3 ms·
> latency trumps reliability Let's say I don't care about the initial handshake latency, have disabled nagle and have no packet loss. Is there still a measurab
by hawk_ 2y ago
> latency trumps reliability
Let's say I don't care about the initial handshake latency, have disabled nagle and have no packet loss. Is there still a measurable latency difference between UDP and TCP? It would appear that there is (based on yours and other comments) - but I don't know why.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoPrimarily traffic cost, CDN services were much more important during the early days... and punching through NAT came with its own liabilities.
- fulafel 2y agoNo, assumign an already estabilished connection, TCP is just as fast if there's no packet loss, except for the tiny amount of time that the additional TCP stack logic takes on the CPU. See eg here: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/using-netperf-and-ping-to-measure-network-latency https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/using-netp...
- vetrom 2y agoYou may have induced latency driven by window sizing/scaling/acknowledgement RTT as well.
- fulafel 2y agoIf TCP says "you can't send more data yet because of congestion control" (like hitting the congestion window limit) then I guess you can categorise that as latency, depends on your viewpoint. RTT of acknowledgements shouldn't normally enter into it, no? You can send while previously unacknowledged data is in flight (as long as congestion control state allows).