←back to thread

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

(arxiv.org)
306 points carlos-menezes | 2 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 #
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 #
reshlo ◴[20 Oct 24 01:54 UTC] No.41892302[source]▶
You explained why 10G Ethernet cables are expensive, but why should it be so expensive to put a 10G-capable port on the computer compared to the other ports?
replies(1): >>41892394 #
kccqzy ◴[20 Oct 24 02:16 UTC] No.41892394[source]▶
Did you completely misunderstand OP? The 10G Ethernet cables are not expensive. In a pinch, even your Cat 5e cable is capable of 10G Ethernet albeit at a shorter distance than Cat 6 cable. Even then, it can be at least a dozen times longer than a similar USB or HDMI or DisplayPort cable.
replies(1): >>41893195 #
1. reshlo ◴[20 Oct 24 05:53 UTC] No.41893195[source]▶
I did misunderstand it, because looking at it again now, they spent the entire post talking about how difficult it is to make the cables, except for the very last sentence where they mention die area one time, and it’s still not clear that they’re talking about die area for something that’s inside the computer rather than a chip that goes in the cable.

> Look at the supported lengths and cables. … relatively generic cables. Your USB-C or HDMI connections cannot go nearly as far and require significantly more tightly controlled cables and shielding. … They used a long list of tricks to squeeze every possible dB of SNR out of those cables.

replies(1): >>41893805 #
2. chgs ◴[20 Oct 24 08:15 UTC] No.41893805[source]▶
Their point was those systems like hdmi, bits of usb-c etc put the complexity is very expensive very short cables.

Meanwhile a 10g port on my home router will run over copper for far longer. Not that I’m a fan given the power use, fibre is much easier to deal with and will run for miles.