3 ms·

Sounds like a very reliable system. I’m sure the latencies would be excellent everywhere.

by klysm 3y ago

Macha 3y ago
I'm not sure even something ludicrous like a 10s latency would actually be a problem for OpenTTD. The uses of their hosting are: 1. The web page you're reading 2. Mod downloading and server listings. Sure, less latency would be nice, but is it vital? In particular, if you join a multiplayer game, that's the end of their server involvement, they're not hosting the multiplayer servers, so it won't have a gameplay effect. Add on to that that a lot of their players get the game from Steam, linux package repositories, or JGR's github releases page anyway.
- cdchn 3y ago
  10s of latency is a problem for any web page, OpenTTD or not.
  - Macha 3y ago
    I just went to new.reddit.com and it's 9s for a full render. YouTube is 5s. Given openttd.org renders in a single request unlike those two sites, it actually wouldn't be that much of an outlier.
    - cdchn 3y ago
      I wouldn't hold either of those up as good counter examples: 1) Single Page Apps vs. mostly static HTML 2) Not great exemplars of quickly loading pages 3) Your bandwidth might be bad- I was able to load youtube.com in <2s.
      - Macha 3y ago
        > 1) Single Page Apps vs. mostly static HTML Users don't care about tech choice. > 2) Not great exemplars of quickly loading pages And yet they're some of the most popular web sites on the internet, so does that not indicate that they do so despite the performance and therefore users find their performance at least acceptable? > 3) Your bandwidth might be bad- I was able to load youtube.com in Good for you? I'm on a 2GBit/s fiber connection with 3ms ping to youtube.com . I am however, likely located further away from their actual servers doing the processing (while ping measures the response from their edge servers).
        cdchn 3y ago
        >Users don't care about tech choice. You're right, they don't. The user experience is that they're front-loading their wait time loading the app, and aren't doing a whole request/response cycle for every action they want to take. The end result is the net wait for their active session being lower. >so does that not indicate that they do so despite the performance It indicates they're trying to maximize features, rather than minimize load time. >I'm on a 2GBit/s fiber connection with 3ms ping to youtube.com Cool maybe your computer is slow then. Sample size of 1, anecdata, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
paxys 3y ago
I'm sure it is a reliable system, but I'm willing to bet that two $10/mo VPS instances splitting the load would be equally reliable and still be able to serve requests worldwide with sub 200ms latency.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > I'm willing to bet that two $10/mo VPS instances splitting the load would be equally reliable And 10 of them would probably still be cheaper.

Sounds like a very reliable system. I’m sure the latencies would be excellent everywhere.

by klysm 3y ago

Sounds like a very reliable system. I’m sure the latencies would be excellent everywhere.

I'm not sure even something ludicrous like a 10s latency would actually be a problem for OpenTTD. The uses of their hosting are: 1. The web page you're reading 2. Mod downloading and server listings. Sure, less latency would be nice, but is it vital? In particular, if you join a multiplayer game, that's the end of their server involvement, they're not hosting the multiplayer servers, so it won't have a gameplay effect. Add on to that that a lot of their players get the game from Steam, linux package repositories, or JGR's github releases page anyway.

cdchn 3y ago
10s of latency is a problem for any web page, OpenTTD or not.
- Macha 3y ago
  I just went to new.reddit.com and it's 9s for a full render. YouTube is 5s. Given openttd.org renders in a single request unlike those two sites, it actually wouldn't be that much of an outlier.
  - cdchn 3y ago
    I wouldn't hold either of those up as good counter examples: 1) Single Page Apps vs. mostly static HTML 2) Not great exemplars of quickly loading pages 3) Your bandwidth might be bad- I was able to load youtube.com in <2s.
    - Macha 3y ago
      > 1) Single Page Apps vs. mostly static HTML Users don't care about tech choice. > 2) Not great exemplars of quickly loading pages And yet they're some of the most popular web sites on the internet, so does that not indicate that they do so despite the performance and therefore users find their performance at least acceptable? > 3) Your bandwidth might be bad- I was able to load youtube.com in Good for you? I'm on a 2GBit/s fiber connection with 3ms ping to youtube.com . I am however, likely located further away from their actual servers doing the processing (while ping measures the response from their edge servers).
      - cdchn 3y ago
        >Users don't care about tech choice. You're right, they don't. The user experience is that they're front-loading their wait time loading the app, and aren't doing a whole request/response cycle for every action they want to take. The end result is the net wait for their active session being lower. >so does that not indicate that they do so despite the performance It indicates they're trying to maximize features, rather than minimize load time. >I'm on a 2GBit/s fiber connection with 3ms ping to youtube.com Cool maybe your computer is slow then. Sample size of 1, anecdata, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

paxys 3y ago

I'm sure it is a reliable system, but I'm willing to bet that two $10/mo VPS instances splitting the load would be equally reliable and still be able to serve requests worldwide with sub 200ms latency.

pessimizer 3y ago
> I'm willing to bet that two $10/mo VPS instances splitting the load would be equally reliable And 10 of them would probably still be cheaper.