dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2009-11-12 17:58:32: Over the years we've seen no limit of specialized hardware, software or other gadgetry promising to defeat the laws of physics and speed up your Internet connection above and beyond its basic capabilities. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...

... Google is that someone.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Quite possibly true.



Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika

1 edit

1 recommendation

Big difference between Google and those scammers

This is almost a hobby for Google, not a gimmick that is to be their only income and make them rich. Google doesn't have the same incentive to overhype this like those scammers did.



L337
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

reply to KrK

Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...

Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google.


AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to KrK

It depends on how serious Google is about it, a lot of Google projects are started and never reach a "1.0" revision experience.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to Z80

Re: Big difference between Google and those scammers

Sure. One problem though is that about 90% of the innovation I see at the lab at Google stumbles around like an alleyway drunk before being forgotten, so my only point is I'd like to see it applied in the real world before anybody gives out kisses...



NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

Ok, I have to ask...

With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? It would seem that as the speed of the connections to the network increases, the necessity of this protocol wanes. Additionally, with the option of simply tuning how your browser uses the network, you could probably achieve similar speed increases without needing a new protocol.
--
Kilroy was here


jimbopalmer
Tsar of all the Rushers

join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2

I wish Stuart Cheshire would look at it.

»www.stuartcheshire.org/
If he can't blow holes in it, it has no weaknesses.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.



Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
reply to Karl Bode

Re: Big difference between Google and those scammers

Come on...you don't like 4 years of betas?



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

Only if there's lots and lots of accompanying press releases.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to NetAdmin1

Re: Ok, I have to ask...

said by NetAdmin1:

With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? It would seem that as the speed of the connections to the network increases, the necessity of this protocol wanes. Additionally, with the option of simply tuning how your browser uses the network, you could probably achieve similar speed increases without needing a new protocol.
Good points. This page took .719 secs to load(based on Fasterfox add-on's timer). Will I actually notice or care if the page loaded in .35 secs?

Rather than some noticeable improvements for end users, this may be more about cutting down on the number of bytes delivered by Google's servers(header compression, etc). They are always looking for efficiencies(no matter how incrementally small) to cut down their costs. Even small efficiencies become huge when measured against how much data Google moves daily.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to NetAdmin1

Browser tuning is one thing, but SPDY sounds like it better takes advantage of whatever internet connection you have. Home connections aren't perfect, and realistically any increase in effective bandwidth (via compression or other peans) will result in a better web experience. There are some websites that still don't load with alacrity (triple word score!!!1!) on my 22/5 Comcast connection that a tuned browser and a hot protocol could fix.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Where do I sign up?

Hmm, reduced bandwidth on web sites, with compression and better protocol handling...is there a web server add-on that can allow this for pages served by, say, a LiteSpeed server? If such a thing were to be available, I'd love to convince my web host (small enough to be convince-able) to put it on their monster systems and make my site, and the other content driven sites that I work on, load even faster.

Because, after all (and not joking here), sites that load faster keep people engaged longer, and that's good for everyone



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to NetAdmin1

Re: Ok, I have to ask...

said by NetAdmin1:

With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing?
If you're on dial-up I'm sure you would


Modus
I hate smartassery on forums
Premium
join:2005-05-02
us

Took the words right out of my mouth....we all seem to forget our fellow americans that are not on broadband
--
Think Ahead. Learn More. Solve Now!



SYNACK
Just Firewall It
Premium,Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA

1 recommendation

Math?

How does a

"... pages loaded up to 55% faster..."

translate into a

"... they insist could double the speed of everyday browsing"?



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL

i smell april 1st

i smell an april fools day prank comin.


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to 88615298

Re: Ok, I have to ask...

Not just dialup. Look at the limited bandwidth of the sat services and mobile networks, not to mention people in developing countries. After all, the Internet extends far beyond industrialized nations.

Also, bandwidth usage is often highest when people need critical information, so anything you can do to increase the number of users who can access a Web site can count in those situations.



Jerm

join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2
reply to AVonGauss

Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...

I think the "bar" for 1.0 has been lowered with a lot of the crap written these days and Google gets there but just never past that... 2.0, 3.0 etc


Keiro

join:2005-10-25
Bakersfield, CA
kudos:1
reply to SYNACK

Re: Math?

Good question.

I wonder if they tried streaming HD content?

That'd be an interesting thought, wouldn't it? Also, what about quality? Does it cause quality to suffer like current streaming solutions are?


