4 ms·

A relevant ping test should also be sending packets far more often than once per second (more like once per frame at a minimum), and should be sending larger pa

A relevant ping test should also be sending packets far more often than once per second (more like once per frame at a minimum), and should be sending larger packets than the default for ping.

vel0city 4y ago
Here you go, 1 thousand byte payload ping sent every 0.02 seconds on my Pi Zero W. ping -i 0.02 -s 1400 router.home.lan . . . lots of pings . . . 6203 packets transmitted, 6203 received, 0% packet loss, time 128938ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.023/3.397/43.075/1.785 ms, pipe 2 The previous ping had the Zero W way overloaded, I realized that after. Single core running with a load average of 2.8, still managed to be decently interactive and have the previous pings. This ping was happening while having 1 minute load average of 1.2. So only kind of overloaded ;) This kind of latency is achievable on a $10 board with only 2.4GHz Wireless N. Suggesting WiFi adds 50ms latency on average is extreme hyperbole.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  Again, max ping of 43ms. The worst kind of latency is the unpredictable kind that can't be compensated for. The reaction speed of a casual gamer will be somewhere near 180-250ms. If we take the upper bound, occasionally the casual gamer's input will take 17.2% longer to register.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    So if even 99.9999% of pings were <5ms, but one was 40ms, you'd define that link as a 40ms experience?
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      For gaming, your experience is absolutely degraded by spikes in ping. A consistent 50ms latency is far better than a 5ms with the occasional >50ms latency.
      - vel0city 4y ago
        So yes, one packet a day at 50ms would be considered unplayable to you, even if 99.9999999999999% of the packets were <5ms, because it is the "occasional" 50ms latency. That's what you're arguing when looking at just the max value. Makes sense.
        jimmydorry 4y ago
        We aren't talking once a day though. We are talking like once a minute or two, at least by the data you have provided.

A relevant ping test should also be sending packets far more often than once per second (more like once per frame at a minimum), and should be sending larger packets than the default for ping.

vel0city 4y ago

Here you go, 1 thousand byte payload ping sent every 0.02 seconds on my Pi Zero W. ping -i 0.02 -s 1400 router.home.lan . . . lots of pings . . . 6203 packets transmitted, 6203 received, 0% packet loss, time 128938ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.023/3.397/43.075/1.785 ms, pipe 2 The previous ping had the Zero W way overloaded, I realized that after. Single core running with a load average of 2.8, still managed to be decently interactive and have the previous pings. This ping was happening while having 1 minute load average of 1.2. So only kind of overloaded ;) This kind of latency is achievable on a $10 board with only 2.4GHz Wireless N. Suggesting WiFi adds 50ms latency on average is extreme hyperbole.

jimmydorry 4y ago
Again, max ping of 43ms. The worst kind of latency is the unpredictable kind that can't be compensated for. The reaction speed of a casual gamer will be somewhere near 180-250ms. If we take the upper bound, occasionally the casual gamer's input will take 17.2% longer to register.
- vel0city 4y ago
  So if even 99.9999% of pings were <5ms, but one was 40ms, you'd define that link as a 40ms experience?
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    For gaming, your experience is absolutely degraded by spikes in ping. A consistent 50ms latency is far better than a 5ms with the occasional >50ms latency.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      So yes, one packet a day at 50ms would be considered unplayable to you, even if 99.9999999999999% of the packets were <5ms, because it is the "occasional" 50ms latency. That's what you're arguing when looking at just the max value. Makes sense.
      - jimmydorry 4y ago
        We aren't talking once a day though. We are talking like once a minute or two, at least by the data you have provided.