Client-Side Energy Efficiency of HTTP/2 for Web and Mobile App Developers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent technological advancements have enabled mobile devices to provide mobile users with substantial capability and accessibility. Energy is evidently one of the most critical resources for such devices, in spite of the substantial gain in popularity of mobile devices, such as smart phones, their utility is severely constrained by the bounded battery capacity. Mobile users are very interested in accessing the Internet although it is one of the most expensive operations in terms of energy and cost. HTTP/2 has been proposed and accepted as the new standard for supporting the World Wide Web. HTTP/2 is expected to offer better performance, such as reduced page load time. Consequently, from the mobile users point of view, the question arises:does HTTP/2 offer improved energy consumption performance achieving longer battery life?In this paper, we compare the energy consumption of HTTP/2 with its predecessor (i.e., HTTP/1.1) using a variety of realworld and synthetic test scenarios. We also investigate how Transport Layer Security (TLS) impacts the energy consumption of the mobile devices. Our study suggests that Round Trip Time (RTT) is one of the biggest factors in deciding how advantageous HTTP/2 is compared to HTTP/1.1. We conclude that for networks with higher RTTs, HTTP/2 has better energy consumption performance than HTTP/1.1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".