6 ms·
> We find that over fast Internet, the UDP+QUIC+HTTP/3 stack suffers a data rate reduction of up to 45.2% compared to the TCP+TLS+HTTP/2 counterpart. Haven't
by lysace 2y ago
> We find that over fast Internet, the UDP+QUIC+HTTP/3 stack suffers a data rate reduction of up to 45.2% compared to the TCP+TLS+HTTP/2 counterpart.
Haven't read the whole paper yet, but below 600 Mbit/s is implied as being "Slow Internet" in the intro.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y agoThat is interesting though. 1gbit is becoming more common
- schmidtleonard 2y agoIt's wild that 1gbit LAN has been "standard" for so long that the internet caught up. Meanwhile, low-end computers ship with a dozen 10+Gbit class transceivers on USB, HDMI, Displayport, pretty much any external port except for ethernet, and twice that many on the PCIe backbone. But 10Gbit ethernet is still priced like it's made from unicorn blood.
- nijave 2y ago2.5Gbps is becoming pretty common and fairly affordable, though My understanding is right around 10Gbps you start to hit limitations with the shielding/type of cable and power needed to transmit/send over Ethernet. When I was looking to upgrade at home, I had to get expensive PoE+ injectors and splitters to power the switch in the closet (where there's no outlet) and 10Gbps SFP+ transceivers are like $10 for fiber or $40 for Ethernet. The Ethernet transceivers hit like 40-50C
- akira2501 2y agoIronically.. 2.5 Gbps is created by taking a 10GBASE-T module and effectively underclocking it. I wonder if "automatic speed selection" is around the corner with modules that automatically connect at 100Mbps to 10Gbps based on available cable quality.
- cyberax 2y agoMy 10G modules automatically drop down to 2.5G or 1G if the cable is not good enough. There's also 5G, but I have never seen it work better than 2.5G.
- cyberax 2y ago40-50C? What is the brand? Mine were over 90C, resulting in thermal shutdowns. I had to add an improvised heat exchanger to lower it down to ~70C: https://pics.archie.alex.net/share/U0G1yiWzShqOGXulwe1AetDjRdfBOHilPBPNeRYQgcaWOtFOOXWrZ--Rht8WuKeLQkE https://pics.archie.alex.net/share/U0G1yiWzShqOGXulwe1AetDjR...
- nijave 2y agoI think 10GTek. However there were only 2 of them in the uplink ports on a 24x1Gbps switch in a server cabinet with decent airflow. They might have been getting up to 60C but I don't think they were hitting as high as you were saying. I've since replaced with a 8x10Gbps Hasivo switch so I can't check anymore.
- crote 2y agoThe main issue is switches, really. 5Gbps USB NICs are available for $30 on Amazon, or $20 on AliExpress. 10Gbps NICS are $60, so not exactly crazy expensive either. But switches haven't really kept up. A simple unmanaged 5-port or 8-port 2.5GigE isn't too bad, but anything beyond that gets tricky. 5GigE switches don't seem to exist, and you're already paying $500 for a budget-brand 10GigE switch with basic VLAN support. You want PoE? Forget it. The irony is that at 10Gbps fiber suddenly becomes quite attractive. A brand-new SFP+ NIC can be found for $30, with DACs only $5 (per side) and transceivers $30 or so. You can get an actually-decent switch from Mikrotik for less than $300. Heck, you can even get brand-new dualport SFP28 NICs for $100, or as little as $25 on Ebay! Switch-wise you can get 16 ports of 25Gbps out of a $800 Mikrotik switch: not exactly cheap, but definitely within range for a very enthusiastic homelabber. The only issue is that wiring your home for fiber is stupidly expensive, and you can't exactly use it to power access points either.
- maccard 2y ago> The only issue is that wiring your home for fiber is stupidly expensive What do you mean by that? My home isnt wired for ethernet. I can buy 30m of CAT6 cable for £7, or 30m of fibre for £17. For a home use, that's a decent amount of cable, and even spending £100 on cabling will likely run cables to even the biggest of houses.
- hakfoo 2y agoIsn't the expensive part more the assembly aspect? For Cat 6 the plugs and keystone jacks add up to a few dollars per port, and the crimper is like $20. I understand building your own fibre cables-- if you don't want to thread them through walls without the heads pre-attached, for example-- involves more sophisticated glass-fusion tools that are fairly expensive. A rental service might help there, or a call-in service-- the 6 hours of drilling holes and pulling fibre can be done by yourself, and once it's all cut to rough length, bring out a guy who can fuse on 10 plugs in an hour for $150.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
- Dylan16807 2y ago> My understanding is right around 10Gbps you start to hit limitations with the shielding/type of cable and power needed to transmit/send over Ethernet. If you decide you only need 50 meters, that reduces both power and cable requirements by a lot. Did we decide to ignore the easy solution in favor of stagnation?
