3 ms·
That HTTP2 is the worst of the bunch is a given. But HTTP3 should on paper be able to handle packets loss better than HTTP1.1 and way better than HTTP2. And SA
by jeltz 3y ago
That HTTP2 is the worst of the bunch is a given. But HTTP3 should on paper be able to handle packets loss better than HTTP1.1 and way better than HTTP2.
And SACK does not seem to help under my real life workloads. Maybe poor implementations. I don't know.
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoJust a few years ago HTTP2 was the best thing since sliced bread and any criticism was silenced. This begs the question if HTTP2 was so great then why did they come up with HTTP3? SACK is not a silver bullet because when you have high latency high loss link then nothing really helps. The difference is that HTTP2/3 folks like to deny reality and claim that they can do better when in fact they can't
- jeltz 3y agoI don't have high latency, I have high packet loss and high latency on some packets but most not. And that is something TCP cannot handle without breaking down totally but some UDP based protocols can handle it just fine. I don't know about HTTP3 though, that might also fail under those circumstances.
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoI suspect your case is not that the packets are simply dropped but that the TCP connections are reset. Lookup your TCP stack statistics to verify. If that's the case try to find out if the resets are made by your side, the source or the intermediaries.