> Google also developed QUIC, which is HTTP over UDP. There’s no longer any congestion window to deal with, so entire messages can be sent at once.
I don't think that's true. QUIC implementations typically use the same congestion control algorithms, including both CUBIC and BBR, at least nominally. The latest RFCs for those discuss use with both TCP and QUIC. Though, perhaps when used with QUIC they have more degrees of freedom to tune things.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3 hours ago [-]
Also QUIC is not HTTP over UDP. HTTP/3 is HTTP over QUIC. QUIC is bidi streams and best-effort datagrams over UDP.
rayanboulares 5 hours ago [-]
Just the day I discovered TCP Congestion Windows and spent the day tweaking and benchmarking between Vegas, Reno, Cubic and TCTP
IncreasePosts 5 hours ago [-]
I've also tweaked and marked benches in Vegas and Reno, to my great shame.
commandersaki 3 hours ago [-]
I reckon bufferbloat is overhyped as a problem, it mattered to a small set of Internet connectivity in the 2010s and promptly went away as connectivity changed and improved, yet we continue to look at it like it was yesterdays problem.
toast0 2 hours ago [-]
Bufferbloat is alive and well. Try a t-mobile 5g home gateway. Oof.
I think cable modems have had a ton of improvement, and more fiber in our diet helps, but mobile can be tricky, and wifi is still highly variable (there's promising signs, but I don't know how many people update their access points)
commandersaki 2 hours ago [-]
Is it though, or is it just a scapegoat or a red herring, especially in the case with a wireless medium? That's been my experience with quick claims to bufferbloat, it's usually something else at play. But again ymmv.
toast0 1 hours ago [-]
I mean, I did a speed test with t-mobile 5g home internet, download speed was impressive, but so was the difference in ping time during the download vs otherwise.
Sure, wireless is complex, but there were definitely some way too big buffers in the path. Add in some difficulty integrating their box into my network, and it wasn't for me.
commandersaki 1 hours ago [-]
Fair enough, I concede with your assessment, my understanding of bufferbloat (which I have to relearn everytime I look at it) is that the telltale sign is ping to any destination that traverses the uplink exhibits higher latency than usual when you're saturating your download. It's just a tricky thing to test given variability of conditions (and what might be deemed as expected operation) which is why I'm usually hesitant and sceptical, and I don't trust those speedtest websites to gauge it properly.
fulafel 19 minutes ago [-]
Internet connectivity improvement has slowed a lot. It was improving at a good clip in the 00's but then a lot of usage moved to mobile data which also caused investment to shift away from broadband speedups. If we had 00's rate of improvement, people would have 100G connections at home now.
(wifi also dampened bandwidth demand for a long time - it didn't make sense to pay for faster-than-wifi broadband)
BenjiWiebe 60 minutes ago [-]
A relative of mine runs a WISP (800+ customers). He's using LibreQoS to prevent bufferbloat (not its only feature) for his entire network.
bboygravity 44 minutes ago [-]
Someone hasn't travelled a lot outside of the house I see?
Wifi is still mostly shitty in most places in the world.
Then there are countries like Philippines with just all around slow internet everywhere.
jddunce 3 hours ago [-]
I seem to remember this coming up a few times over the years and it’s always bad iirc.
cyb0rg0 4 days ago [-]
Google has a long history of performing networking research, making changes, and pushing those changes to the entire internet. In 2011, they published one of my favorite papers, which described their decision to increase the TCP initial congestion window from 1 to 10 on their entire infrastructure.
I don't think that's true. QUIC implementations typically use the same congestion control algorithms, including both CUBIC and BBR, at least nominally. The latest RFCs for those discuss use with both TCP and QUIC. Though, perhaps when used with QUIC they have more degrees of freedom to tune things.
I think cable modems have had a ton of improvement, and more fiber in our diet helps, but mobile can be tricky, and wifi is still highly variable (there's promising signs, but I don't know how many people update their access points)
Sure, wireless is complex, but there were definitely some way too big buffers in the path. Add in some difficulty integrating their box into my network, and it wasn't for me.
(wifi also dampened bandwidth demand for a long time - it didn't make sense to pay for faster-than-wifi broadband)
Wifi is still mostly shitty in most places in the world.
Then there are countries like Philippines with just all around slow internet everywhere.