- nijave 2y agoI'm not sure what you're saying. The cable length is largely fixed/determined by the building you're running cable in. I'd rather spend an extra $100 on cable than start ripping open walls/floors/ceilings to get a slightly more optimal run length. If it's new construction or you already have everything ripped open it's less of an issue.
- Dylan16807 2y agoI'm not saying 10gig itself should have been range-limited. I'm saying if the reason it was expensive was cable limits and transmit power, both of those can be solved by cutting the range. And if cutting the range could have given us cheap fast connections 15 years ago we should have made it a variant. It could have become the default network port, and anyone that wanted full distance could have bought a card for it. Instead we waited and waited before making slower versions of 10gig, and those are still very slow to roll out. Also 2.5gig and 5gig seem especially consumer-oriented, so for those users a cheap but half range 10gig would be all upside. And 40gig can't reach 100m on any version of copper, so it's not like 100m is a sacred requirement.
- jsheard 2y agoThose very fast consumer interconnects are distinguished from ethernet by very limited cable lengths though, none of them are going to push 10gbps over tens of meters nevermind a hundred. DisplayPort is up to 80gbps now but in that mode it can barely even cross 1.5m of heavily shielded copper before the signal dies. In a perfect world we would start using fiber in consumer products that need to move that much bandwidth, but I think the standards bodies don't trust consumers with bend radiuses and dust management so instead we keep inventing new ways to torture copper wires.
- schmidtleonard 2y agoSure you need fiber for long runs at ultra bandwidth, but short runs are common and fiber is not a good reason for DAC to be expensive. Not within an order of magnitude of where it is.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThese days, passive cables that support ultra bandwidth are down to like .5 meters. For anything that wants 10Gbps lanes or less, copper is fine. For ultra bandwidth, going fiber-only is a tempting idea.
- crote 2y ago> In a perfect world we would start using fiber in consumer products that need to move that much bandwidth We are already doing this. USB-C is explicitly designed to allow for cables with active electronics, including conversion to & from fiber. You could just buy an optical USB-C cable off Amazon, if you wanted to.
- Dylan16807 2y agoWhen you make the cable do the conversion, you go from two expensive transceivers to six expensive transceivers. And if the cable breaks you need to throw out four of them. It's a poor replacement for direct fiber use.
- michaelt 2y agoAgree that a widespread faster ethernet is long overdue. But bear in mind, standards like USB4 only support very short cables. It's impressive that USB4 can offer 40 Gbps - but it can only do so on 1m cables. On the other hand, 10 gigabit ethernet claims to go 100m on CAT6A.
- Aurornis 2y ago> Meanwhile, low-end computers ship with a dozen 10+Gbit class transceivers on USB, HDMI, Displayport, pretty much any external port except for ethernet, and twice that many on the PCIe backbone. But 10Gbit ethernet is still priced like it's made from unicorn blood. You really can’t think of any major difference between 10G Ethernet and all of those other standards that might be responsible for the price difference? Look at the supported lengths and cables. 10G Ethernet over copper can go an order of magnitude farther over relatively generic cables. Your USB-C or HDMI connections cannot go nearly as far and require significantly more tightly controlled cables and shielding. That’s the difference. It’s not easy to accomplish what they did with 10G Ethernet over copper. They used a long list of tricks to squeeze every possible dB of SNR out of those cables. You pay for it with extremely complex transceivers that require significant die area and a laundry list of complex algorithms.
- schmidtleonard 2y agoThere was a time when FFE, DFE, CTLE, and FEC could reasonably be considered an extremely complex bag of tricks by the standards of the competition. That time passed many years ago. They've been table stakes for a while in every other serial standard. Wifi is beating ethernet at the low end, ffs, and you can't tell me that air is a kinder channel. A low-end PC will ship with a dozen transceivers implementing all of these tricks sitting idle, while it'll be lucky to have a single 2.5Gbe port and you'll have to pay extra for the privilege. No matter, eventually USB4NET will work out of the box. The USB-IF is a clown show and they have tripped over their shoelaces every step of the way, but consumer Ethernet hasn't moved in 20 years so this horse race still has a clear favorite, lol.
- reshlo 2y agoYou explained why 10G Ethernet cables are expensive, but why should it be so expensive to put a 10G-capable port on the computer compared to the other ports?
- kccqzy 2y agoDid you completely misunderstand OP? The 10G Ethernet cables are not expensive. In a pinch, even your Cat 5e cable is capable of 10G Ethernet albeit at a shorter distance than Cat 6 cable. Even then, it can be at least a dozen times longer than a similar USB or HDMI or DisplayPort cable.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y agoIt passed it! Here there are offers up to 3gbit residential (Vancouver). I had 1.5 bit for a while. Downgraded to 1gbit because while I love fast internet, right now nobody in the home uses it enough to affect 1gbit speed
- Dalewyn 2y agoThere is an argument to be made that gigabit ethernet is "good enough" for Joe Average. Gigabit ethernet is ~100MB/s transfer speed over copper wire or ~30MB/s over wireless accounting for overhead and degradation. That is more than fast enough for most people. 10gbit is seemingly made from unicorn blood and 2.5gbit is seeing limited adoption because there simply isn't demand for them outside of enterprise who have lots of unicorn blood in their banks.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 2y agoJust as important is > we identify the root cause to be high receiver-side processing overhead, in particular, excessive data packets and QUIC's user-space ACKs It doesn't sound like there's a fundamental issue with the protocol.
