6 ms·

It's a bit perplexing that an article that make some claims about QUIC speed over TCP has exactly zero benchmarks, numbers, anything to back that up besides the

It's a bit perplexing that an article that make some claims about QUIC speed over TCP has exactly zero benchmarks, numbers, anything to back that up besides theory. I could be inclined to believe it but I'd like to know by which factor, in which circumstances, with real examples and numbers.

jeffbee 3y ago
What would you want to compare? Google Quiche vs. Linux? Chrome vs. Windows TCP? What version of Linux, Windows, or Chrome? Under how much delay, loss, etc? There's a large parameter space to sweep.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Uh, how about "something" vs. "nothing". Start with QUIC vs. TCP. Same OS, same client/server software. Edit: since the system says "I'm posting too quickly, slow down" despite not posting for an hour because they don't use accurate error messages here, let me say : I find it ironic that so many keystrokes below are used in a meta-discussion about the quality of comments here, when others are posed a legitimate question about the topic. Nevermind the article they seem to defend gets the order of a TCP 3 way handshake wrong. And since I can't respond to them, I can only d*wnv*te or fl*g them.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      I wasn't demanding it like the thread-starter was. I was pointing out that a benchmark would be like-for-like and that none of jeffbee's examples made sense.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        > none of jeffbee's examples made sense He gave examples of parameters that are well-known. Either you know Linux is an operating system, or you don't. If you don't know what Linux is, I guess I understand why it "makes no sense". Otherwise, I'd gently remind you that it is rude to pretend someone is unintelligible.
        unethical_ban 3y ago
        I'm sorry you got so worked up about my comment, but you are being extremely rude yourself. Read back how you're acting.
        refulgentis 3y ago
        Aw, I'm sorry you feel that way - I hope you feel better soon. Repeating "Uh, " back to you, saying someone makes sense, and saying "gentle reminder, it's rude to pretend someone is unintelligible" isn't rude. Definitely assertive. ;)
      - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        jeffbee's examples are easily searchable. Like search "TCP vs QUIC comparison" and you'll find all variations of comparisons. FWIW you did not point out either thing in your parent comment, you came off as aggressive with your use of quotes, but because the voters on this thread agree with one side's snark over the other well here we are. There's hundreds of benchmarks and papers with benchmarks online. Debating this here is exhausting.
    - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
      Heh I saw GP's comment and just rolled my eyes and scrolled past, knowing this was another thread I wasn't going to comment on. As usual all of big tech and standardization committees got this whole thing wrong, nobody on the Internet ever made a benchmark, WordPress is what all sites are on, and there's no mention of intra-DC traffic. Lol HN.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        You are smarter than I, I'm -6 and flagged, and the sneering dismissive demand I parodied is still, at the very least, positive.
        Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        I've just started to accept that the quality of discussion here these days can be really bad. I still hang around or comment here occasionally, bit when I see stuff like this thread I tend to move on.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Real-world test. Load Facebook on an iPhone in HTTP3 vs 2 or 1. Load YouTube in Chrome on Windows. At least tell me if the page ends up being rendered more quickly. This won't capture things like server load, though.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    We already have public first-party claims for both YouTube and Google Search performance using QUIC on mobile and fixed endpoints. I don't think anyone disputes these. https://youtu.be/BazWPeUGS8M?t=1949 https://youtu.be/BazWPeUGS8M?t=1949
mannyv 3y ago
QUIC: let's build an application-specific protocol on top of UDP and call it a day. So really, is it faster? Does it reduce the amount of load on network devices? Does it allow a server to serve more connections more quickly than the equivalent HTTP/2.0 stack? Does it make my web app faster? I mean, for 99% of Wordpress sites the problem is Wordpress, not the transport protocol. For a lot of the web the problem is client-side rendering issues. QUIC may solve a problem, but is it a problem in real life or a thought experiment that got folded into a standard?
- miohtama 3y ago
  Most of the web traffic is BigTech and big 5 and they see significant cost and energy reductions using QUIC. Nobody cares about Wordpress sites, as it does not make a dent.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    And most of the flows on this planet are inside hyperscaler datacenters. QUIC demonstrably solves problems that TCP causes inside datacenters.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    If your Wordpress site is hosted by one of the big hosting providers and/or behind Cloudflare, it's quite likely to already use QUIC.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > Does it reduce the amount of load on network devices? This is not a goal of QUIC: Ideally, network devices between two TCP hosts don't do anything to TCP segments that they wouldn't also do to UDP datagrams, so there shouldn't be much difference. > I mean, for 99% of Wordpress sites the problem is Wordpress, not the transport protocol. Addressing Wordpress problems or rendering issues is also not really a stated goal of QUIC. It does solve some real TCP inefficiencies though, especially when used on older OS/kernel versions that'll probably never be updated to make use of some of the newer developments there (Bufferbloat avoidance is a big one, for example). These might not be very high on your list, but they absolutely are on someone's. And as long as you don't host your own webserver, you don't need to do anything to benefit from the results, since your hoster/CDN/proxy will just transparently provide them for you.

