Performance Evaluation of HTTP/2 and HTTP/3(QUIC) using Lighthouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis embarks on a comparative analysis of HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 protocols across two prominent web servers, Nginx and OpenLiteSpeed, under various network conditions spanning baseline performance, impact of delay, impact of packet loss, and throughput scenarios employing Google Lighthouse metrics to assess web performance indicators like FCP, SI, LCP, CLS, Performance Score, and Throughput.The findings based on our set-up reveal that, under no-delay conditions, both Nginx and OpenLiteSpeed performed optimally overall with marginal distinctions between the two protocols.Notably, HTTP/3 consistently surpasses HTTP/2 across all metrics except for Throughput where HTTP/2 gained little advantage.The result reveals HTTP/3's superior capability to manage network instabilities and packet loss.Furthermore, OpenLiteSpeed demonstrates a slight advantage over Nginx, particularly when leveraging HTTP/3, suggesting an optimization that subtly favors its architecture.This study emphasizes the critical role of selecting the appropriate server and protocol to optimize web performance, particularly under challenging network conditions.i
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".