1. You install "Railgun" on your publishing web server
2. It pushes deltas of your webpage to CloudFlare
3. Who then update their cache of your webpage across their CDN.
It seems as though folk are starting to see that in most environments caching ought to be driven by POSTs, not GETs + timeouts.
Each end of the Railgun link keeps track of the last version of a web page that's been requested. When a new request comes in for a page that Railgun has already seen, only the changes are sent across the link. The listener component make an HTTP request to the real, origin web server for the uncacheable page, makes a comparison with the stored version and sends across the differences. The sender then reconstructs the page from its cache and the difference sent by the other side.
I take this to mean that there are two chained proxies, each proxying pages on a per-user basis. Since the upstream server-side proxy knows what the downstream client-side proxy has cached, it can send a very efficient shorthand describing how the page has changed without having to resend the information that's already been sent.
I think it's a smart good approach. So long as the origin-proxy is inside the datacenter, it clearly would save a lot on data charges. But I'm surprised the speedup is as much as JGC reports since you still have to pass the full page over the last-mile to user. I would have thought that was the slowest link. Is the core internet so congested that this is not the case? I'm presuming the data center and the origin server have very good throughput, and that even a very short message would have the same latency.
The issue with the end user number is deciding on what to report. We are currently rolling out a very large system for monitoring timing throughout our network and will be able (later this year) to report on actual end user timings to see how much Railgun makes a difference. Our goal (as usual) is to improve the end user experience because that makes our customers (publishers) happy. Railgun is one small part of improving overall web performance.
OK. Still a useful measure, but a less dramatic one.
The issue with the end user number is deciding on what to report.
I would think that time to show a slightly changed page after a "refresh" or "reload" would be appropriate. What are the other choices?
For pages that are frequently accessed the deltas are often so small that they fit inside a single TCP packet, and because the connection between the two parts of Railgun is kept active problems with TCP connection time and slow start are eliminated.
Just reread this part, and not sure I understand it. Yes, there are no extra packets between the proxies, but in the base case there is only a single proxy and hence no extra connection time to consider. I'd think even a very fast proxy would introduce more latency than a hop on a backbone router. Or are you indeed pushing the per-user delta to the data center in anticipation of the request?
Well, what we really want to measure is the overall effect so that we can see how Railgun improves things in general. The 'refresh' time is interesting, but we're also interested in the network scale (how does user X downloading Y improve the speed for user Z downloading the same (but slightly different) page Y).
"but in the base case there is only a single proxy and hence no extra connection time to consider"
That isn't really the base case. The base case is that we need to go get the resource with a normal HTTP connection direct to the server.
HTTP supports that too (through ETag and 204 Not Modified).