7 ms·
> Please only your real-world experience, Hard NACK, absolutely not. Noticeable is not relevant. If there are a billion people who load 40 pages and each save
by rektide 3y ago
> Please only your real-world experience,
Hard NACK, absolutely not.
Noticeable is not relevant. If there are a billion people who load 40 pages and each saves 2ms, we save 2.5 human years a day.
Http2 isn't even the good stuff. It still has horrible head of line blocking.
Where these protocols, http3 in particular, has real greatness is in it's ability to handle lossy & jittery connections. On http1 or http2 with a dodgy mobile connection, recovery from a missed packet or three can be egregiously painful. With http3 the bits can keep flowing.
In general I have high skepticism that you want to be convinced. This narrow on-guiderials "anecdote only" line of inquiry speaks to hang ups, about resistance to allowing progress. You are looking for personal annecodotes, talking about your experience, but I highly doubt humans have the mind to really be able to tell about very fine differences, but that doesn't invalidate time saved, as we load so many resources a year. Last, you likely have very fine internet connections where many of the overwhelmingly grand advantages don't come out.
- elgatito 3y agoI am afraid I am not sure what you are saying. Noticeable is relevant. Either it is noticable faster or it isn't. In my experience it isn't, hence the question. If you can convince me with a site where one can actually notice that, I'd be more than happy to change my stance, but multiplying 2 millisecond by X humans or using a kbps connection as baseline won't cut it I am afraid :) As for your assumption on the Internet connection, we are talking about a mobile connection, so not exactly fiber :)
- rektide 3y ago[flagged]
- elgatito 3y ago[flagged]
- rektide 3y ago[flagged]
- clnq 3y agoI think their point was (at least in part) that it matters more on server-side and infrastructure-side than on the user-side. And maybe with poor net infrastructure, the users benefit more than where infrastructure is good. I responded somewhere else in these comments where I found that the difference between HTTP/3 and 1.1 was barely noticeable with wired connections for me, but very significant with poor quality WiFi. That seems to be the practical side of 1.1 vs 3, at least in my subjective exp.
- predictabl3 3y ago[flagged]
- nektro 3y agoif caring about performance or the general experience of everyone who doesnt have wired gigabit ethernet isn't of concern to you, then you're not going to be convinced.
- elgatito 3y agoWho ever mentioned wired gigabit Ethernet? Please elaborate.
- rektide 3y agoMy discussion about packet loss & less than ideal connections.
- elgatito 3y agoYeah, the discussion was never about acoustic couplers nor about gigabit connections. And on "regular" connections, the newer HTTP versions do not perform better than HTTP 1.1. But again, why are you replying if we already agreed we do not need to continue the conversation?
- rektide 3y agoThe new https so go faster and you are wrong. I struggle to think of how you are trying to actively sabotage the conversation & blow smoke this time. Acoustic couplers? Get out. You aren't fooling anyone. You are not this dumb; you are sabotaging the conversation again. Packet loss is a fact of life in a huge part of the world. Anyone on mobile has some packet loss they contend with. These users deserve good protocols that work. You seem unable & unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility of that. It's unclear why you have such a huge hostile bias against modern improvements.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- andrewmcwatters 3y ago> If there are a billion people who load 40 pages and each saves 2ms, we save 2.5 human years a day. That's as idiotic as saying "If a billion people take one less breath a day, humanity will consume 500,000,000,000 ml less air a day." It doesn't mean anything.
- rektide 3y ago[flagged]
- andrewmcwatters 3y agoNo, you don't save "real time." People aren't clicking as many links as they possibly can. People read things. People browse. You don't save any actual real time on the order of minimizing 2 milliseconds. Even if you're a large provider, you save more time doing other things than responding to HTTP requests on the order of 2 milliseconds because there are other things to do. What you are talking about is literal noise. 2 milliseconds on the web doesn't mean anything. On the web, meaningful request/response times are within one to two or more orders of magnitude larger. 2 milliseconds in simulation time means you might be doing something notably more expensive. When a single req/res time is 2 seconds long, you can think to yourself "something is wrong." When it's 200ms, you can think to yourself "something is slow." When it's 20ms, you're within the order of magnitude of a display refresh time. When you're talking about 2ms, you're talking about the amount of time that it takes to read 2 MB from an SSD. You seriously need to brush up on your understanding of latency. Try Googling "latency numbers."
- jrajav 3y agoThat was a lot of aggressively dismissive words to say "I don't feel that 2ms is worth optimizing for." Have you considered that you might be wrong in this case, dramatic comparisons aside?
- andrewmcwatters 3y ago[flagged]
- z3t4 3y agoI'll remember this for the next time I try to convince someone that performance is important. However I think it's like saying: it takes one man one day to build a ten meter long wall. If everyone on earth would help building the wall, it would take less then one hour to build a wall around the entire earth.
- _8j50 3y ago> we save 2.5 human years a day. That is such a b.s. metric! What exactly does that 2.5year translate to? Absolutley nothing! If not a single person can take advantage of it then you're just doing a bunch of busy work. > but that doesn't invalidate time saved, as we load so many resources a year Yes it does. I think what you meant is how some $bigcorp will save money,but even then , how? I also dislike how you attempted to interpret OP's intentions. Just freaking give a real world example and that'll shut up anyone who can argue against your view point.