jeffbee 3y ago

What would you want to compare? Google Quiche vs. Linux? Chrome vs. Windows TCP? What version of Linux, Windows, or Chrome? Under how much delay, loss, etc? There's a large parameter space to sweep.

unethical_ban 3y ago
Uh, how about "something" vs. "nothing". Start with QUIC vs. TCP. Same OS, same client/server software. Edit: since the system says "I'm posting too quickly, slow down" despite not posting for an hour because they don't use accurate error messages here, let me say : I find it ironic that so many keystrokes below are used in a meta-discussion about the quality of comments here, when others are posed a legitimate question about the topic. Nevermind the article they seem to defend gets the order of a TCP 3 way handshake wrong. And since I can't respond to them, I can only d*wnv*te or fl*g them.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    I wasn't demanding it like the thread-starter was. I was pointing out that a benchmark would be like-for-like and that none of jeffbee's examples made sense.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      > none of jeffbee's examples made sense He gave examples of parameters that are well-known. Either you know Linux is an operating system, or you don't. If you don't know what Linux is, I guess I understand why it "makes no sense". Otherwise, I'd gently remind you that it is rude to pretend someone is unintelligible.
      - unethical_ban 3y ago
        I'm sorry you got so worked up about my comment, but you are being extremely rude yourself. Read back how you're acting.
        refulgentis 3y ago
        Aw, I'm sorry you feel that way - I hope you feel better soon. Repeating "Uh, " back to you, saying someone makes sense, and saying "gentle reminder, it's rude to pretend someone is unintelligible" isn't rude. Definitely assertive. ;)
    - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
      jeffbee's examples are easily searchable. Like search "TCP vs QUIC comparison" and you'll find all variations of comparisons. FWIW you did not point out either thing in your parent comment, you came off as aggressive with your use of quotes, but because the voters on this thread agree with one side's snark over the other well here we are. There's hundreds of benchmarks and papers with benchmarks online. Debating this here is exhausting.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    Heh I saw GP's comment and just rolled my eyes and scrolled past, knowing this was another thread I wasn't going to comment on. As usual all of big tech and standardization committees got this whole thing wrong, nobody on the Internet ever made a benchmark, WordPress is what all sites are on, and there's no mention of intra-DC traffic. Lol HN.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      You are smarter than I, I'm -6 and flagged, and the sneering dismissive demand I parodied is still, at the very least, positive.
      - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        I've just started to accept that the quality of discussion here these days can be really bad. I still hang around or comment here occasionally, bit when I see stuff like this thread I tend to move on.
hot_gril 3y ago
Real-world test. Load Facebook on an iPhone in HTTP3 vs 2 or 1. Load YouTube in Chrome on Windows. At least tell me if the page ends up being rendered more quickly. This won't capture things like server load, though.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  We already have public first-party claims for both YouTube and Google Search performance using QUIC on mobile and fixed endpoints. I don't think anyone disputes these. https://youtu.be/BazWPeUGS8M?t=1949 https://youtu.be/BazWPeUGS8M?t=1949

mannyv 3y ago

QUIC: let's build an application-specific protocol on top of UDP and call it a day. So really, is it faster? Does it reduce the amount of load on network devices? Does it allow a server to serve more connections more quickly than the equivalent HTTP/2.0 stack? Does it make my web app faster? I mean, for 99% of Wordpress sites the problem is Wordpress, not the transport protocol. For a lot of the web the problem is client-side rendering issues. QUIC may solve a problem, but is it a problem in real life or a thought experiment that got folded into a standard?

miohtama 3y ago
Most of the web traffic is BigTech and big 5 and they see significant cost and energy reductions using QUIC. Nobody cares about Wordpress sites, as it does not make a dent.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  And most of the flows on this planet are inside hyperscaler datacenters. QUIC demonstrably solves problems that TCP causes inside datacenters.
- lxgr 3y ago
  If your Wordpress site is hosted by one of the big hosting providers and/or behind Cloudflare, it's quite likely to already use QUIC.
lxgr 3y ago
> Does it reduce the amount of load on network devices? This is not a goal of QUIC: Ideally, network devices between two TCP hosts don't do anything to TCP segments that they wouldn't also do to UDP datagrams, so there shouldn't be much difference. > I mean, for 99% of Wordpress sites the problem is Wordpress, not the transport protocol. Addressing Wordpress problems or rendering issues is also not really a stated goal of QUIC. It does solve some real TCP inefficiencies though, especially when used on older OS/kernel versions that'll probably never be updated to make use of some of the newer developments there (Bufferbloat avoidance is a big one, for example). These might not be very high on your list, but they absolutely are on someone's. And as long as you don't host your own webserver, you don't need to do anything to benefit from the results, since your hoster/CDN/proxy will just transparently provide them for you.