3 ms·

Latency is low enough that nobody cares about making it faster. I was at a awesome ISP 10 years ago playing quake with < 10ms ping (through clever routing to ce

by igl 12y ago

Latency is low enough that nobody cares about making it faster. I was at a awesome ISP 10 years ago playing quake with < 10ms ping (through clever routing to certain servers). This is still unmatched, I would say that latency and connection quality actually decreased. Fluent "live" interaction over the internet is still decades away.

tokenizerrr 12y ago
I've been playing Tribes Ascend with a ping of 3-5ms ever since I started playing it. I'm in the Netherlands and the game servers are in Amsterdam so that helps, but to say it's unmatched is not true.
X-Istence 12y ago
I play CS:Go on my home Comcast connection, and on certain servers (and time of day) I will have 5 - 8 ms ping due to their location. It's awesome to have such low ping times.
unwind 12y ago
Playing Quake on a "real" local client with input handling and extrapolation done locally is not necessarily the same as playing OnLive where your input is sent off for processing and the resulting video is returned. I haven't tried OnLive, but the scenarios are very different so I don't think the comparison makes sense.
josh2600 12y ago
I mean, it's not decades away... If you want < 10ms ping, you need to: 1) Be within 10ms of target datacenter (1,860 miles roughly) 2) rip out the TCP/IP handlers in all of the hardware along the route and replace with highly optimized, workload specific IP handlers (you'll want to do this in the kernel, OR in an ASIC if you're really serious about speed). 3) own all of the fiber along the route. Basically, if you can eliminate all of the finger pointing and just own the network end to end, you could probably implement this today, it's just that no one is at that scale except for maybe Google (note: I have no idea how Google runs their internal network, but if I had to guess, this is probably what they're doing). Edit: You can get this now, it's just hard and not worth the cost or effort to do (since no one will bear the cost of building a network like this for gaming, or really for any application I can think of... there just isn't a need for this kind of network performance).

by igl 12y ago

tokenizerrr 12y ago

I've been playing Tribes Ascend with a ping of 3-5ms ever since I started playing it. I'm in the Netherlands and the game servers are in Amsterdam so that helps, but to say it's unmatched is not true.

X-Istence 12y ago

I play CS:Go on my home Comcast connection, and on certain servers (and time of day) I will have 5 - 8 ms ping due to their location. It's awesome to have such low ping times.

unwind 12y ago

Playing Quake on a "real" local client with input handling and extrapolation done locally is not necessarily the same as playing OnLive where your input is sent off for processing and the resulting video is returned. I haven't tried OnLive, but the scenarios are very different so I don't think the comparison makes sense.

josh2600 12y ago

I mean, it's not decades away... If you want < 10ms ping, you need to: 1) Be within 10ms of target datacenter (1,860 miles roughly) 2) rip out the TCP/IP handlers in all of the hardware along the route and replace with highly optimized, workload specific IP handlers (you'll want to do this in the kernel, OR in an ASIC if you're really serious about speed). 3) own all of the fiber along the route. Basically, if you can eliminate all of the finger pointing and just own the network end to end, you could probably implement this today, it's just that no one is at that scale except for maybe Google (note: I have no idea how Google runs their internal network, but if I had to guess, this is probably what they're doing). Edit: You can get this now, it's just hard and not worth the cost or effort to do (since no one will bear the cost of building a network like this for gaming, or really for any application I can think of... there just isn't a need for this kind of network performance).