4 ms·

Would you have a site where that can be reproduced? While I am not saying it might be to some extent subjective, I cannot say I have noticed anything noticably

Would you have a site where that can be reproduced? While I am not saying it might be to some extent subjective, I cannot say I have noticed anything noticably different between and 1.1 and 2 or 3. For that reason I'd be curious on which site that would be noticable.

clnq 3y ago
YouTube, for example. I haven’t done a rigorous test and looked at the timings. But I disabled HTTP/3 in my Safari settings just now and browsed around YouTube in Private mode. Then I did the same with HTTP/3 enabled. It was at least 3x faster at initial page draws with HTTP/3. I did this test just now on weak WiFi.
- elgatito 3y ago
  Thanks for the example. Though, Youtube was definitely one of the sites I visited. I just ran a test with HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 3 - and in both cases, it took about 10 seconds until the whole page was loaded. It was already usable earlier than that, but even that was similar between 1.1 and 3. The test was done on a "regular" Wifi connection.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - clnq 3y ago
    I just tested how long it took to get full content draws of YouTube over HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/3 with my wired 1Gbps machine and Chromium-based Edge (with InPrivate and no extensions, obviously). I did three tests a couple of minutes apart. Timings: HTTP/1.1: 2.54s, 2.18s, 2.51s HTTP/3: 2.07s, 1.95s, 2.40s What does N=3 mean? Probably not much. The findings confirm my feeling that HTTP/3 is faster, but it is difficult to separate signal from the noise with so few readings. Plus, reasonably, I understand that other factors can bias these readings much more. Moreover, I don't think that this matters as much in wired connections where packet loss is very minimal compared to WiFi, especially bad WiFi. Over a weak WiFi connection, subjectively, the full content draw timings felt significantly different to me. Though I didn't do a strict measurement. I wonder what these timings would look on cellular.
    - elgatito 3y ago
      Thanks for the test, these rather very close values reflect my experience as well. While my Internet connection is actually based on a mobile connection, it's still difficult for me to comment how a classic smartphone may behave, as that's not my typical use-case. Here, UDP may offer some advantages, if the connection quality can vary. I wonder if it was a fair summary to say, that HTTP 2+ (and especially HTTP 3) may offer advantages for unreliable connections, but not so much over somewhat reliable connections.

clnq 3y ago

YouTube, for example. I haven’t done a rigorous test and looked at the timings. But I disabled HTTP/3 in my Safari settings just now and browsed around YouTube in Private mode. Then I did the same with HTTP/3 enabled. It was at least 3x faster at initial page draws with HTTP/3. I did this test just now on weak WiFi.

elgatito 3y ago
Thanks for the example. Though, Youtube was definitely one of the sites I visited. I just ran a test with HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 3 - and in both cases, it took about 10 seconds until the whole page was loaded. It was already usable earlier than that, but even that was similar between 1.1 and 3. The test was done on a "regular" Wifi connection.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- clnq 3y ago
  I just tested how long it took to get full content draws of YouTube over HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/3 with my wired 1Gbps machine and Chromium-based Edge (with InPrivate and no extensions, obviously). I did three tests a couple of minutes apart. Timings: HTTP/1.1: 2.54s, 2.18s, 2.51s HTTP/3: 2.07s, 1.95s, 2.40s What does N=3 mean? Probably not much. The findings confirm my feeling that HTTP/3 is faster, but it is difficult to separate signal from the noise with so few readings. Plus, reasonably, I understand that other factors can bias these readings much more. Moreover, I don't think that this matters as much in wired connections where packet loss is very minimal compared to WiFi, especially bad WiFi. Over a weak WiFi connection, subjectively, the full content draw timings felt significantly different to me. Though I didn't do a strict measurement. I wonder what these timings would look on cellular.
  - elgatito 3y ago
    Thanks for the test, these rather very close values reflect my experience as well. While my Internet connection is actually based on a mobile connection, it's still difficult for me to comment how a classic smartphone may behave, as that's not my typical use-case. Here, UDP may offer some advantages, if the connection quality can vary. I wonder if it was a fair summary to say, that HTTP 2+ (and especially HTTP 3) may offer advantages for unreliable connections, but not so much over somewhat reliable connections.