3 ms·
Not that I think it'd necessarily be a great idea, but you could probably get a decent bounded latency by using dedicated / leased lines, which is e.g. good eno
by jsty 7y ago
Not that I think it'd necessarily be a great idea, but you could probably get a decent bounded latency by using dedicated / leased lines, which is e.g. good enough for remote robot-assisted surgery in some places.
- a-priori 7y agoThe Earth is 134ms around at the speed of light. That's how long it takes to communicate in real time with the other side of the world (your antipode). No technology or routing policies can change that. This sort of real-time control would probably have to be done on the same continent at most, because of purely physical limitations.
- 1_person 7y agoI think it's worth introducing to the discussion that human reaction time to an unanticipated stimulus is somewhere around 150-250ms. The ~140-150ms practically achievable latency over a hemispheric arc in real world IP networks is already fairly close to the limit imposed by the human element. However, latency in IP networks is measured as RTT while human reaction time to a stimulus is given as the one way path latency. The more accurate comparison would be between the ~70ms one way path latency of the optical terrestrial network with the same 150-250ms of one way path latency for the human to react to a directly applied stimulus. At the extreme of the range of human factors and accounting for the differing scale, human factors are responsible for up to 80% of the reaction latency.
- a-priori 7y agoBut if you're talking about having human operators in the loop then any communications latency would be in addition to the reaction time of the operator.