Not everything that keeps you waiting on web pages to load comes from a slow connection or poor rendering times on your browser. Some of that time is actually taken up by some fairly fundamental networking and communication protocols that have been in use for quite awhile. Google is hoping to give these tiny delays the boot with two different proposals. The first is SPDY (pronounced "speedy") and it relates to to HTTP. It's essentially made up of a set of small communication efficiencies like header compression and allowing browsers to make multiple requests with a single connection. Google has already built it into Chrome, Mozilla is building it into Firefox 11, and now the Mark Nottingham of the HTTP Working Group is proposing it be included in HTTP 2.0.
Another proposal that is in the more nascent stage is also more fundamental. In a blog post on Monday, Google engineer Yuchung Cheng listed several proposals for speeding up TCP, which stands for "Transmission Control Protocol" and was famously created in 1974 by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn. It's served us quite well since then, but Google is suggesting a number of improvements to speed it up, including reducing the number of "round trips" a data packet needs to make, reducing timeouts from three to one second, and implementing TCP Fast Open and Proportional Rate Reduction. All of that combined could theoretically work to reduce latency and — just as importantly — be backwards-compatible with current TCP systems. That all sounds like a beautiful future, but unlike Google's SPDY proposals, it will likely be some time before we have any sort of widespread agreement about whether Google's proposals are the right thing for the internet.

There are 14 Comments. Add yours.
If they removed all their ad spam all over the internet, the internet would speed up a whole lot more than tweaking some protocol.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow. Hate much?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:15 AM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
…and no one would bother to post any content, because there would be no money coming in from ad revenue. Yeah, great idea.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:31 AM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Hey I pay for an Ars Technica subscription so I can pay them and not have to look at ads. Also, if you have enough traffic to your site, you can get much less-annoying ads. See duckduckgo or stackexchange for examples of “less crappy than Google” ads.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
you only need to go on your google chrome to this url
chrome://net-internals/#events
or this one
chrome://net-internals/#spdy
and if you have google webs open ( gmail, google+ search, …) then you have SPDY running
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:09 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Google needs to figure out a clean way to do it. It’s a ya annoying having 15 chrome processes running in the task mgr all the time.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:57 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Taskmgr.exe aesthetics probably don’t rate a high priority for their developers…
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:22 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Haha….I hope you were kidding when you said that, but I suspect you weren’t. The reason you see so many Chrome processes in the task manager is because Chrome runs each tab as its own process. The reason they do is so that if any given tab crashes, it does not take the entire Chrome instance (and all other tabs) down along with it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:22 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
It’s primarily for security – the robustness aspect was not the main motivation. By having separate processes you can use the OS security features to prevent malicious websites accessing any information outside its own tab.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:36 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The problem is that the task manager is not optimized for multi process apps like chrome.
The task manager should regroup all the processes that belong to the same app; not just list them like they where completely different apps.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:27 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Get Process Explorer from Technet
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:36 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
relates to HTTP.
just sayin
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:38 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Don’t insult rev Tutu!!!
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
this is not true.
Mark is proposing to the HTTP working group that they start working towards HTTP/2.0 by accepting proposals.
while speedy will definitively be one (if not first) among the proposals, and is probable to form basis of the final solution (as it already has running code, is being tested in production, and is likely to have widest support), there is nothing about SPDY that is final or set in stone..
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JanMar/0098.html
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.