44 ms·

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

by 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.