Radioman991

join:2001-09-24
Dayton, OH
reply to L337

Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...

said by L337:

Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google.
+1

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to SYNACK

Re: Math?

There's probably some psychological stuff built into the 2x, as in the faster a page loads the faster you browse, on an exponential curve. Also, page load times may not be all of the equation; if the server is 30% faster and the client is 55% faster there's your 2x right there (1.3 X 1.55 ~= 2.0)


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to Keiro

HD is already compressed. This sounds like just normal web browsing stuff. I'm sure the pages on which streaming players are embedded will get a boost, but the streams themselves will remain the same quality-wise and load-speed-wise.



NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

1 edit
reply to 88615298

Re: Ok, I have to ask...

said by 88615298:

If you're on dial-up I'm sure you would
At that speed, a new protocol isn't enough to mitigate the two-fold problem of the high latency's effects on TCP and the low bandwidth. At some point you get slow enough that the connection itself is your main limiting factor.
--
Kilroy was here


NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

Browser tuning is one thing, but SPDY sounds like it better takes advantage of whatever internet connection you have. Home connections aren't perfect, and realistically any increase in effective bandwidth (via compression or other peans) will result in a better web experience. There are some websites that still don't load with alacrity (triple word score!!!1!) on my 22/5 Comcast connection that a tuned browser and a hot protocol could fix.
First, nice use of the word alacrity. Now put down the thesaurus.

Ok, so SPDY takes advantage of the connection you have, but how much of the load time can be attributed to the connection? What about the effects of an overloaded or underpowered web server or database server (for dynamic sites)? What about the effects of the local client system that is running poorly?

So many factors affect the perception of browsing speed that a new protocol seems to have its limits.
--
Kilroy was here

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Of course it has limits, however on a slower connection (which a lot of folks are on, believe it or not) page transmission time is a big factor, and the assumption is that the browser is highly tuned to start with.

It's not a panacaea by any stretch but every little bit helps, especially when you're running a high-traffic site. I have a feeling the protocol is relatively light (but still smart) so Google is able to serve up stuff more efficiently on their end as well. That fact is also why I don't think this project will go by the wayside...it's in Google's interest to make the Internet as efficient as possible. Gets them lower costs and more page views.


Keiro

join:2005-10-25
Bakersfield, CA
kudos:1
reply to iansltx

Re: Math?

Forgive me for my ignorance, as I've not played with HD stuff... but I have to ask...

Theoretically, if they could compress it further with the technology with the already compressed HD, what advantages would it offer?

And if it COULD be done, is the quality theoretically awesome or so shitty it's not even worth it?

Mind you, this is all theoretical. I'm curious about this.
--
Wanderer of the Stars...

ShatteredTears NOC
Managing: ShatteredTears IRC
EidolonHost



Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House
reply to L337

Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...

said by L337:

Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google.
I've had a lot more machines infected by ads served up by Yahoo! owned ad servers (ie: Overture) than by Google owned ad servers (none at all).

Now that I think about it, out of the last dozen or so malware infections I've cleaned up; about half incurred at the other end of a Yahoo! search click-through and none from Google link.

I know what I have to guard against.

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to Keiro

Re: Math?

The compression employeed is for headers and such, which tend to contain repeated text and are thus easily compressible. I haven't read through the whitepaper (something to do for the weekend) but SPDY seems to be all about optimizing transfers of the main body, file-wise, of web content: text, in the form of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc.

So while there would be no quality difference if SPDY were to be used on a video stream, it probably tends toward the technically impossible on this particular tech. It's like using a hyped-up Go-Kart to deliver bags of concrete. It can be done, but there are applications for which the Go-Kart doesn't provide any benefit over a compact car. Neither are particularly good for delivering concrete mix, but on the Go-Kart you can go pretty darned fast with a light payload (compressed document-style web content).

Put another way, SPDY won't affect the quality or performance of streamed video itself, though it might make the initial page load of YouTube appreciably faster.


nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:7
reply to AVonGauss

Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...

said by AVonGauss:

It depends on how serious Google is about it, a lot of Google projects are started and never reach a "1.0" revision experience.
A "lot" actually being more like "almost all". These days Google is like the stock-market millionaires of the late 90's - it wants all the new toys and it wants to be in everything. Once it figures out the new toy is not as hot as it thought before - it simply loses interest. What's another $30mil to throw away at another project? NEXT!!