site logoTune The Web
I've written a book! - click here to view or buy "HTTP/2 in Action" from Manning. Use code 39pollard to get 39% off!

Why do we need HTTP/2?

This page was originally created on and last edited on .

Request-Response flow over HTTP for a basic example website

Why do we need HTTP/2? - an excerpt from "HTTP/2 in Action"

By Barry Pollard

Why do we need HTTP/2? The web works fine under HTTP/1.1 doesn’t it? In this article, we’ll tackle these questions with a well-known, real-world example and show why HTTP/1.1 has fundamental performance problems, and therefore why HTTP/2, is needed now.

Save 39% off HTTP/2 in Action with code 39pollard at


HTTP/1.1 is what most of the internet is built upon, at the time of writing, and it’s functioning reasonably well for a 20-year-old technology. However, during that time, web usage has exploded, and we’ve moved from simple static web sites to fully interactive web applications for online banking, shopping, booking holidays, watching media, socializing and almost every other aspect of our lives.

Internet availability and speed is increasing with technologies like Broadband and Fiber for our offices and homes, which means speeds are many times better than the old dial-up speeds users had to deal with when the Internet was first launched. Even mobile has seen technologies like 3G and 4G bring broadband level speeds on the move at reasonable, consumer-level prices.

Although the increase in download speeds has been impressive, the need for faster speeds has outpaced this. And although broadband speeds will probably continue to increase for some time yet, there are also certain fundamental limitations to other aspects that impact internet speed that can’t be fixed as easily. As we shall see, latency is a key factor in browsing the web and it’s fundamentally limited by the speed of light – a universal constant that physics says we can’t increase.

HTTP/1.1 and the current World Wide Web

HTTP is a request and response protocol that was originally designed for requesting a single plain text content, which ended the connection upon completion. HTTP/1.0 introduced other media types, like allowing images on a web page, and HTTP/1.1 ensured the connection wasn’t closed by default, on the assumption that more requests would likely be needed by the web page.

These were good improvements, but the Internet has also changed considerably since the last revision of HTTP (HTTP/1.1 in 1997, though the formal spec was clarified a few times, the last in 2014). The HTTP Archive runs a trends site at which allows you to see the growth of web sites as shown in Figure 1 for the last five years:

Website Average Size
Figure 1 Average size of websites 2012 – 2017 (

As can be seen, the average website requests over 110 resources, and weighs in at a hefty 3.3Mb in size. A wide variation leads to that average though. Looking at the Alexa Top 10 websites in the US, for example, we see the results shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Top 10 websites in United States and size
SiteNumber of RequestsSize

The table shows that some websites (e.g. Wikipedia, Google) are hugely optimized and require few resources, but others load hundreds of resources and many megabytes of data. The growth of websites is primarily driven by becoming more media-rich, with images and videos being the norm on most websites. Websites are also becoming more complex with multiple frameworks and dependencies needed to correctly display their content.

Websites are also less likely to be simple, single-load pages. Web pages started out as static pages, but as the web became more interactive, web pages started to be generated dynamically on the server side - think CGI (Common Gateway Interface) pages or Java Servlet or JSPs (Java Server Pages). The next stage moved from generating full pages server-side to having a basic HTML page, which is supplemented by AJAX (“asynchronous JavaScript and XML”) calls made from client-side JavaScript. These AJAX calls make extra requests to the web server to allow the contents of the web page to change, without necessitating a full page reload. The simplest way of understanding this is by looking at the change in web searches. In the early days of the web, before the advent of search engines, directories of websites and pages were the primary way of finding information on the web (static and updated occasionally). Then the first search engines arrived, which allowed submitting a search form and getting the results back from the server (dynamic pages generated server-side), yet nowadays most search sites make suggestions in a drop down as you type – before you even click search. Google even went one step further and used to show results as you typed, though they’ve reversed this in summer of 2017 as more searches moved to mobile, where this made little sense.

