🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:16:43 GMT, Ron Gibson <rsgibson@verizon.net>
wrote:

>So I got to wondering what would be acceptable as the slowest line
>speed.

As a client, probably 128k, maybe 256k. Ping, lag and packet loss are
far more important than raw download speed.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:26:33 +0100, Andrew wrote:
 
>>So I got to wondering what would be acceptable as the slowest line speed.
 
> As a client, probably 128k, maybe 256k. Ping, lag and packet loss are far
> more important than raw download speed.

Oh boy. Thanx for the quick answer. I am familar witrh those terms but
have not ever measured lag or packet loss.

Guess I got a new project now, huh :-)

...I DID read "Networking for Dummies" !

-- 
Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

"Ron Gibson" <rsgibson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.22.21.33.30.59332@verizon.net...
| On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:26:33 +0100, Andrew wrote:
|
| >>So I got to wondering what would be acceptable as the slowest line
speed.
|
| > As a client, probably 128k, maybe 256k. Ping, lag and packet loss
are far
| > more important than raw download speed.
|
| Oh boy. Thanx for the quick answer. I am familar witrh those terms
but
| have not ever measured lag or packet loss.
|
| Guess I got a new project now, huh :-)
|
| ...I DID read "Networking for Dummies" !
|

Hey Ron, I forgot  you mentioned your UT addiction.

Get pingplotter, a great tool for diagnosing network latency.
www.pingplotter.com

And yes, I'm a UT addict also, tho my playing time has slowly faded
due to undesirable network latency experienced on both of my broadband
connections (comcast and ATT DSL).

It's not the connection speed that matters as much as the routing to
the game server.  Also, asymmetric routing is a source of weird or
undesirable gaming response.  I finally resigned myself to the fact
that being routed through Chicago was simply going to be a PITA until
major network improvements were made.  I experience a lot of ping
spikes during online gaming, even when playing on Chicagoland game
servers.  Much of this is attributable to Level3 and Cogent networks
(and other "2nd tier" providers) who use odd routing algorithms that
create "alternating routes" to the game servers.  IOW, my data does
not flow to the server over the same route, and when this alternating
routing occurs, the games don't seem to like the small  yet
identifiable differences in latency.  Cogent network routing is almost
a guarantee of considerable spiking during the evening hours.
-- 
Best regards,
Kyle

On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:30:04 -0400, Kyle wrote:

> Hey Ron, I forgot  you mentioned your UT addiction.

Is there a 12 Step Group :(
 
> Get pingplotter, a great tool for diagnosing network latency.
> www.pingplotter.com

OK.
 
> And yes, I'm a UT addict also, tho my playing time has slowly faded due to
> undesirable network latency experienced on both of my broadband
> connections (comcast and ATT DSL).

I usually play Onslaught on Omnipotent or theutpub. I use the name 

*000000*

(Accept no substitutes :)

I'm an above average player although I usually don't go just for kills.
Sometimes I'll finish building a second critical node while others are
attacking the core or often do kamikaze attacks. Makes me mad to see
players standing around waiting for a shiny tank when they can be
attacking on foot. And in Onslaught every second counts !
 
> to like the small  yet identifiable differences in latency.  Cogent
> network routing is almost a guarantee of considerable spiking during
> the evening hours.

I understand that partly. Apparently Verizon has a pretty good "route" as
about the only problem I ever see is a server crash.

-- 
Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:30:04 -0400, "Kyle" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>And yes, I'm a UT addict also, tho my playing time has slowly faded
>due to undesirable network latency experienced on both of my broadband
>connections (comcast and ATT DSL).

I have been a long time Unreal Tournament player but really don't play
much online now.  Very seldon do I find a server where players have
similar pings.  With a ping of around 150-250 I can't compete against
players that have pings in 25-50 range or better.  I hope that 2007
will allow me to setup a server and set up a minimum ping so that you
don't get a few more money than brains players spoiling it for
everyone.

Al

On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:25:33 -0700, Alfred Kaufmann
<al_kaufmann@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:30:04 -0400, "Kyle" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>And yes, I'm a UT addict also, tho my playing time has slowly faded
>>due to undesirable network latency experienced on both of my broadband
>>connections (comcast and ATT DSL).
>
>I have been a long time Unreal Tournament player but really don't play
>much online now.  Very seldon do I find a server where players have
>similar pings.  With a ping of around 150-250 I can't compete against
>players that have pings in 25-50 range or better.  I hope that 2007
>will allow me to setup a server and set up a minimum ping so that you
>don't get a few more money than brains players spoiling it for
>everyone.

Virtually everyone pings < 100 these days.  It's not a question of
money, when DSL connections can be had for $25/month.