←back to thread

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

(arxiv.org)
306 points carlos-menezes | 3 comments | 19 Oct 24 21:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.749s | 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. michaelt ◴[19 Oct 24 22:36 UTC] No.41891326[source]▶
Agree that a widespread faster ethernet is long overdue.

But bear in mind, standards like USB4 only support very short cables. It's impressive that USB4 can offer 40 Gbps - but it can only do so on 1m cables. On the other hand, 10 gigabit ethernet claims to go 100m on CAT6A.

replies(1): >>41891634 #
2. crote ◴[19 Oct 24 23:28 UTC] No.41891634[source]▶
USB4 does support longer distances, but those cables need active electronics to guarantee signal integrity. That's how you end up with Apple's $160 3-meter cable.
replies(1): >>41893835 #
3. chgs ◴[20 Oct 24 08:21 UTC] No.41893835[source]▶
A 3m 100g dac is 1/3 the price