Torsten Zimmermann
ABSTRACT
HTTP/2 was recently standardized to optimize the Web by promising faster Page Load Times (PLT) as compared to the widely deployed HTTP/1.1. One promising feature is HTTP/2 server push, which turns the former pull-only into a push-enabled Web. By enabling servers to preemptively push resources to the clients without explicit request, it promises further improvements of the overall PLT. Despite this potential, it remains unknown if server push can indeed yield human perceivable improvements.
In this paper, we address this open question by assessing server push in both i) a laboratory and ii) a crowdsourcing study. Our study assesses the question if server push can lead to perceivable faster PLTs as compared to HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 without push. We base this study on a set of 28 push-enabled real-word websites selected in an Internet-wide measurement. Our results reveal that our subjects are able to perceive utilization of server push. However, its usage does not necessarily accomplish perceived PLT improvements and can sometimes even be noticeably detrimental.
- B. Ager, N. Chatzis, A. Feldmann, N. Sarrar, S. Uhlig, and W. Willinger. Anatomy of a Large European IXP. In ACM SIGCOMM 2012. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Belshe, R. Peon, and M. Thomson. 2015. Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2). RFC 7540. (18 Nov. 2015).Google Scholar
- E. Bocchi, L. De Cicco, M. Mellia, and D. Rossi. The Web, the Users, and the MOS: Influence of HTTP/2 on User Experience. In PAM 2017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Butkiewicz, D. Wang, Z. Wu, H. V. Madhyastha, and V. Sekar. KLOTSKI: Reprioritizing Web Content to Improve User Experience on Mobile Devices. In NSDI 2015.Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. N. de Oliveira, P. T. Endo, W. Melo, D. Sadok, and J. Kelner. Should I Wait or Should I Push? A Performance Analysis of Push Feature in HTTP/2 Connections. In ACM LANCOMM Workshop 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. de Saxcé, I. Oprescu, and Y. Chen. Is HTTP/2 really faster than HTTP/1.1?. In IEEE INFOCOM (WKSHPS) 2015.Google Scholar
- Z. Durumeric, E. Wustrow, and J. A. Halderman. ZMap: Fast Internet-wide Scanning and Its Security Applications. In USENIX Security 2013.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Erman, V. Gopalakrishnan, R. Jana, and K. K. Ramakrishnan. 2015. Towards a SPDY'Ier Mobile Web? IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 23, 6 (2015), 2010--2023. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Grigorik. 2013. High Performance Browser Networking. O'Reilly.Google Scholar
- D. Guse, S. Schuck, O. Hohlfeld, A. Raake, and S. Möller. Subjective quality of webpage loading: The impact of delayed and missing elements on quality ratings and task completion time. In QoMEX 2015.Google Scholar
- B. Han, S. Hao, and F. Qian. MetaPush: Cellular-Friendly Server Push For HTTP/2. In Workshop on All Things Cellular 2015. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Hoßfeld, S. Biedermann, R. Schatz, A. Platzer, S. Egger, and M. Fiedler. The memory effect and its implications on Web QoE modeling. In ITC 2011.Google Scholar
- T. Hoßfeld, C. Keimel, M. Hirth, B. Gardlo, J. Habigt, K. Diepold, and P. Tran-Gia. 2014. Best Practices for QoE Crowdtesting: QoE Assessment With Crowdsourcing. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 16, 2 (Feb 2014), 541--558. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Kelton, J. Ryoo, A. Balasubramanian, and S. R. Das. Improving User Perceived Page Load Times Using Gaze. In NSDI 2017.Google Scholar
- J. Khalid, S. Agarwal, A. Akella, and J. Padhye. Improving the performance of SPDY for mobile devices. In ACM HotMobile Poster 2015.Google Scholar
- R. Peon and H. Ruellan. 2015. HPACK: Header Compression for HTTP/2. RFC 7541. (31 Dec. 2015).Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Popa, A. Ghodsi, and I. Stoica. HTTP as the narrow waist of the future Internet. In ACM SIGCOMM HotNets 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Strohmeier, S. Egger, A. Raake, T. Hoßfeld, and R. Schatz. 2014. Web Browsing. In Quality of Experience: Advanced Concepts, Applications and Methods, Sebastian Möller and Alexander Raake (Eds.). Springer, 329--338. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Varela, T. Mäki, L. Skorin-Kapov, and T. Hoßfeld. Towards an understanding of visual appeal in website design. In QoMEx 2013. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Varela, L. Skorin-Kapov, T. Mäki, and T. Hoßfeld. 2015. QoE in the Web: A dance of design and performance. In QoMEX 2015. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Varvello, J. Blackburn, D. Naylor, and K. Papagiannaki. EYEORG: A Platform For Crowdsourcing Web Quality Of Experience Measurements. In CoNEXT 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Varvello, K. Schomp, D. Naylor, J. Blackburn, A. Finamore, and K. Papagiannaki. Is the Web HTTP/2 Yet?. In PAM 2016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- X. S. Wang, A. Balasubramanian, A. Krishnamurthy, and D. Wetherall. How speedy is SPDY?. In NSDI 2014.Google Scholar
- T. Zimmermann, J. Rüth, B. Wolters, and O. Hohlfeld. How HTTP/2 Pushes the Web: An Empirical Study of HTTP/2 Server Push. In IFIP Networking 2017.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A QoE Perspective on HTTP/2 Server Push
Recommendations
Is the web ready for HTTP/2 server push?
CoNEXT '18: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and TechnologiesHTTP/2 supersedes HTTP/1.1 to tackle the performance challenges of the modern Web. A highly anticipated feature is Server Push, enabling servers to send data without explicit client requests, thus potentially saving time. Although guidelines on how to ...
QoE Driven Server Selection for VoD in the Cloud
CLOUD '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 8th International Conference on Cloud ComputingIn commercial Video-on-Demand (VoD) systems, user's Quality of Experience (QoE) is the key factor for user satisfaction. In order to improve user's QoE, VoD providers replicate popular videos in geo-distributed Cloud and deploy cache servers close to ...
Comments