4 ms·

Another solution is just to wait until computers and networks are 100 times faster than they were 10 years ago, so that a page and its pieces load instantly. Oh

Another solution is just to wait until computers and networks are 100 times faster than they were 10 years ago, so that a page and its pieces load instantly. Oh, wait. That speed-up already happened, and yet websites are actually slower than they were 10 years ago. I guess there is no advance in hardware that software cannot overcome.

JoshTriplett 8y ago
Networks are thousands of times faster in bandwidth, but they don't have thousands of times less latency. Software is actively working to overcome the limitations of latency, such as with HTTP/2, HTTP/3, and TLS 1.3.
- rayiner 8y ago
  For a page load, why should latency matter once you get below 50 ms? The problem isn’t latency, the problem is that the software stack makes tons of round-trip requests to display some text and images. The modern web makes X11 seem like it was designed by a demoscene coder.
  - pwg 8y ago
    > For a page load, why should latency matter > he problem is that the software stack makes tons of round-trip requests Latency matters because of all of those round-trip requests. Each individual request incurs at least 2x the network latency value (one network latency trip out to the server, another network latency trip back). If browsers did not try to run parallel requests, then all those round trips would sum up to a substantial overall delay.
    - adrianratnapala 8y ago
      > Latency matters because of all of those round-trip requests. Well then, since it's a physical impossibility to do away with them, we'd better start working on improving the speed of light.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      > If browsers did not try to run parallel requests, then all those round trips would sum up to a substantial overall delay. That describes zero browsers. And "it's not loading parallel enough" is very much a software stack problem and not a network problem. We could shove full pages over the wire in 200ms if we tried harder.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    X11 doesn't even do any image compression. X11 seems fast because everyone uses the DRI and/or MIT-SHM extensions to hack around the fundamental brokenness of the protocol, at the cost of network transparency. :)
    - adrianratnapala 8y ago
      `ssh -X` generally disagrees with you.
      - pcwalton 8y ago
        I much prefer the Web to that on a slow network connection.
        naikrovek 8y ago
        Try the `-C` option as well. I think that's it. Enables network compression and it makes a HUGE difference over slow network links.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > The problem isn’t latency, the problem is that the software stack makes tons of round-trip requests to display some text and images. From the post you replied to: > Software is actively working to overcome the limitations of latency, such as with HTTP/2, HTTP/3, and TLS 1.3. The whole point is to eliminate those round-trips, and just stream content to the browser at the limit of its available bandwidth.

JoshTriplett 8y ago

Networks are thousands of times faster in bandwidth, but they don't have thousands of times less latency. Software is actively working to overcome the limitations of latency, such as with HTTP/2, HTTP/3, and TLS 1.3.

rayiner 8y ago
For a page load, why should latency matter once you get below 50 ms? The problem isn’t latency, the problem is that the software stack makes tons of round-trip requests to display some text and images. The modern web makes X11 seem like it was designed by a demoscene coder.
- pwg 8y ago
  > For a page load, why should latency matter > he problem is that the software stack makes tons of round-trip requests Latency matters because of all of those round-trip requests. Each individual request incurs at least 2x the network latency value (one network latency trip out to the server, another network latency trip back). If browsers did not try to run parallel requests, then all those round trips would sum up to a substantial overall delay.
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    > Latency matters because of all of those round-trip requests. Well then, since it's a physical impossibility to do away with them, we'd better start working on improving the speed of light.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    > If browsers did not try to run parallel requests, then all those round trips would sum up to a substantial overall delay. That describes zero browsers. And "it's not loading parallel enough" is very much a software stack problem and not a network problem. We could shove full pages over the wire in 200ms if we tried harder.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  X11 doesn't even do any image compression. X11 seems fast because everyone uses the DRI and/or MIT-SHM extensions to hack around the fundamental brokenness of the protocol, at the cost of network transparency. :)
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    `ssh -X` generally disagrees with you.
    - pcwalton 8y ago
      I much prefer the Web to that on a slow network connection.
      - naikrovek 8y ago
        Try the `-C` option as well. I think that's it. Enables network compression and it makes a HUGE difference over slow network links.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > The problem isn’t latency, the problem is that the software stack makes tons of round-trip requests to display some text and images. From the post you replied to: > Software is actively working to overcome the limitations of latency, such as with HTTP/2, HTTP/3, and TLS 1.3. The whole point is to eliminate those round-trips, and just stream content to the browser at the limit of its available bandwidth.