Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is the Internet so Slow?

blog.apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#141

Post by baybal2 »

vbernat wrote: post #139
baybal2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, milliseconds. The difference there is because routers above you most likely are a carrier grade equipment like Cisco gear with ASIC based switching. This is what you can expect from big ISP in a big city, and less likely in networks serving more remote suburbs.

An EX2200, a routing switch you can pay for about 500$, is also ASIC-based. Linux on a server has no problem routing with a latency in the order of 100ns. I don't see what kind of equipments would route in the order of 10ms. That's just too huge.

I meant 10ms for the whole route.

>100ms

Under load with anymuch sizeable routing table?

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#142

Post by haldean »

slf wrote: post #133
haldean wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While keeping it a PNG? I hit that thing with pngcrush and scaled it to half the size of the original article: what's your magic to get it down to 28k?

You can use lossy PNG compression (palletizing) since it's 'just' a graph. There are seven different colors in it that all alias to white. Convert it to a 32 color 8-bit version and it looks identical. Then use ImageOptim (or like) to compress it down to less than 16 KiB.

Neat, it's 12kB now:

    convert -colors 16 Ilker_fast.png Ilker_tiny.png
    pngcrush Ilker_tiny.png Ilker_out.png
Total page weight is now 15kB, 0.2% the size of the original page. Incidentally, that ratio is about the same as the ratio between the original page and the entirety of the game Overwatch.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#143

Post by manmal »

viraptor wrote: post #116
IshKebab wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone that has ever used Skype, VoIP, Facetime, etc has thought "this is fast enough".

Actually, I think ~10mbit is fast enough. You can easily use Hangouts/Skype with good quality video on that kind of link. The problems are elsewhere: it's not stable enough, and it's not responsive enough. Anything faster is just a cherry on top. Sure, files download faster, you can stream 4k, etc. But I'd say that's luxury which you could choose. Lower speeds are "enough" for a lot of people.

That's like saying 640K ought to be enough for everyone. Once we have stable 1GBit connections on all landlines and mobile devices, we might eg stop hoarding data on our disks altogether. Apps (if they still exist) could be downloaded on the fly when the user chooses to start them. Lifelike VR/AR communications could be enabled by this. Teleworking could become a no-brainer, from any location imaginable (perhaps with telepresence). I will be able to run a dev machine on some EC2 instance and VNC into it with an unnoticeable lag, so I won't need serious CPU horsepower in my laptop anymore. That's what I could think of off the top of my head..

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#144

Post by vbernat »

baybal2 wrote: post #141
vbernat wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An EX2200, a routing switch you can pay for about 500$, is also ASIC-based. Linux on a server has no problem routing with a latency in the order of 100ns. I don't see what kind of equipments would route in the order of 10ms. That's just too huge.

I meant 10ms for the whole route. >100ms Under load with anymuch sizeable routing table?

Route lookup with 1 core with a full view on Linux is on the order of 100ns. https://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2017-ipv4-route-lookup-lin...

Linux is able to handle about 5 Gbps of traffic of small packets (64 bytes) with one core. This gives a latency of 100ns to keep the pace. You need to find a Linux router 10000 time slower than this to get a 1ms latency.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#145

Post by splittingTimes »

Lagged2Death wrote: post #81

If the 3x slowdown from the infrastructure were eliminated, each round-trip-time being 3x faster would affect all the protocols above, and we could immediately cut the latency inflation from ~37x to around 10x, without any protocol modifications. The page this article is published on makes 87 separate network requests to 19 different domains. Even with a great deal of the content cached, it takes 7 seconds to reload…

Its called "The website obesity crisis"

http://www.webdirections.org/blog/the-website-obesity-crisis...

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#146

Post by baybal2 »

vbernat wrote: post #144
baybal2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant 10ms for the whole route. >100ms Under load with anymuch sizeable routing table?

Route lookup with 1 core with a full view on Linux is on the order of 100ns. https://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2017-ipv4-route-lookup-lin... Linux is able to handle about 5 Gbps of traffic of small packets (64 bytes) with one core. This gives a latency of 100ns to keep the pace. You need to find a Linux router 10000 time slower than this to get a 1ms latency.

Then, I must be getting something wrong

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#147

Post by majewsky »

splittingTimes wrote: post #145
Lagged2Death wrote: post #81

If the 3x slowdown from the infrastructure were eliminated, each round-trip-time being 3x faster would affect all the protocols above, and we could immediately cut the latency inflation from ~37x to around 10x, without any protocol modifications. The page this article is published on makes 87 separate network requests to 19 different domains. Even with a great deal of the content cached, it takes 7 seconds to reload…

Its called "The website obesity crisis" http://www.webdirections.org/blog/the-website-obesity-crisis...

Since we're talking about saving bandwidth, here's the text+slides version of that talk: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#148

Post by majewsky »

Spivak wrote: post #130
jdmichal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's standard dead code elimination, and that's only true in static linking. Dynamic linking, which is far more popular, will load the entire library into memory. And then you get interesting hybrids like Java, where libraries are dynamically linked but only the classes that are actually used are loaded. [0] The equivalent for dynamic languages is tree shaking, and is a harder or impossible problem depending on the…

Language theory question: In the case of JS is there a safe, but still useful, subset of the language where dead code elimination could be improved? Ignore if it can be detected or not, we'll pretend that the author has to certify that they followed your subset and didn't do X, Y, or Z. If they disobeyed your rules then all bets are off and the result is undefined.

I'm afraid it won't help much to restrict the language. For optimal dead-code elimination (aka tree shaking), you need human-level intelligence. Here's an example I posted yesterday in the thread about iOS app bloat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14618324

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#149

Post by linkregister »

pagnol wrote: post #137
charrondev wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just leave these here. http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com

Thanks for the links, but why do people downvote your comment?

Someone posts these links every time the discussion comes up on HN. The down voters have likely forgotten that there are many new people who haven't seen these websites yet. It looks like the down votes have been reversed.

In the spirit of these repeated posts, I'll repeat the typical critique. "The white background is harsh on eyes, and there is nothing wrong with images and color to help improve aesthetics."

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#150

Post by f4rker »

Lagged2Death wrote: post #81

If the 3x slowdown from the infrastructure were eliminated, each round-trip-time being 3x faster would affect all the protocols above, and we could immediately cut the latency inflation from ~37x to around 10x, without any protocol modifications. The page this article is published on makes 87 separate network requests to 19 different domains. Even with a great deal of the content cached, it takes 7 seconds to reload…

I loaded a page the other day that took several minutes to load, over 2,000 connections and constantly rising, and over 20mb. Just to open the home page and then sit there.
Post reply on HN