←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: 0.197s | 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. Dalewyn ◴[20 Oct 24 01:53 UTC] No.41892294[source]▶
There is an argument to be made that gigabit ethernet is "good enough" for Joe Average.

Gigabit ethernet is ~100MB/s transfer speed over copper wire or ~30MB/s over wireless accounting for overhead and degradation. That is more than fast enough for most people.

10gbit is seemingly made from unicorn blood and 2.5gbit is seeing limited adoption because there simply isn't demand for them outside of enterprise who have lots of unicorn blood in their banks.