

Upcoming SPDY support details - alexchamberlain
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?29,226562

======
crusso
For the podcast-learning types, I enjoyed the Security Now episode where they
went over SPDY, episode 343.

<http://twit.tv/show/security-now/343>

It was a nice gentle introduction to the subject while I was walking my dog.

------
zmmmmm
So with Nginx, Apache, Tomcat all supporting SPDY that will be quite a lot of
the widely used servers. I wonder how popular and widely implemented SPDY has
to get before Microsoft would cave and put it in IIS and IE? I am sure they
will hold out for a bit, but at some point if 50% of web traffic can go faster
and IIS doesn't support that, it's going to be a pretty big disadvantage for
IIS.

~~~
ordinary
Why would Microsoft hold out? Is SPDY technologically inferior in some way?
Does it give Google some competetive advantage? Does not supporting it give
Microsoft some competetive advantage? Is there a fourth reason that I'm
missing?

------
pwpwp
SPDY is one frackin' cool protocol. I could easily see it being used as the
default protocol for _everything_ in the future, including inter-app comms in
an OS.

~~~
Zash
SCTP is much cooler. It's not HTTP-foucsed, doesn't violate layering and no-
one uses it!

~~~
pwpwp
AFAIU, the upcoming browser-to-browser networking in RTCWeb will be SCTP over
DTLS over UDP.

------
huggyface
For a variety of reasons I recently needed a reverse proxy(#1) and went with
Apache 2.2 w/Google's mod_spdy. What are the advantages, if any (above and
beyond that nginx has a lot of cred right now), of using nginx? In a prior
build-out nginx didn't even support HTTP/1.1 on the inside side of the reverse
proxy, while Apache 2.2 does.

#1 - We use it as a "least effort" geodistributed CDN. GeoDNS directs
worldwide users (a small number of very high value users) to their local
reverse proxy that has local caching of cacheable resources. Those proxies
speak to the normal HTTP back-end servers through an SSH tunnel).

~~~
alexchamberlain
Nginx is widely regarded to be much more efficient than Apache, as it using
non-blocking IO. I believe Nginx does support HTTP/1.1 now.

~~~
chc
Apache can use event-driven non-blocking IO too, as well as the more
traditional thread-per-connection mode.

~~~
harshreality
Apache's event MPM is not really an event MPM. It's a slightly modified worker
MPM. It puts all idle connections (keepalive state) and listeners in a single
thread. Each active connection gets its own thread.

The event MPM also behaves the same as the worker MPM for SSL connections.

<http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/event.html>

~~~
pquerna
This is incorrect for Apache 2.4: In 2.4 there is async write completion.

SSL behavior is still like the worker MPM, due to design issues in mod_ssl and
filter stack. This is unlikely to change until 3.0.

~~~
harshreality
In what sense is Apache 2.4.2's event mpm event-based when this is the result
of siege -c 1000 <http://hostname:port/sample.txt>

    
    
      server-info selections
      MPM Name: event
      MPM Information: Max Daemons: 1 Threaded: yes Forked: yes
    
      server-status selections
      1550 requests/sec - 1.6 GB/second - 1.1 MB/request
      9 requests currently being processed, 41 idle workers
    
      W__W_____W_W_______R______W______W_______W__W_____..............
      ................................................................
      ......................
    

If those are asynchronous response writing handlers in the sense that they
could be handled by an event loop, why do they have their own threads?

