4 ms·
The solution is to pair the matchmaker using maps with a network acceleration product that fixes the bad routes, then the latency map and the actual latency exp
by gafferongames 2y ago
The solution is to pair the matchmaker using maps with a network acceleration product that fixes the bad routes, then the latency map and the actual latency experienced are very close.
The reason you use the maps in the matchmaker is so you can look up the latency from client to datacenter in constant time and you don't have to waste any time on the client pinging ping servers to get the results.
Plus, it costs money to run pings through the network accelerator, and they always (from experience) converge to the latency map anyway.
- remram 2y agoHow much time is wasted? 50 milliseconds at most? And you're about to send 50 packets per second for an hour during the game. Is sending one packet per datacenter really a cost worth mentioning?
- gafferongames 2y ago[flagged]
- remram 2y ago[flagged]
- gafferongames 2y ago[flagged]
- remram 2y ago[flagged]
- gafferongames 2y ago[flagged]
- remram 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gafferongames 2y ago[flagged]
- toast0 2y ago> Especially, why would you do it, when you'll be tracking latency per-player per-match at minimum for your own visibility already, and you could just batch process this data at the end of the day to take the average latency at each (lat, long) and output a greyscale bitmap where [0,255] indicates the latency from that lat/long square to the datacenter. You just need one grayscale image per-datacenter. Given lat,long is a guess and even if it is accurate, doesn't correspond very well to network latency, why wouldn't you use something like the source /24 or /48 rather than lat,lon. You don't get a pretty picture that way, I guess.
- remram 2y ago[flagged]
- gafferongames 2y ago[flagged]