# Spdy + http/2 **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [December 3, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/spdy-http-2/243559 "2015-12-03T19:14:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sadaf\_N](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/858c86/32.png) [@Sadaf\_N](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Sadaf_N)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/spdy-http-2/243559/1 "2015-12-03T19:14:29Z")
NGINX devs, I know you were very excited to remove SPDY support from NGINX, but for the next few years there are a lot of devices (mobile devices that can’t upgrade, end users who aren’t comfortable upgrading, etc) that are not going to have http/2 support. By removing SPDY support you’ve created a situation where we either have to penalize those users by forcing them to HTTP(S) connections, or we have to forego upgrading NGINX and not offer HTTP/2. Cloudflare is offering both SPDY and HTTP/2 - they are a huge NGINX shop but I’m not clear if they are using NGINX to do that or not. I’d like to encourage you to follow their lead and reinstate the SPDY support for a while (even if its just a compile time option thats disabled by default). ---
**Author:** ![CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/CJ_Ess)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/spdy-http-2/243559/2 "2015-12-03T19:29:41Z")
Hello, On 12/3/15 9:14 PM, CJ Ess wrote: > NGINX devs, > > I know you were very excited to remove SPDY support from NGINX, but > for the next few years there are a lot of devices (mobile devices > that can’t upgrade, end users who aren’t comfortable upgrading, etc) > that are not going to have http/2 support. By removing SPDY support > you’ve created a situation where we either have to penalize those > users by forcing them to HTTP(S) connections, or we have to forego > upgrading NGINX and not offer HTTP/2. I think these “a lot” and “many years” are just overestimation based on the marketing buzz around spdy, http2 and other so-called innovations: > **[Usage Statistics of SPDY for Websites, October 2026](https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-spdy)** > > How many websites are using SPDY > **[Usage Statistics of HTTP/2 for Websites, October 2026](https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-http2)** > > How many websites are using HTTP/2 As you see, spdy penetration is just 6% and it starts to decline. http/2 is still ~2% but growing super quickly. And we do provide 1.8 branch which supports spdy. > Cloudflare is offering both SPDY and HTTP/2 - they are a huge NGINX > shop but I’m not clear if they are using NGINX to do that or not. > I’d like to encourage you to follow their lead and reinstate the > SPDY support for a while (even if its just a compile time option > thats disabled by default). As for your request: can you explain how spdy deprecation affects you personally (not Cloudflare or other). – Maxim K. ---
**Author:** ![CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/CJ_Ess)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/spdy-http-2/243559/3 "2015-12-03T23:35:37Z")
Let me get back to you on that - we’re going to send some traffic through Cloudflare and see how the traffic breaks out given the choice of all three protocols. ---
**Author:** ![CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/CJ_Ess)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/spdy-http-2/243559/4 "2015-12-05T00:17:40Z")
Looks like Cloudflare patched SPDY support back into NGINX, and they will release the patch to everyone next year: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-http2/#comment-2391853103](https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-http2/#comment-2391853103) ---
**Author:** ![CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/CJ_Ess)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 11:06am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/spdy-http-2/243559/5 "2016-02-09T11:06:59Z")
I was able to patch nginx-1.9.10 which supports both SPDY + HTTP2. I don’t intend to use both of them simultaneously on the same interface. My question: Is there a reason why this is not done? It gives me an option to choose between the two per interface. server { listen x.x.x.x:443 ssl http2; server\_name [abc.com](http://abc.com); … } server { listen y.y.y.y:443 ssl spdy; server\_name [def.com](http://def.com); … } Posted at Nginx Forum: > **[Re: SPDY + HTTP/2](https://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,263245,264414#msg-264414)** > > NGINX devs, I know you were very excited to remove SPDY support from NGINX, but for the next few years there are a lot of devices (mobile devices that can't upgrade, end users who aren't comfortable upgrading, etc) that are not going to have http/2... ---
**Author:** ![CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@CJ\_Ess](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/CJ_Ess)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/spdy-http-2/243559/6 "2016-02-09T20:59:57Z")
On Tuesday 09 February 2016 05:06:39 mongia.ramandeep wrote: > } > server { > listen y.y.y.y:443 ssl spdy; > server\_name [def.com](http://def.com); > … > } The answer is that there’s a huge difference between patching something to get some feature for your own build and actually to provide support, to keep maintaining the code. We aren’t going to spend more time on maintaining already deprecated experimental protocol. A lot of work is being done for every release to find and fix bugs, to implement new features, to test on various platforms. All these procedures are essentially to provide high quality product for millions of users around the world with various use cases and configurations. Any additional line of code adds additional cost to this work. wbr, Valentin V. Bartenev