@Eldeberen @eragon the latency gains are biggest for the ones with the worst connections and highest latencies. That might not be you and your common use cases.
TBH I see more speed improvements when websites aren't loading crappy tons of scripts, trackets, medias and so than when they use http/3.
QUIC is nice to reduce latency by some ms but when the website loads in seconds… I put that in the same bucket as "we replaced our plastic cups by cardboard cups on our Paris - Sidney flight". 😑
I've never seen any latency higher than a couple of a hundreds of ms. Maybe if you're in the middle of a desert with only satellite connection it would help, but same argument: it only improves the less significant loading time x)
I do. But 99.9% of webmaster don't. So to get back to the original point, playing with http/* and making stats about how much websites uses it is IMHO a hobby for techies, not a real-life, end-user improvement.
Stefan Eissing
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Stefan Eissing • • •Mattias Eriksson 🦀🚵♂️
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •@icing
Me in a telnet window 😅
daniel:// stenberg://
Unknown parent • • •Michael
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
Unknown parent • • •Eldeberen
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •TBH I see more speed improvements when websites aren't loading crappy tons of scripts, trackets, medias and so than when they use http/3.
QUIC is nice to reduce latency by some ms but when the website loads in seconds… I put that in the same bucket as "we replaced our plastic cups by cardboard cups on our Paris - Sidney flight". 😑
Eldeberen
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Eldeberen • • •Eldeberen
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Eldeberen • • •daniel:// stenberg://
Unknown parent • • •Eldeberen
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •