QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet · HackerPapers discussions

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by frmdstryr

Mon, 13 Oct 2025 12:44:50 GMT

Also apparently slower over fast connections https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.09423

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by ddritzenhoff

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:50:30 GMT

Hi, I've got one. Does your team have any concrete plans to reduce the TCP vs. QUIC diff with respect to goodput [1]? The linked paper claims seeing up to a 9.8% video bitrate reduction from HTTP/2 (TCP) to HTTP/3 (QUIC). Obviously, MoQ is based on a slightly different stack, so the results don't exactly generalize. I can imagine the problems are similar, though. (I find this stuff fascinating, as I spent the last few months investigating the AF_XDP datapath for MsQuic as part of my master's thesis. I basically came to the conclusion that GSO/GRO is a better alternative and that QUIC…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by dpeckett

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:31:32 GMT

For TCP streams syscall overhead isn't a big issue really, you can easily transfer large chunks of data in each write(). If you have TCP segmentation offload available you'll have no serious issues pushing 100gbit/s. Also if you are sending static content don't forget sendfile(). UDP is a whole another kettle of fish, get's very complicated to go above 10gbit/s or so. This is a big part of why QUIC really struggles to scale well for fat pipes [1]. sendmmsg/recvmmsg + UDP GRO/GSO will probably get you to ~30gbit/s but beyond that is a real headache. The issue is that UDP is not stream focused…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by troupo

Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:55:23 GMT

A lot of the article is the same marketing spiel that Google has been using to promote QUIC (and then HTTP/3) At best those amazeballs advantages are applicable only at Google's scale, and have very little impact anywhere else. Worse, still, --- start quote --- 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. Moreover, the performance gap between QUIC and HTTP/2 grows as the underlying bandwidth increases. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09423 --- end quote --- And if you believe the discussion here…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — HN submission

Sat, 19 Oct 2024 21:04:52 GMT

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

313 points; 280 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by crashingintoyou

Mon, 09 Sep 2024 08:57:40 GMT

Don't have access to the published version but draft at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.09423 mentions ping RTT at 0.23ms. As someone frequently at 150ms+ latency for a lot of websites (and semi-frequently 300ms+ for non-geo-distributed websites), in practice with the latency QUIC is easily the best for throughput, HTTP/1.1 with a decent number of parallel connections is a not-that-distant second, and in a remote third is HTTP/2 due to head-of-line-blocking issues if/when a packet goes missing.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by AlphaCharlie

Mon, 09 Sep 2024 06:15:47 GMT

Free PDF file of the research: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.09423

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by dartharva

Mon, 09 Sep 2024 03:04:44 GMT

It's available on arxiv and nope, they are testing mostly for regular 4G/5G speeds. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.09423

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by JoshTriplett

Mon, 09 Sep 2024 02:48:27 GMT

Seems to be available on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.09423

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast Internet — mentioned by 0xbadcafebee

Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:06:59 GMT

Curl HTTP/3 performance (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39163948) shows HTTP/3 is the slowest performer compared to HTTP2 and HTTP1.1 This paper from 2017 showed QUIC performance was poor: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.09423.pdf With no evidence to the opposite, the article's claim that QUIC is displacing TCP for speed is dubious at best.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.