Is SPDY any different than http multiplexing over keep alive connections

Question

HTTP 1.1 supports keep alive connections, connections are not closed until "Connection: close" is sent.

So, if the browser, in this case firefox has network.http.pipelining enabled and network.http.pipelining.maxrequests increased isn't the same effect in the end?

I know that these settings are disabled because for some websites this could increase load but I think a simple http header flag could tell the browser that is ok tu use multiplexing and this problem can be solved easier.

Wouldn't be easier to change default settings in browsers than invent a new protocol that increases complexity especially in the http servers?

Hafer

SPDY uses stateful compression on request and response headers. – Baluchi

Does that make a big difference (especially to the normal compression you already have in SSL)? – Landtag

http can also use compression with gzip, almost all browsers suport it, and headers are usually too small to matter – Hafer

HTTP can't compress headers. Large headers are often used for passing lots of large cookies. There is for good reasons no limit on HTTP header size. I've seen strange usage of persistent stuff that sends hunderts of KB in headers. – Ene

Answer 1

SPDY has a number of advantages that go beyond what HTTP pipelining can offer, which are described in the SPDY whitepaper:

1. With pipelining, the server still has to return the responses one at a time in the order they were requested. This can be a problem if the client requests a resource that's dynamically generated before one that is static: the server cannot send any of the "easy" static responses until the dynamically generated one has been generated and sent. With SPDY, responses can be returned out of order or in parallel as they are generated, lowering the total time to receive all resources.
2. As you noted in your question, not all servers are able to deal with pipelining: it's not just load, some servers actually behave incorrectly when the client requests pipelining. Using a header to indicate that it's okay to do pipelining is too late to get the maximum benefit: you are already receiving the first response at that point, so while you can use it on future connections it's already too late for this one.
3. SPDY compresses headers using an algorithm which is specific to that task (stateful and with knowledge of what is normally in HTTP headers); while yes, SSL already includes compression, just compressing them with deflate is not as efficient. Most HTTP requests have no bodies and only a short GET line, so the headers make up virtually the entire request: any compression you can get is an improvement. Many responses are also small compared to their headers.
4. SPDY allows servers to send back additional responses without the client asking for them. For example, a server might start sending back the CSS for a page along with the original HTML, before the client has had a chance to receive and parse the HTML to determine the stylesheet URL. This can speed up page loads even further by eliminating the need for the client to actually parse the HTML before requesting other resources needed to render the page. It also supports a less bandwidth-heavy version of this feature where it can "hint" about which resources might be needed, and allow the client to decide: this allows, for example, clients that don't care about images to not bother to request them, but clients that want to display images can still request the images using the given URLs without needing to wait for the HTML.
5. Other things too: see William Chan's answer for even more.

Gothar

Isn't server push the same feature you're describing in #4? – Stackhouse

Number 2 is not correct as the first connection needs content (HTML) to know what it has to receive next. During the parsing of HTML the pipelining is then already in effect. – Ene

That's not really true; a large proportion of HTML documents refer to URLs other than the server the document was downloaded from (e.g. CDNs, analytics/ad JS/content, etc) - if you have to establish again from scratch for each server whether pipelining is supported then you aren't going to be able to use pipelining most of the time. – Gothar

Answer 2

• HTTP pipelining is susceptible to head of line blocking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-of-line_blocking) at the HTTP transaction level whereas SPDY only has head of line blocking at the transport level, due to its use of multiplexing.
• HTTP pipelining has deployability issues. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-http-pipeline-01 which describes a number of different workarounds and heuristics to mitigate this. SPDY as deployed in the wild does not have this problem since it is generally deployed over SSL (port 443) using NPN (http://technotes.googlecode.com/git/nextprotoneg.html) to negotiate SPDY support. SSL is key, since it prevents intermediaries from interfering.
• SPDY has header compression. See http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper which discusses some benchmark results of the benefits of header compression. Now, it's useful to note that bandwidth is less and less of an issue (see http://www.belshe.com/2010/05/24/more-bandwidth-doesnt-matter-much/), but it's also useful to remember that bandwidth is still key for mobile. Check out https://developers.google.com/speed/articles/spdy-for-mobile which shows how beneficial SPDY is for mobile.
• SPDY supports features like server push. See http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-best-practices for ways to use server push to improve cacheability of content and still reduce roundtrips.
• HTTP pipelining has ill-defined failure semantics. When the server closes the connection, how do you know which requests have been successfully processed? This is a major reason why POST and other non-idempotent requests are not allowed over pipelined connections. SPDY provides semantics to cancel individual streams on the same connection, and also has a GOAWAY frame which indicates the last stream to be successfully processed.
• HTTP pipelining has difficulty, often due to intermediaries, in allowing deep pipelines. This (in addition to many other reasons like HoL blocking) means that you still need to utilize multiple TCP connections to achieve maximal parallelization. Using multiple TCP connections means that congestion control information cannot be shared, that compression contexts cannot be shared (like SPDY does with headers), is worse for the internet (more costly for intermediaries and servers).

I could go on and on about HTTP pipelining vs SPDY. But I'd recommend just reading up on SPDY. Check out http://dev.chromium.org/spdy and our tech talk on SPDY at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNBkxA313kk&list=PLE0E03DF19D90B5F4&index=2&feature=plpp_video.

Moist

Answer 3

See Difference between HTTP pipeling and HTTP multiplexing with SPDY

Nasal