It’s not only search engines - all sorts of web pages make heavy use of AJAX requests, from social media sites which load new posts, to news websites which update their home page as new news comes in. All this extra media and AJAX requests allow the websites we use to be more interesting web applications. However, the HTTP protocol wasn’t designed with this huge increase in resources in mind, and the protocol has some fundamental performance problems in its simple design.

HTTP/1.1 has a fundamental performance problem.

Let’s illustrate this with an example. Let’s say we have a simple webpage with some text and two images. Let’s say the request takes 50 milliseconds (ms) to travel across the Internet to the web server, and that this is a static website, so the webserver just picks the file up from the fileserver and sends it back, and let’s assume it can do this in 10ms. Similarly, the web-browser takes 10ms to process the image and send the next request. These figures are all hypotheticals. If you have a Content Management System (CMS) that creates pages on the fly (e.g. WordPress runs PHP to process a page), then the 10ms server time may not be accurate depending on exactly what processing is happening on the server and/or database. Additionally, images may be large and take longer to send than a request, but these are for illustration purposes – we’ll look at real examples later in the article. Anyway, for this simple example, the flow under HTTP would look like this Figure 2.

Request-Response flow over HTTP for a basic example website
Figure 2 Request-Response flow over HTTP for a basic example website.

The boxes represent processing at either the client or server end, and the arrows represent network traffic. What’s immediately apparent in this hypothetical example, is how much time is spent sending messages back and forth. Of the 360ms needed to draw the complete page, only 60ms was spent processing the requests at either the client side or the browser side. 300ms, or over 80% of the time, was spent waiting for messages to travel across the internet. During this time, neither the web browser nor the web server are doing much in this example - this is wasted time and it’s a major problem of the HTTP protocol. At the 120ms mark, after the browser asks for image 1, it knows it needs image 2, but it waits around for the connection to be free, until it can send the request for it – which doesn’t happen until the 240ms mark. This is inefficient, but there are ways around this, as we shall see later (e.g. most browsers open multiple connections for example), but the point is that the basic HTTP protocol is quite inefficient.

Most websites aren’t made up of only two images and the performance issues shown above increase with the number of assets that need to be downloaded. This is particularly true for smaller assets where the processing on either side is small, relative to the network request and response time. One of the biggest problems of the modern internet is due to latency, rather than bandwidth. Latency measures how long it takes to send a single message to the server, whereas bandwidth measures how much you can download. Newer technologies are increasing bandwidth all the time (which helps address the increase in size of websites), but latency isn’t improving (which therefore limits the number of requests from increasing). This is because latency is fundamentally restricted by physics (the speed of light) and, believe it or not, data travelling through fiber optic cables are pretty close to travelling at the speed of light already; there’s only a little to be gained here no matter how much the technology improves.

Mike Belshe of Google did some experiments, which show we’re reaching the point of diminishing returns for increasing bandwidth. We may now be able to stream high definition television, but our web surfing hasn’t got faster at the same rate and often takes several seconds to load even on a fast internet connection. The Internet can’t continue to increase at the rate it has unless we solve the fundamental performance issues of HTTP/1.1 - that too much time is wasted in sending and receiving even small HTTP messages.

Pipelining for HTTP/1.1

HTTP/1.1 tried to introduce the concept of pipelining which allowed concurrent requests to be sent, before responses were received. This would allow requests to be sent in parallel. The initial HTML still needs to be requested separately, but once the browser saw it needed two images and it could request them both one after the other. This is shown in Figure 3, and it shaves off 100ms – or a third of the time in this simple, hypothetical example.

HTTP with pipelining for a basic example website
Figure 3 HTTP with pipelining for a basic example website.

Pipelining should’ve brought huge improvements to HTTP performance but, for a number of reasons, it was difficult to implement, easy to break, and not well supported on either web browser or web server sides. The result is that it’s rarely used – none of the main web browsers use it, for example.

Even if pipelining was better supported, it still required responses to be returned in the order they were requested. For example, if Image 2 was available, but Image 1 needed to be fetched from another server, then the Image 2 response waited – even though it should be possible to send this file immediately. This is known as the head-of-line blocking (HOL blocking) problem and it’s common in other networking protocols as well as HTTP.

