More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Perceiving QUIC: do users notice or even care?

Authors:

Konrad Wolsing,

Oliver HohlfeldAuthors Info & Claims

CoNEXT '19: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies

Pages 144 - 150

https://doi.org/10.1145/3359989.3365416

Published: 03 December 2019 Publication History

Abstract

QUIC, as the foundation for HTTP/3, is becoming an Internet reality. A plethora of studies already show that QUIC excels beyond TCP+ TLS+HTTP/2. Yet, these studies compare a highly optimized QUIC Web stack against an unoptimized TCP-based stack. In this paper, we bring TCP up to speed to perform an eye-level comparison. Instead of relying on technical metrics, we perform two extensive user studies to investigate QUIC's impact on the quality of experience. First, we investigate if users can distinguish two protocol versions in a direct comparison, and we find that QUIC is indeed rated faster than TCP and even a tuned TCP. Yet, our second study shows that this perceived performance increase does mostly not matter to the users, and they rate QUIC and TCP indistinguishable.

References

[1]

Prasenjeet Biswal and Omprakash Gnawali. 2016. Does QUIC Make the Web Faster?. In IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM).

[2]

Enrico Bocchi, Luca De Cicco, Marco Mellia, and Dario Rossi. 2017. The Web, the Users, and the MOS: Influence of HTTP/2 on User Experience. In Springer Passive and Active Measurement (PAM).

[3]

Gaetano Carlucci, Luca De Cicco, and Saverio Mascolo. 2015. HTTP over UDP: An Experimental Investigation of QUIC. In ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC).

Digital Library

[4]

Sarah Cook, Bertrand Mathieu, Patrick Truong, and Isabelle Hamchaoui. 2017. QUIC: Better for what and for whom?. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[5]

Marc Fischlin and Felix Günther. 2017. Replay Attacks on Zero Round-Trip Time: The Case of the TLS 1.3 Handshake Candidates. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P).

[6]

Dennis Guse, Henrique R. Orefice, Gabriel Reimers, and Oliver Hohlfeld. 2019. TheFragebogen: A Web Browser-based Questionnaire Framework for Scientific Research. In IEEE Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[7]

Tobias Hoßfeld, Christian Keimel, Matthias Hirth, Bruno Gardlo, Julian Habigt, Klaus Diepold, and Phuoc Tran-Gia. 2014. Best Practices for QoE Crowdtesting: QoE Assessment With Crowdsourcing. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 16, 2 (2014), 541--558.

Digital Library

[8]

ITU. 2003. Subjective quality evaluation of telephone services based on spoken dialogue systems. ITU-T Recommendation P.851. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.851/en

[9]

Arash Molavi Kakhki, Samuel Jero, David Choffnes, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, and Alan Mislove. 2017. Taking a Long Look at QUIC: An Approach for Rigorous Evaluation of Rapidly Evolving Transport Protocols. In ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC).

Digital Library

[10]

Conor Kelton, Jihoon Ryoo, Aruna Balasubramanian, and Samir R. Das. 2017. Improving User Perceived Page Load Times Using Gaze. In USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi17/technical-sessions/presentation/kelton.

[11]

Péter Megyesi, Zsolt Krämer, and Sándor Molnár. 2016. How quick is QUIC?. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[12]

Microworkers.com. 2019. The Microworker Platform. https://www.microworkers.com

[13]

Ferdinand Mütsch. 2017. Caddy - a modern web server (vs. nginx). https://ferdinand-muetsch.de/caddy-a-modern-web-server-vs-nginx.html

[14]

Késsia Nepomuceno, Igor Nogueira de Oliveira, Rafael Roque Aschoff, Daniel Bezerra, Maria Silvia Ito, Wesley Melo, Djamel Sadok, and Géza Szabó. 2018. QUIC and TCP: A Performance Evaluation. In IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC).

[15]

Ravi Netravali, Anirudh Sivaraman, Somak Das, Ameesh Goyal, Keith Winstein, James Mickens, and Hari Balakrishnan. 2015. Mahimahi: Accurate Record-and-Replay for HTTP. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC). https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc15/technical-session/presentation/netravali.

