Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux MMORPG Game Engine Sees Major Update

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
    hell if i know but they in beta.
    They're making it for Vista only. Yay.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
      isnt latency the reason they strategically place servers at certain locations. eg, Chicago or Dallas. Or Germany for Europe representation.


      Looks like your trace-route doesn't even leave Texas. Most people dont game in a hotel room they do it at home with purchased internet connections.

      I have a stable 55.5 MS to Phoronix.com from Toronto. My ISP eats up 13 MS of that.

      Heres a distance representation.

      The internet doesn't work like an airplane: it's not air-distance. Your data can roam around the entire world if you are very unlucky. In general it goes over a couple of hops until it reaches the destination which can be at various places. Placing servers does not help since your players can come from everywhere and this especially means all sorts of crappy hops in between introducing lots of lag.

      Comment


      • #48
        obviously, that would be a really stupid airplane route. Your packets may go around the world if you are on HE or Cogent. Heck if i want to connect to chicago using cogent it takes it to new york first.... But any decent network is going to get you from A to B with few hops.

        1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 0.365 ms 0.356 ms 0.346 ms
        2 * * *
        3 xxxx.xxxx.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.xxx.xxx) 9.673 ms 9.676 ms 9.768 ms
        4 xxxx.xxxx.phub.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.xxx.xxx) 9.368 ms 9.499 ms 9.492 ms
        5 xxxxxxxxx.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.81.xxx) 37.751 ms 37.863 ms 37.856 ms
        6 64.71.241.118 (64.71.241.118) 27.045 ms 23.850 ms 23.829 ms
        7 eqix.asbn.twtelecom.net (206.223.115.36) 24.315 ms 24.553 ms 24.538 ms
        8 hagg-03-ge-1-0-0-538.hsto.twtelecom.net (66.192.246.210) 52.712 ms 52.436 ms 52.691 ms
        9 po1.car02.hstntx2.theplanet.com (74.55.252.70) 53.247 ms 53.514 ms 53.216 ms
        10 ev1s-209-62-40-52.theplanet.com (209.62.40.52) 56.665 ms 56.749 ms 57.045 ms

        Comment


        • #49
          This is not how the internet works. It's a self organizing routing system. Routers can send packages through different routes depending on the current network situation. Furthermore less hops is not always faster. If a hop in between becomes a lagger for one reason or another you might be faster taking a detour using faster and less stressed hops. So it's not that easy as "less hops = faster".

          Comment


          • #50
            I guess you could say it's like avoiding the freeway during rush hour traffic. Sure, city streets are slower and have traffic lights, but you still got home 2 hours earlier than if you took the freeway.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
              This is not how the internet works. It's a self organizing routing system. Routers can send packages through different routes depending on the current network situation.
              yessur

              Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
              Furthermore less hops is not always faster..
              Absolutely right

              Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
              If a hop in between becomes a lagger for one reason or another you might be faster taking a detour using faster and less stressed hops.
              In theory this is often the case and would be considered correct. The likelyhood it would be faster for me to connect to Miami before jumping on a line to Altanta would make sense in this situation. A MAJOR change like having to go to Vancouver before heading to Huston is unreasonable.

              This result is that your packets take longer. How much? negligible unless retarded routes are used.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                negligible unless retarded routes are used.
                You don't want to know how retarded routers can be... especially those on ISPs.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
                  You don't want to know how retarded routers can be... especially those on ISPs.
                  No...you don't. I can vouch for that one. And I'll leave it at that...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                    Looks like your trace-route doesn't even leave Texas. Most people dont game in a hotel room they do it at home with purchased internet connections.

                    I have a stable 55.5 MS to Phoronix.com from Toronto. My ISP eats up 13 MS of that.

                    Heres a distance representation.
                    I'll only add a bit more to that... Just because it doesn't leave Texas, is only happy happenstance. The fact that I've a 10-15ms latency there from home is even better happenstance, but I've seen latencies go to hell in a handbasket if the backbone's congested or if a router's hosed.


                    Moreover, I'll observe that I would have had a 45ms latency prior to getting my FiOS setup, even from Verizon's DSL group as it gets routed to the backbone differently. Just because it's a hotel ISP doesn't discount what I commented on.
                    Last edited by Svartalf; 05-26-2009, 08:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                      This result is that your packets take longer. How much? negligible unless retarded routes are used.
                      You just told this to a computer systems engineer that deals with stuff that does call trace, monitoring, etc. on the Telcos' networks- not just Dragonlord... (ME!!)

                      It's not negligible and if you hit either MAE-East or MAE-west, you can just toss any real hope of sub 300ms latencies on that session to hell except at certain specific times of the day- and they don't always coincide with what you'd think they do.

                      You need to understand how TCP/IP ACTUALLY works, even with UDP traffic, before making comments along those lines (Hint: It doesn't work that way... )

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                        You need to understand how TCP/IP ACTUALLY works, even with UDP traffic, before making comments along those lines (Hint: It doesn't work that way... )
                        i hope u'd know i live in my happy place by now

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                          You just told this to a computer systems engineer that deals with stuff that does call trace, monitoring, etc. on the Telcos' networks- not just Dragonlord... (ME!!)
                          And at night time he becomes the Dark Knight.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            And at night time he becomes the Dark Knight.
                            Heh... I only wish... I'd love to have his neato toys...

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X