2

I'm aware that HTTP/2 is using only https protocol.

My existing implementation on the website are all HTTP/1.1 with http protocol with thousands of existing urls.

To add HTTP/2 support, without changing the html source code on a massive scale, I plan to redirect all http requests to https on the nginx server block level.

server {
    listen 80 default_server;
    listen [::]:80 default_server;
    server_name _;
    return 301 https://$host$request_uri;
}

My questions are:

(1) With this approach, is there any drawback/impact on search engine indexing and bot crawling?

(2) Is there going to be significant overhead in terms of server resources with this approach of redirect?

Any implementation suggestion is greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

  • So you're just asking whether or not to 301 forward all to HTTPS? Yes, do it...but try to avoid having redirects if you can. How? You should also be using HSTS, then the redirect is client side (307) and more secure coverage. For the source code, you can either mass replace, or make a str_replace() handler that looks for things like src="http: in data such as that from the WYSIWYG editors. Also make sure your routing/url/menu engine is in HTTPS mode. This way things like dynamically generated links render with correct protocol, avoiding a redirect. Generally G-bot does not like more redirs – dhaupin Jun 27 '16 at 15:55
0

1) No because it's the same content and only the protocol has changed. You may notice a temporary dip as Google discovers the change and updates its indexes but it will go back to what it was before.

2) Not with a redirect. Service resources will increase somewhat because you would be encrypting your data. Otherwise, no.

0

If you have to ask the question then you should not be using a 301 redirect. There is no way out once you add a 301 on your site. Actually http/2 does not require ssl, but there are no implementations I am aware of which allow for non-ssl requests.

As to the questions you asked....compared to what? Leaving it as is? Using a 302?

Yes Google say http2 will influence rankings, but they also said that about rendering times - in practice the impact this had was pretty marginal. Using a 302, google will continue to publish the old url in the search results, while if you use a 301, the new url will be shown. But I would VERY STRONGLY recommend a 302 and a lot of log analysis before you switch a 301

-1

(1) With this approach, is there any drawback/impact on search engine indexing and bot crawling?

You might get an advantage for using HTTP/2.0 due to its ability to multiplex data over the network instead of a head-of-line blocking.

Info is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP/2#Differences_from_HTTP_1.1 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-of-line_blocking

But ultimately, Google factors the time to first byte of a page. If it takes too long to receive a byte from the server, Google will not want to index the page.

(2) Is there going to be significant overhead in terms of server resources with this approach of redirect?

If you're redirecting every URL from http to https just for HTTP 2.0, then you're likely are using extra server resources because guests might end up going to the http version (just because most are likely not willing to type out the whole https:// when entering a URL) only to be redirected to the https version. This is because a redirect to the correct page requires two requests to your server instead of one: One for the redirect page, and one for the intended page.

It probably is not worth the switch to HTTP 2.0 if guests want to only view just one page on your site and that's it. If however they are navigating through several of your pages to find something, then you can consider HTTP 2.0.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.