Waterfall Diagrams for Web Performance Measurement

The flow of requests and responses as shown in Figures 1 and 2 are often shown as waterfall diagrams with the assets listed on the left and time increasing on the right, as these are easier to read than the above methods for large numbers of resources. Figure 4 shows a waterfall diagram for our example site, and Figure 5 shows the same when pipelining is used.

Waterfall diagram of Example website
Figure 4 Waterfall diagram of Example website
Waterfall diagram of Example website with pipelining
Figure 5 Waterfall diagram of Example website with pipelining.

In both examples, the vertical green line represents when the initial page can be drawn (known as first paint time), as images are often loaded after the initial paint time, and the vertical blue line shows when the page is finished. These examples are simple, but they quickly get quite complex when we show some real-life examples later.

Various tools including and web browser Developer Tools, generate waterfall diagrams and these are important to understand when reviewing web performance. Most of these tools also break the total time for each asset into the various components such as DNS lookup, TCP connection time…etc. as show in Figure 6.

Testing HTTP/2 support in Chrome developer tools
Figure 6 Waterfall diagram from

This gives a lot more information than my simple waterfall diagrams - it breaks each request into several parts including:

All of this is useful information when analyzing the performance of a website and we’ll make heavy use of waterfall diagrams to explain these concepts.

Real World Examples

How big of a problem is all this? We’ve shown that HTTP/1.1 is inefficient for multiple requests, but how bad is that? Is this noticeable?

Example Website -

We’ve talked theoretically up until now, but let’s now look at a real-world example. If we take as a well-known website, and run it through we get the following waterfall diagram shown in Figure 7. This diagram demonstrates many of the problems with HTTP/1.1, and I’ll explain it in detail.

Part of WebPagetest results for
Figure 7 Part of WebPagetest results for

The loading continues on past these requests, but even only looking at these first few requests has already identified problems with HTTP/1.1, and I’ll not belabor the point by continuing through the whole-site load. Many connections are needed to avoid any queuing and often the time taken to make this connection doubles the time needed to download the asset. Web Page Test has a handy connection view which is shown in Figure 11 for this same example.

Webpagetest Connection View for Amazon
Figure 11 WebPageTest Connection View of loading

Here it can be seen that loading Amazon requires 20 connections for the main site - ignoring the advertising resources which add another 28 connections not shown in above screenshot. Although the first six connections are fairly well used (connections 3-8), the other four connections for this domain (connections 9-12) are less well used and, like many other connections (e.g. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20), are used to load only one or two resources, making the time to create that connection wasteful.

The reason these four extra connections are opened for (and why Chrome appears to break its limit of six connections per domain) is interesting and took a bit of investigation. Requests can be sent with credentials (which usually means cookies), but requests can also be sent without, which are handled by Chrome using separate connections. For reasons that I admit I don’t understand, Amazon chose to use setAttribute("crossorigin","anonymous") in the JavaScript requests – without credentials - which means the existing connections aren’t used and instead more connections are created. To be honest I can’t see any reason for this, because they allow credentialed connections for the images and I couldn’t see any cookies on the domain. Regardless, they explicitly do this, and the above shows this is inefficient at a HTTP level, though they may have other reasons for this (e.g. security).

The Amazon example shows that even when a site is well-optimized with the workarounds necessary to boost performance under HTTP/1.1, there’s a still a performance penalty to using these performance workarounds. These performance workarounds are also complicated to set up. Not every site wants to manage multiple domains, or sprite images together, or merge all their JavaScript (or CSS) into the one file, and not every site has the resources of Amazon to create these optimizations - or are even aware of them. Smaller sites are often much less optimized and therefore suffer the limitations of HTTP/1 even more.

Hence the need to adopt HTTP/2! We’re going to stop here. If you’re interested in learning more about HTTP/2, read the entire first chapter of HTTP/2 in Action for free here and see this slide deck.

Let me know below your thoughts below, or a the Manning forum for this book.

This page was originally created on and last edited on .

How useful was this page?
Loading interactions…