←back to thread

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

(arxiv.org)
306 points carlos-menezes | 5 comments | 19 Oct 24 21:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lysace ◴[19 Oct 24 21:45 UTC] No.41890996[source]▶
> We find that over fast Internet, the UDP+QUIC+HTTP/3 stack suffers a data rate reduction of up to 45.2% compared to the TCP+TLS+HTTP/2 counterpart.

Haven't read the whole paper yet, but below 600 Mbit/s is implied as being "Slow Internet" in the intro.

replies(9): >>41891071 #>>41891077 #>>41891146 #>>41891362 #>>41891480 #>>41891497 #>>41891574 #>>41891685 #>>41891800 #
Fire-Dragon-DoL ◴[19 Oct 24 21:57 UTC] No.41891071[source]▶
That is interesting though. 1gbit is becoming more common
replies(2): >>41891194 #>>41891645 #
schmidtleonard ◴[19 Oct 24 22:13 UTC] No.41891194[source]▶
It's wild that 1gbit LAN has been "standard" for so long that the internet caught up.

Meanwhile, low-end computers ship with a dozen 10+Gbit class transceivers on USB, HDMI, Displayport, pretty much any external port except for ethernet, and twice that many on the PCIe backbone. But 10Gbit ethernet is still priced like it's made from unicorn blood.

replies(6): >>41891250 #>>41891304 #>>41891326 #>>41891460 #>>41891692 #>>41892294 #
1. jsheard ◴[19 Oct 24 22:33 UTC] No.41891304[source]▶
Those very fast consumer interconnects are distinguished from ethernet by very limited cable lengths though, none of them are going to push 10gbps over tens of meters nevermind a hundred. DisplayPort is up to 80gbps now but in that mode it can barely even cross 1.5m of heavily shielded copper before the signal dies.

In a perfect world we would start using fiber in consumer products that need to move that much bandwidth, but I think the standards bodies don't trust consumers with bend radiuses and dust management so instead we keep inventing new ways to torture copper wires.

replies(2): >>41891533 #>>41891614 #
2. schmidtleonard ◴[19 Oct 24 23:13 UTC] No.41891533[source]▶
Sure you need fiber for long runs at ultra bandwidth, but short runs are common and fiber is not a good reason for DAC to be expensive. Not within an order of magnitude of where it is.
replies(1): >>41892108 #
3. crote ◴[19 Oct 24 23:25 UTC] No.41891614[source]▶
> In a perfect world we would start using fiber in consumer products that need to move that much bandwidth

We are already doing this. USB-C is explicitly designed to allow for cables with active electronics, including conversion to & from fiber. You could just buy an optical USB-C cable off Amazon, if you wanted to.

replies(1): >>41892073 #
4. Dylan16807 ◴[20 Oct 24 01:02 UTC] No.41892073[source]▶
When you make the cable do the conversion, you go from two expensive transceivers to six expensive transceivers. And if the cable breaks you need to throw out four of them. It's a poor replacement for direct fiber use.
5. Dylan16807 ◴[20 Oct 24 01:12 UTC] No.41892108[source]▶
These days, passive cables that support ultra bandwidth are down to like .5 meters.

For anything that wants 10Gbps lanes or less, copper is fine.

For ultra bandwidth, going fiber-only is a tempting idea.