←back to thread

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

(arxiv.org)
306 points carlos-menezes | 1 comments | 19 Oct 24 21:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.195s | 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 #
Aurornis ◴[19 Oct 24 23:02 UTC] No.41891460[source]▶
> 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.

You really can’t think of any major difference between 10G Ethernet and all of those other standards that might be responsible for the price difference?

Look at the supported lengths and cables. 10G Ethernet over copper can go an order of magnitude farther over relatively generic cables. Your USB-C or HDMI connections cannot go nearly as far and require significantly more tightly controlled cables and shielding.

That’s the difference. It’s not easy to accomplish what they did with 10G Ethernet over copper. They used a long list of tricks to squeeze every possible dB of SNR out of those cables. You pay for it with extremely complex transceivers that require significant die area and a laundry list of complex algorithms.

replies(2): >>41891597 #>>41892302 #
1. schmidtleonard ◴[19 Oct 24 23:22 UTC] No.41891597[source]▶
There was a time when FFE, DFE, CTLE, and FEC could reasonably be considered an extremely complex bag of tricks by the standards of the competition. That time passed many years ago. They've been table stakes for a while in every other serial standard. Wifi is beating ethernet at the low end, ffs, and you can't tell me that air is a kinder channel. A low-end PC will ship with a dozen transceivers implementing all of these tricks sitting idle, while it'll be lucky to have a single 2.5Gbe port and you'll have to pay extra for the privilege.

No matter, eventually USB4NET will work out of the box. The USB-IF is a clown show and they have tripped over their shoelaces every step of the way, but consumer Ethernet hasn't moved in 20 years so this horse race still has a clear favorite, lol.