Re: Should we redirect SPDY browsers to HTTPS?

[Matthew Steele]

Forwarding this question to the general spdy-dev mailing list; the other folks there might have some insight on this question.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Callum Macdonald <callum.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

Holamigos,

We're currently using mod_pagespeed and are looking at adding SPDY support. A quick look at Google Analytics browser data suggests around 30% of our visitors are using SPDY enabled browsers.

Currently, we serve 90% of our site over HTTP. What's the best practice for SPDY? Do we redirect SPDY enabled browsers to the HTTPS verion of the site? Or we send all browsers to the HTTPS version? Some other approach? If the redirect is best practice, how is that best achieved? mod_rewrite rule?

Cheers - Callum.

[Roberto Peon]

You might also want to consider testing the "alternate-protocol" header, allowing for HTTP to go over a SPDY connection, at least for Chrome.

In general the best suggestion is to run a test/experiment and see which you like :)

-=R

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "spdy-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to spdy-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Callum Macdonald]

Thanks for the alternate-protocol suggestion. I've gone some way down that road, but It looks like Firefox does not support the alternate-protocol header. :-(

Stats. 22% of our users are Chrome, another 10% are using Firefox versions which support SPDY. So ~68% of our traffic does not support SPDY. We're an ecommerce site.

Any advice on whether we should redirect only the Firefox users to the SPDY site, or just redirect everyone to https / SPDY?

Cheers - Callum.

[Callum Macdonald]

Thanks for the spdy reply, I appreciate it. :-)

Interesting, that was also my feeling, send everybody to HTTPS. We're in a difficult position where we don't really have enough traffic to make accurate measurements. So it'd be hard to measure the performance difference of HTTP vs HTTPS. I have noticed more and more sites defaulting to HTTPS, but then Amazon is still serving product pages over HTTP only, and they're pretty switched on with this stuff I think.

The other advantage of pure HTTPS is that we don't get a penalty when upgrading from HTTP to HTTPS for checkout. Otherwise all the static assets have to be loaded again over the HTTPS connection.

In our case server load is so low we could quadruple it without noticing, so that aspect of SSL is insignificant to us.

I'll post back if we make any solid progress. Any other input welcome.

Cheers - Callum.

On 11 October 2013 11:49, Michiel Beijen <michiel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think in general the advise is to redirect everyone from http to
https - more and more sites do that nowadays. Previously people were
hesitant about this because it would require more resources on your
web server farm but nowadays the penalty is not so noticable any more.

On the other hand there is the possiblilty of having more latency
because of SSL handshake.

Of course, if you'd make the change, you might want to first redirect
a subset of users and monitor your web servers closely and measure web
page rendering times.

--
Mike

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Callum Macdonald

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

> "mod-spdy-discuss" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to mod-spdy-discu...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "mod-spdy-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mod-spdy-discuss/G9L6ZYTSpZQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to mod-spdy-discu...@googlegroups.com.