3 ms·
Elon talks about 20ms or 10ms, not 100. He wouldn’t be wrong by a factor of 10. You’re really just speculating based on some non IP based overarchitected mil sp
by paulsutter 7y ago
Elon talks about 20ms or 10ms, not 100. He wouldn’t be wrong by a factor of 10. You’re really just speculating based on some non IP based overarchitected mil spec monstrosity you’ve seen before
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132903914586529793?s=19 https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/11329039145865297...
Besides we’re talking about the latency of the satellite to satellite links, not the downlink (since that’s the difference between using a downlink close to the client vs close to the server).
- _flgt 7y agoYeah, I'm speculating and so are you. Your citation is an Elon tweet. I'm not talking satellite to satellite latency, I'm talking total latency end-to-end. I'm also not saying the system will be 100 ms, just that it takes significant engineering effort so latency doesn't get out of control. IMHO, it's a fundamentally much harder problem than existing transatlantic links, despite the greater signal speed in a vacuum. I'm skeptical of what the latency will be. You disagree and that's fine. Maybe we'll see an actual measurement soon enough. The competition can do 60 ms round-trip to NYC to London.
- paulsutter 7y agoI think you’re suggesting an /extra/ 100ms in addition to speed of light time, which is to speculate that they’ll do it in a way that’s needlessly crappy. I’m speculating they’re smart guys working hard to keep latency low, and that routing will be a more challenging latency issue, while serialization should be minor. But we’ll see and I agree we’re both speculating