Live data from Hacker News

Why is the Internet so Slow?

blog.apnic.net

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#151

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'm on a 6 ms ping to www.google.com, 315 Mbit/sec dl, 245 ul and it took about 3.5 sec.

Using ublock origin, Ghostery on Safari with 2015 MacBook Pro 15"

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the old concept of binary security - either you want it or not. It doesn't work like that, security is one need to be balanced against others. Also, lots of CVEs indicate only one thing: that lots of people are checking it.

Hrmn. Doesn't it also mean they're finding lots of problems with it?

Key word "finding". Most large software has plenty of bugs, CVE's just tell you how many they're aware of

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#153

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 agree website bloat is a big problem, but I'm too excited to hear someone talking seriously about latency to care.

For years all I've wanted is, say, 6Mbps & 5ms ping, but nearly everyone seems to focus on bandwidth.

It might lead to more ads on webpages. But it would also dramatically improve VPN and all "realtime" apps, i.e. VoIP, Skype, remote desktop, sometimes ssh, etc.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#154

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…

yea totally agree. its not hard to make something fast on the web. its just usually that its way easier to throw the kitchen sink at the problem.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#155
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buddy I hate all that shit. I use uMatrix and block as much as I can while still seeing the real content. In fact that's how I know what the domains are.

I was joking. I think it wasn't a terribly good joke though, so sorry.

Jokes don't work on HN for some reason (I liked/upvoted it)

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#156
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think that comparable to 640k. Things you mention are are either what I define cherry on top (VR/AR meeting? Why? Teleworking is already present and completely doable on low bandwidth, mid latency - I'm doing it every day). VNC lag issues are mostly exactly what I mentioned. You already have enough bandwidth - it's the latency that affects you.

Besides, high detail remote desktop are a small, specialised segment, relatively speaking. If you're a developer, most of the time you work with text. If you're an office worker, most of the time you work with fairly static apps like office. Sure, you can't really work with remote blender at the moment, but we're getting into improvements for the long tail now - which is great. But once we're past 10mbps, improving latency will help more people than improving bandwidth.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#157
post #120
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the trade-off is one image on your page, or a robust RIA experience If I had the choice, I'd take an additional image in that trade, thanks. The 'rich' 'experiences' I've been offered so far are inferior to bog-standard web pages. I'll grant you that it is friendlier to coders whose applications fit the model. Beyond that, they don't work without Javascript[1]. The "richness" is usually useless animation and sim…

If I understand you right, your contention seems to be more with animation and 'fluff' rather than with MV* frameworks like Angular specifically. To which I'll simply say: in some cases animation is as important to the user experience as an additional image would be, and in some cases the additional image just contributes more 'fluff' than the animation or interactivity would. There are many dimensions to the problem…

You're actually picking up the smaller of my two complaints. If everything else about Angular were sensible, I'd probably grumble about dumb overuse of trendy visual primitives, but that's about it. And I absolutely agree that, used sensibly, animations and whatnot are very useful. This complaint basically boils down to wishing all web designers were actually as good as a lot of them think they are.

You missed my complaints about the uselessness of Angular apps without a JS interpreter. That's important, because it means they're basically worthless for consumption by nonhumans. (Sure, I can run Chrome headless, but that's an entirely different can of worms that play poorly with pipelines, not to mention an enormous, absurd runtime for what should be a trivial file transfer.)

Web automation on a personal scale is enormously useful. Angular breaks the underlying assumptions that make it work for sites that don't go out of their way to accommodate it. I get that may be an unintended benefit to some people who want to be control-freaky about how their offerings are used , but it enormously reduces the value of the web.

A connection just hit me - it is similar-ish to way back when, when some misguided designers wanted to publish PDFs on the web instead of HTML. They wanted full layout control, at the cost of basically everything else. Angular is similar, in that doing anything the creator didn't anticipate is very difficult, despite complying with the letter of web standards.

And also, as I said, I default to browsing with JS off. When I hit a blank page, I curse "Angular" and go back to the search engine. So that's annoying, but I've yet to encounter an Angular site I can't live without.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#158
Tangentially, I have been struggling, for several years, with Safari being extremely slow at opening sites, compared to almost instant loading in Chrome. Anyone seen this?

I'm always on fast networks (100mbps or so), but I find myself waiting 4-5 seconds or more before Safari even shows signs of connecting, even to things like Google and YouTube. It seems to be limited to HTTPS sites, and seems to have been introduced when Apple started using a new MacOS TLS/SSL framework called something like "Apple secure transport" (I forget exactly) a few MacOS versions back, and it's almost certainly not DNS (I get the same issue with Google DNS as with my provider's).

I don't even know how to debug this, since I don't have a command line client that goes through the same TLS/SSL framework code as WebKit. Curl is fast, for example.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#159
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which you should for many reasons but chiefly performance and security. Why would you use nginx for security? I see over 100 CVEs for nginx. This isn't exactly unexpected. Nginx is an incredibly complicated piece of software written for performance in C. That's basically the trifecta of security badness. If you want security, why not use a (possibly slower) simpler product written in a safer language?

Ah, the old concept of binary security - either you want it or not. It doesn't work like that, security is one need to be balanced against others. Also, lots of CVEs indicate only one thing: that lots of people are checking it.

> Also, lots of CVEs indicate only one thing: that lots of people are checking it.

Also that it has lots of vulnerabilities.

Instead, you could use a product that's secure by design.

Re: Why is the Internet so Slow?

#160
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Weird to see people actually have an issue with the background, specially when "better" explicitly mentions this:

"I would've even made this site's background a nice #EEEEEE if I wasn't so focused on keeping declarations to a lean 7 fucking lines."

Post reply on HN