5 ms·

HTTP/3 IS NOT FAST. Very likely, smartphones, or wimpier laptops will not be able to benefit from the speed because of lack of anything like hardware TCP offloa

HTTP/3 IS NOT FAST. Very likely, smartphones, or wimpier laptops will not be able to benefit from the speed because of lack of anything like hardware TCP offloading which benefits HTTP 1.1.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
This literally is an article presenting benchmarks that demonstrate the exact opposite of what you are claiming. If you have benchmarks to contradict the findings, maybe you can share them?
- drewg123 5y ago
  The article goes into very little detail regarding the client hardware and software. From "No other applications were running on the computer", one can assume it was a laptop or desktop. If you assume that it was a developer's laptop, then its probably not the "wimpy" laptop GP talked about, and certainly not a smartphone.
  - jillesvangurp 5y ago
    Why are you assuming mobile is somehow a problem here? Basically we're talking unreliable, high latency mobile networks here. That's kind of the sweet spot for this as TCP acknowledgement can take hundreds of milliseconds to seconds. Additionally, Google has been experimenting with this on Android for years with the express purpose of helping that use case.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      Them experimenting with this never mean they got correct conclusions from it. Google's management gets sane massaged data if their engineers want to forcefully push their projects.
      - jillesvangurp 5y ago
        You mean correct conclusions like "it's faster & works as advertised", like this and other benchmarks for this seem to suggest? I don't understand people trying to argue that it's not faster without presenting any evidence whatsoever.
drewg123 5y ago
This is certainly true on the server side where QUIC can be ~4x as expensive as TLS over TCP for some workloads, and I've been wondering how much it matters on the client side. Do you have any data from low-end clients showing either increased CPU use, increase load times, or worse battery life with QUIC?

HTTP/3 IS NOT FAST. Very likely, smartphones, or wimpier laptops will not be able to benefit from the speed because of lack of anything like hardware TCP offloading which benefits HTTP 1.1.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

This literally is an article presenting benchmarks that demonstrate the exact opposite of what you are claiming. If you have benchmarks to contradict the findings, maybe you can share them?

drewg123 5y ago
The article goes into very little detail regarding the client hardware and software. From "No other applications were running on the computer", one can assume it was a laptop or desktop. If you assume that it was a developer's laptop, then its probably not the "wimpy" laptop GP talked about, and certainly not a smartphone.
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  Why are you assuming mobile is somehow a problem here? Basically we're talking unreliable, high latency mobile networks here. That's kind of the sweet spot for this as TCP acknowledgement can take hundreds of milliseconds to seconds. Additionally, Google has been experimenting with this on Android for years with the express purpose of helping that use case.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Them experimenting with this never mean they got correct conclusions from it. Google's management gets sane massaged data if their engineers want to forcefully push their projects.
    - jillesvangurp 5y ago
      You mean correct conclusions like "it's faster & works as advertised", like this and other benchmarks for this seem to suggest? I don't understand people trying to argue that it's not faster without presenting any evidence whatsoever.

drewg123 5y ago

This is certainly true on the server side where QUIC can be ~4x as expensive as TLS over TCP for some workloads, and I've been wondering how much it matters on the client side. Do you have any data from low-end clients showing either increased CPU use, increase load times, or worse battery life with QUIC?