- nine_k 2y agoGigabit connections are widely available in urban areas. The problem is not theoretical, but definitely is pretty recent / nascent.
- Dylan16807 2y agoA gigabit connection is just one prerequisite. The server also has to be sending very big bursts of foreground/immediate data or you're very unlikely to notice anything.
- Aurornis 2y agoInternet access is only going to become faster. Switching to a slower transport just as Gigabit internet is proliferating would be a mistake, obviously.
- tomxor 2y agoIn terms of maximum available throughput it will obviously become greater. What's less clear is if the median and worst throughput available throughout a nation or the world will continue to become substantially greater. It's simply not economical enough to lay fibre and put 5G masts everywhere (5G LTE bands covers less area due to being higher frequency, and so are also limited to being deployed in areas with a higher enough density to be economically justifiable).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nine_k 2y agoFiber is the most economical solution, it's compact, cheap, not susceptible to electromagnetic interference from thunderstorms, not interesting for metal thieves, etc. Most importantly, it can be heavily over-provisioned for peanuts, so your cable is future-proof, and you will never have dig the same trenches again. Copper only makes sense if you already have it.
- tomxor 2y agoThen why isn't it everywhere, it's been practical for over 40 years now.
- nine_k 2y agoIt is everywhere in new development. I remember Google buying tons of "dark fiber" capacity from telcos like 15 years ago; that fiber was likely laid for future needs 20-25 years ago. New apartment buildings in NYC just get fiber, with everything, including traditional "cable TV" with BNC connectors, powered by it. But telcos have colossal copper networks, and they want to milk the last dollars from it before it has to be replaced, with digging and all. Hence price segmenting, with slower "copper" plans and premium "fiber" plans, obviously no matter if the building has fiber already. Also, passive fiber interconnects have much higher losses than copper with RJ45s. This means you want to have no more than 2-3 connectors between pieces of active equipment, including from ISP to a building. This requires more careful planning, and this is why wiring past the apartment (or even office floor or a single-family house) level is usually copper Ethernet.
- dathinab 2y agoThey also mainly identified a throughput reduction due to latency issues caused by ineffective/too many syscalls in how browsers implement it. But such a latency issue isn't majorly increasing battery usage (compared to a CPU usage issue which would make CPUs boost). Nor is it an issue for server-to-server communication. It basically "only" slows down high bandwidth transmissions on end user devices with (for 2024 standards) very high speed connection (if you take effective speeds from device to server, not speeds you where advertised to have bough and at best can get when the server owner has a direct pairing agreement with you network provider and a server in your region.....). Doesn't mean the paper is worthless, browser should improve their impl. and it highlights it. But the title of the paper is basically 100% click bait.
- ec109685 2y agoHow is it clickbait? The title implies that QUIC isn't as fast as other protocols over fast internet connections.
- dathinab 2y agoBecause it's QUIC _implementations of browser_ not being as fast as the non quick impl of browsers on connections most people would not just call fast but very fast (in context of browser usage) while still being definitely 100% fast enough for all browser use case done today (sure it theoretically might reduce video bit rate, that is, if it isn't already capped to a anyway smaller rate, which AFIK it basically always is). So "Not Quick Enough" is plain out wrong, it is fast enough. The definition of "Fast Internet" misleading. And even "QUIC" is misleading as it normally refers to the protocol while the benchmarked protocol is HTTP/3 over QUIC and the issue seem to be mainly in the implementations.
- nh2 2y agoIn Switzerland you get 25 Gbit/s for $60/month. In 30 years it will be even faster. It would be silly to have to use older protocols to get line speed.
- 77pt77 2y agoNow do the same in Germany...
- wkat4242 2y agoFor local purposes that's certainly true. It seems that quic trades a faster connection establishment for lower throughput. I personally prefer tcp anyway.
- cj 2y agoIn other words: Enable http/3 + quic between client browser <> edge and restrict edge <> origin connections to http/2 or http/1 Cloudflare (as an example) only supports QUIC between client <> edge and doesn’t support it for connections to origin. Makes sense if the edge <> origin connection is reusable, stable, and “fast”. https://developers.cloudflare.com/speed/optimization/protocol/http3/ https://developers.cloudflare.com/speed/optimization/protoco...
- dilyevsky 2y agoCloudflare tunnels work over quic so this is not entirely correct
- paulddraper 2y ago> below 600 Mbit/s is implied as being "Slow Internet" in the intro Or rather, not "Fast Internet"
- lysace 2y agoYeah.