazing... the stock Android browser even uses pipelining. Basically pipelining gives the same benefits as Spdy and they really, really don't want to admit this. http://www.belshe.com/2012/03/29/comments-on-microsofts-spdy-proposal/ This is what I'm talking about... every one of Microsoft's changes he identifies as b-h is a positive change. That he can't see it I guess is a testament to being young and inexperienced.

More bandwidth is not the answer for webpages... The overhead of TCP and HTTP make latency the limiting factor - see Mike Belshe's "More Bandwidth doesn't Matter (Much)" - http://www.belshe.com/2010/05/24/more-bandwidth-doesnt-matter-much/

One of the creator of SPDY's responses to that proposal. http://www.belshe.com/2012/03/29/comments-on-microsofts-spdy-proposal/

That proposal has a pile of problems: http://www.belshe.com/2012/03/29/comments-on-microsofts-spdy-proposal/

Re: StartSSL see http://www.belshe.com/2012/02/04/rethinking-ssl-for-mobile-apps

You might be right. I considered that, but it doesn't have as much of an impact factor on the user, which is really important for getting the word out about performance (why the site exists in the first place). I probably doesn't matter too much as long as you have a ~3Mbps connection or higher (see Mike Belshe's "Effective Bandwidth of HTTP" graph on http://www.belshe.com/2010/05/24/more-bandwidth-doesnt-matter-much/) because the TCP transmission rate can't ramp up high enough on each object to saturate the connection. It's possible, however that the objects will interact with each other by causing differing queueing latency and possibly loss in the bottleneck router and by changing the order of scheduler events on the client OS. Also, it may be better subject the two pages to the same network conditions (at least in the last mile) while they're loading, esp. on mobile.

This is why Chrome has built-in silent autoupdate - the vast majority of our users are on the a new version within a week of releasing it. See graphs: http://www.belshe.com/test/velocity2010/#slide38.0 The shallow curve is our development and beta channel users, the steep part of the curve is when we release a stable version. Previous slides show known update rates for other browsers.

Here is the graph. The site sucks pretty bad (seems to require a very high resolution and has disabled scrollbars). http://www.belshe.com/test/velocity2010/chrome_version_migration.png http://www.belshe.com/test/velocity2010/firefox_version_migration.png http://www.belshe.com/test/velocity2010/ie_version_migration.png

> I remember the Chrome timer code of years ago was careful to only adjust the interval when needed. From reading other bugs it looks like today's behavior is an accidental regression and will likely be fixed (until the next time it regresses). Indeed, although it seems the current behavior has been oustanding for some time: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=153139 The original justification for lowering the resolution is an interesting read: At one point during our development, we were about to give up on using the high resolution timers, because they just seemed too scary. But then we discovered something. Using WinDbg to monitor Chrome, we discovered that every major multi-media browser plugin was already using this API. And this included Flash, Windows Media Player, and even QuickTime. Once we discovered this, we stopped worrying about Chrome's use of the API. After all – what percentage of the time is Flash open when your browser is open? I don't have an exact number, but it's a lot. And since this API effects the system globally, most browsers are already running in this mode.[1] [1] http://www.belshe.com/2010/06/04/chrome-cranking-up-the-clock/

It seems to work fine here (iPhone 4, iOS 5.1), and I've not had a problem with g+ on 4.3.x or 5.0.[01], AT&T and various Wi-Fi networks... Is it really endlessly redirecting or perhaps timing out and trying to reload? I had that happen once when latency was extreme, on one occasion. EDIT: here is the text for those who are having trouble. Host resolution accounts for a significant portion of the networking component of page load time. As such, Chromium developers are always looking to optimize it. Here I present the current considerations of host resolution in Chromium, and look forward to the IPv4+IPv6 dual stack world and what that entails for browsers (and what Chromium is doing about it). I finish off with a presentation of some of the latest data we're operating on. Currently, Chromium uses getaddrinfo() to ask the OS to resolve a host. This is a cross-platform, blocking API that abstracts the complicated host resolution. There are a number of advantages to using this API: * Correctness - it handles all the complicated rules of hostname lookup correctly. It understands /etc/hosts, non-DNS namespaces like NetBIOS/WINS, etc. Re-implementing this behavior would be difficult. * OS Caching - we get to share the OS host cache with other applications. Note that this doesn't exist by default on Linux systems. * Less code - Having to maintain code sucks. It leads to code/binary bloat and endless bugs for corner cases and OS-specific issues. And it takes engineering…