New developments in web transport such as HTTP/2 and first and foremost QUIC promise fewer connections to track as well as shorter connection setup times. These protocols have proven themselves on modern reliable connections with a high bandwidth-delay-product, but how do they perform over cellular connections in rural or crowded areas where the connections are much more unreliable? A lot of new users of the web in todays mobile-first usage scenarios are located on poor connections. A testbench was designed that allowed for web browsing over limited network links in a con- trolled environment. We have compared the network load time of page loading over the protocols QUIC, HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1 using a variety of different network conditions. We then used these measurements as a basis for suggesting which protocol to use during different conditions. The results show that newer is not always better. QUIC in general works reasonably well under all conditions, while HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 trade blows depending on connection conditions, with HTTP/1.1 sometimes outperforming both of the newer protocols.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:liu-148682 |
| Date | January 2018 |
| Creators | Elo, Hans-Filip |
| Publisher | Linköpings universitet, Databas och informationsteknik, Opera Software |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds