3 ms·
No, broadband connections are starting to have major latency issues and it's only going to get worse in the short term. Check out this earlier discussion on bu
by smokinn 16y ago
No, broadband connections are starting to have major latency issues and it's only going to get worse in the short term.
Check out this earlier discussion on bufferbloat: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2002992 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2002992
Basically, if you have a broadband connection, a wireless card and a wireless N router expect bizarre latency spikes. The reason you get those unpredictable spikes is because of the unnecessarily big buffers at every step down the line.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- cma 16y agoExplain why large buffers in and of themselves would matter? The only relation I could see there would be if they were flush-on-fill, or constant rate in, constant rate out (like the audio buffer in a receiver). Aside from those cases, if the new bigger buffers are actually always being utilized near the new bigger sizes, then a smaller buffer scenario would just mean you'd get more packet loss and even more latency, right?
- smokinn 16y agoIt's indeed because they're flush on fill. Games that don't optimize and use more data on the wire actually feel more responsive than games that are wasteful with data.
- ericflo 16y ago> Games that don't optimize and use more data on the wire actually feel more responsive than games that are wasteful with data. I re-read this three times and still can't parse what you're trying to say. Mind clarifying?
- JeffL 16y agoIf the game doesn't optimize down the total data it sends, then it's constantly filling the buffers, so there's no waiting for buffers to fill which can reduce ping times.
- ijuhygtfhyuj 16y agoFlush on full means the data is only sent when the buffer is full. If the buffer is large and you have an optimized game that minimizes the amount of data sent then the buffer takes longer to fill up and packets are sent less often. Older games that send more data may get quicker response if your throughput is high but your packets are large
- TheSOB88 16y agoI think op means games that aren't wasteful, i.e. they send a smaller amount of information with less redundance.
- smokinn 16y agoHere's an example of me pinging my router: smokinn@ubuntu:~$ ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=1.24 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=1.21 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=75.4 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=1.26 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=1.18 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=1.21 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=1.20 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=1.28 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=1.28 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=1.23 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=11 ttl=64 time=1.23 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=12 ttl=64 time=1.24 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=13 ttl=64 time=1.19 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=14 ttl=64 time=1.22 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=15 ttl=64 time=101 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=16 ttl=64 time=1.31 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=17 ttl=64 time=1.69 ms Notice number 3 and 15. I'm not yet sure why exactly it does this, I haven't had time to investigate fully and honestly it's a minor problem since I don't really play games so it's pretty low on my priority list but I suspect it's either bufferbloat or a driver issue.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]