Digital Library

[16]

Mohammad Rajiullah, Andra Lutu, Ali Safari Khatouni, Mah-Rukh Fida, Marco Mellia, Anna Brunstrom, Ozgu Alay, Stefan Alfredsson, and Vincenzo Mancuso. 2019. Web Experience in Mobile Networks: Lessons from Two Million Page Visits. In ACM The World Wide Web Conference (WWW).

Digital Library

[17]

John P. Rula, James Newman, Fabián E. Bustamante, Arash Molavi Kakhki, and David Choffnes. 2018. Mile High WiFi: A First Look At In-Flight Internet Connectivity. In IW3C2 World Wide Web Conference (WWW).

Digital Library

[18]

Jan Rüth, Ingmar Poese, Christoph Dietzel, and Oliver Hohlfeld. 2018. A First Look at QUIC in the Wild. In Springer Passive and Active Measurement (PAM).

[19]

Michael Seufert, Raimund Schatz, Nikolas Wehner, and Pedro Casas. 2019. QUICker or not? - an Empirical Analysis of QUIC vs TCP for Video Streaming QoE Provisioning. In IEEE Conference on Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops (ICIN).

[20]

Michael Seufert, Raimund Schatz, Nikolas Wehner, Bruno Gardlo, and Pedro Casas. 2019. Is QUIC becoming the New TCP? On the Potential Impact of a New Protocol on Networked Multimedia QoE. In IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[21]

sitespeed.io. 2019. Browsertime - Your browser, your page, your scripts! https://github.com/sitespeedio/browsertime.

[22]

Nick Sullivan. 2017. Introducing Zero Round Trip Time Resumption (0-RTT). https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-0-rtt/

[23]

Maarten Wijnants, Robin Marx, Peter Quax, and Wim Lamotte. 2018. HTTP/2 Prioritization and Its Impact on Web Performance. In IW3C2 World Wide Web Conference (WWW).

Digital Library

[24]

Konrad Wolsing, Jan Rüth, Klaus Wehrle, and Oliver Hohlfeld. 2019. A Performance Perspective on Web Optimized Protocol Stacks: TCP+TLS+HTTP/2 vs. QUIC. In ACM Applied Networking Research Workshop (ANRW).

Digital Library

[25]

Yajun Yu, Mingwei Xu, and Yuan Yang. 2017. When QUIC meets TCP: An Experimental Study. In IEEE International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC).

[26]

zafaco GmbH. 2018. Breitbandmessung Ergebnisse als interaktive Darstellung. https://web.archive.org/web/20181115/https://breitbandmessung.de/interaktive-darstellung

[27]

Torsten Zimmermann, Benedikt Wolters, and Oliver Hohlfeld. 2017. A QoE Perspective on HTTP/2 Server Push. In ACM Workshop on QoE-based Analysis and Management of Data Communication Networks (Internet-QoE).

Digital Library

Cited By

Bi PZou YXiao MYu DLi YLiu ZXie QCai JKankanhalli MPrabhakaran BBoll SSubramanian RZheng LSingh VCesar PXie LXu D(2024)LiteQUIC: Improving QoE of Video Streams by Reducing CPU Overhead of QUICProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia10.1145/3664647.3681670(7918-7927)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664647.3681670
Zhang XJin SHe YHassan AMao ZQian FZhang ZChua TNgo CKa-Wei Lee RKumar RLauw H(2024)QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast InternetProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645323(2713-2722)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3589334.3645323
Gupta ABartos R(2024)Enhancing QoE in HTTP/3 Using EPS Framework2024 International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS)10.1109/CITS61189.2024.10607991(1-8)Online publication date: 17-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/CITS61189.2024.10607991
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Perceiving QUIC: do users notice or even care?
1. Networks
  1. Network performance evaluation
    1. Network measurement
    2. Network performance analysis
  2. Network protocols
    1. Transport protocols

Recommendations

A QUIC Implementation for ns-3
WNS3 '19: Proceedings of the 2019 Workshop on ns-3

Quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC) is a recently proposed transport protocol, currently being standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It aims at overcoming some of the shortcomings of TCP, while maintaining the logic related to ...
Modified QUIC protocol for improved network performance and comparison with QUIC and TCP

Congestion control mechanism is solely responsible for maintaining the performance of streaming data. However, when there is no congestion, a regular delivery window update is followed as a step by step process. The process can be improved by individual ...
Delay-based TCP congestion avoidance: A network calculus interpretation and performance improvements

In delay-based TCP congestion avoidance mechanisms, a source adjusts its window size to adapt to changes in network conditions as measured through changing queueing delays. Although network calculus (NC) has been used to study window flow control and ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CoNEXT '19: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies

December 2019

395 pages

ISBN:9781450369985

DOI:10.1145/3359989

General Chairs:
Aziz Mohaisen
University of Central Florida
,
Zhi-Li Zhang
University of Minnesota

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCOMM: ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 December 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Conference

CoNEXT '19

Sponsor:

SIGCOMM

CoNEXT '19: The 15th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies

December 9 - 12, 2019

Florida, Orlando

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 198 of 789 submissions, 25%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

17
Total Citations
View Citations
644
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)51
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15

Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bi PZou YXiao MYu DLi YLiu ZXie QCai JKankanhalli MPrabhakaran BBoll SSubramanian RZheng LSingh VCesar PXie LXu D(2024)LiteQUIC: Improving QoE of Video Streams by Reducing CPU Overhead of QUICProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia10.1145/3664647.3681670(7918-7927)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664647.3681670
Zhang XJin SHe YHassan AMao ZQian FZhang ZChua TNgo CKa-Wei Lee RKumar RLauw H(2024)QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast InternetProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645323(2713-2722)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3589334.3645323
Gupta ABartos R(2024)Enhancing QoE in HTTP/3 Using EPS Framework2024 International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS)10.1109/CITS61189.2024.10607991(1-8)Online publication date: 17-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/CITS61189.2024.10607991
Liu JLerner DChung JPaul UGupta ABelding E(2024)Watching Stars in Pixels: The Interplay Of Traffic Shaping and YouTube Streaming QoE over GEO Satellite NetworksPassive and Active Measurement10.1007/978-3-031-56252-5_8(153-169)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56252-5_8
Zhang XJin SHe YHassan AMao ZQian FZhang ZMontpetit MLeivadeas AUhlig SJaved M(2023)Poster: QUIC is not Quick Enough over Fast InternetProceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference10.1145/3618257.3625002(730-731)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3618257.3625002
Deutschmann JJahandar SHielscher KGerman R(2023)Internet via Satellite: GEO vs. LEO, OpenVPN vs. Wireguard, and CUBIC vs. BBRProceedings of the 1st ACM MobiCom Workshop on Satellite Networking and Computing10.1145/3614454.3622998(19-24)Online publication date: 6-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3614454.3622998
König MWaldhorst OZitterbart M(2023)QUIC(k) Enough in the Long Run? Sustained Throughput Performance of QUIC Implementations2023 IEEE 48th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN)10.1109/LCN58197.2023.10223395(1-4)Online publication date: 2-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/LCN58197.2023.10223395
Shreedhar TPanda RPodanev SBajpai V(2022)Evaluating QUIC Performance Over Web, Cloud Storage, and Video WorkloadsIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management10.1109/TNSM.2021.313456219:2(1366-1381)Online publication date: Jun-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2021.3134562
Gupta ABartos R(2022)User Experience Evaluation of HTTP/3 in Real-World Deployment Scenarios2022 25th Conference on Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks (ICIN)10.1109/ICIN53892.2022.9758130(17-23)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIN53892.2022.9758130
Shah ABran JZarifis KBedi H(2022)SSQoE: Measuring Video QoE from the Server-Side at a Global Multi-tenant CDNPassive and Active Measurement10.1007/978-3-030-98785-5_27(600-625)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98785-5_27
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents