3 ms·

"you wouldn't accept lag offline, so why do it online? get up to 1000 Mbit/s fiber today." I find this contradicting. They talk about lag, but offer bandwidth.

by hamoid 12y ago

"you wouldn't accept lag offline, so why do it online? get up to 1000 Mbit/s fiber today." I find this contradicting. They talk about lag, but offer bandwidth. What about latency? Shouldn't they talk about milliseconds of delay from your computer to the server and back?

roeme 12y ago
>I find this contradicting. They talk about lag, but offer bandwidth. What about latency? Shouldn't they talk about milliseconds of delay from your computer to the server and back? It's not necessarily contradicting, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding, or rather, lack of knowledge. You are absolutely right that they should talk about latency. But at the same time, one has to acknowledge that nowadays latency seldom is a problem, and bandwidth usage by various applications has increased. But when stuff online happens too slow for whatever reason, it's colloquially referred to as 'lag'. So it's somewhat understandable that some people (begin to) confuse things. EDIT: Had a second look at the Advert; now it's obvious why the distinction is missing; as they (naturally) separate their offerings by bandwidth, not latency.
Mithaldu 12y ago
You're both right and wrong. You're right because serious internet lag issues stem from problems along the line, or simple physical distance. However they're also right to advertise with bandwidth, because bandwidth does impact lag. On a 10MBit line, you will need 10 ms to upload 12.5kbyte, and another 10 ms to download the same as the response from the server, making turnaround time for such a package 20 ms. That's more than one whole frame for an application running at 60 fps. With a 1000 MBit line, the turnaround time for the same will be 0.2ms, basically nothing. On the other hand: For both cases you need to add the distance as a flat factor, so whether you notice it or not depends on whether you're communicating to a server close by (20-50ms) or one a continent away (150-300ms).
- barrkel 12y ago
  "With a 1000 MBit line, the turnaround time for the same will be 0.2ms, basically nothing" How do you figure this? That doesn't follow at all. The proverbial[1] van full of microSD cards may have much more bandwidth than a 1Gbps line, but it will never turn around in 0.2ms. [1] http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2013/09/never-underestimate-the-bandwidth-of-a-station-wagon-filled-with-backup-tapes/ http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2013/09/never-underestimate-t... - 67Tbps estimated bandwidth for a station wagon going between LA and NYC.
  - Mithaldu 12y ago
    Please read the sentence following the sentence after which you paused to comment. :)
  - backprojection 12y ago
    his point is that bandwidth sets a lower limit on lag, for a fixed packet size. high bandwidth is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.
  - backprojection 12y ago
    his point is that bandwidth sets a lower limit on lag, for a fixed packet size. high bandwidth is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.
  - emerongi 12y ago
    If you were to request 67Tb from LA, the response would reach you faster by van than by cable - which is "less lag".

by hamoid 12y ago

roeme 12y ago

>I find this contradicting. They talk about lag, but offer bandwidth. What about latency? Shouldn't they talk about milliseconds of delay from your computer to the server and back? It's not necessarily contradicting, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding, or rather, lack of knowledge. You are absolutely right that they should talk about latency. But at the same time, one has to acknowledge that nowadays latency seldom is a problem, and bandwidth usage by various applications has increased. But when stuff online happens too slow for whatever reason, it's colloquially referred to as 'lag'. So it's somewhat understandable that some people (begin to) confuse things. EDIT: Had a second look at the Advert; now it's obvious why the distinction is missing; as they (naturally) separate their offerings by bandwidth, not latency.

Mithaldu 12y ago

You're both right and wrong. You're right because serious internet lag issues stem from problems along the line, or simple physical distance. However they're also right to advertise with bandwidth, because bandwidth does impact lag. On a 10MBit line, you will need 10 ms to upload 12.5kbyte, and another 10 ms to download the same as the response from the server, making turnaround time for such a package 20 ms. That's more than one whole frame for an application running at 60 fps. With a 1000 MBit line, the turnaround time for the same will be 0.2ms, basically nothing. On the other hand: For both cases you need to add the distance as a flat factor, so whether you notice it or not depends on whether you're communicating to a server close by (20-50ms) or one a continent away (150-300ms).

barrkel 12y ago
"With a 1000 MBit line, the turnaround time for the same will be 0.2ms, basically nothing" How do you figure this? That doesn't follow at all. The proverbial[1] van full of microSD cards may have much more bandwidth than a 1Gbps line, but it will never turn around in 0.2ms. [1] http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2013/09/never-underestimate-the-bandwidth-of-a-station-wagon-filled-with-backup-tapes/ http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2013/09/never-underestimate-t... - 67Tbps estimated bandwidth for a station wagon going between LA and NYC.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  Please read the sentence following the sentence after which you paused to comment. :)
- backprojection 12y ago
  his point is that bandwidth sets a lower limit on lag, for a fixed packet size. high bandwidth is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.
- backprojection 12y ago
  his point is that bandwidth sets a lower limit on lag, for a fixed packet size. high bandwidth is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.
- emerongi 12y ago
  If you were to request 67Tb from LA, the response would reach you faster by van than by cable - which is "less lag".