3 ms·
You would bother if you wanted reduced latency for a better user experience.
by baggy_trough 6y ago
You would bother if you wanted reduced latency for a better user experience.
- leothecool 6y agoI don't disagree, but I still really really have a hard time caring about < 1ms of latency on a 50ms call. But, if I had to pay the electric bill on 2.5 million servers, I would definitely care about wasting resources sending extra packets.
- throwaways885 6y agoThat 1 ms translates to a much larger number in poor countries with everyone on 2G.
- leothecool 6y agoI guess I'd have to see the metrics on it in production, but my intuition is that a 2% improvement to latency would be even less noticeable on low bandwidth connections where the download times are measured in whole seconds.
- baggy_trough 6y agoIt's really the packet loss and TCP backoff that's a killer.
- weego 6y agoOptimising at that granularity is also utterly at odds with everything that webdev has been doing for decades now. It's a micro optimisation that won't even register for your users, especially if you're reducing latency on 2mb of JS bundles
- baggy_trough 6y agoWell those webdevs are terrible, but that doesn't mean everyone has to follow what they are doing.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoIt would bother me if I had to debug an issue with QUIC for a website that never needed it in the first place.
- kd913 6y agoIf you wanted reduced latency, I think you would stick with HTTP/2 with onload on a Solarflare card. Until there is dedicated hardware NICs I think you would find HTTP/3 has worse latency. That is until dedicated NIC accelerators come out on the market.
- baggy_trough 6y agoYou're still stuck with TCP and its backoff algorithm in that case though.