-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 17 June 2003 20:16, sufcrusher wrote: > (one of) the reasons for the unstable ping is that a packet of ~ 1500 bytes > on a 128kbit connection (like yours and mine) takes roughly a 10th of a > second to send (100ms). So at the moment a large packet is being sent and a > quake packet is next in the queue, it still has to wait 100ms (worst case). > This latency of course adds to the normal latency you already have to the > quake server. Yes, I have thought so too and thought about playing around with the MTU .. but did not really want to change it yet. Thank you anyways for these helpful hints, I am going to try it as soon as possible :) > I'm assuming the burst and quantum settings can be optimized for smaller > packet sizes to take full advantage of this. But to be honest I haven't > really done that yet. The lower the burst settings, the less delay I have in theory, so high-prio queues _definitely_ get their turn in time. > I use a cable connection which has a more than 10 times faster download > than upload, so for me shaping the download isn't very effective. If you > want to limit the maximum packetsize for incoming packets as well (at least > for TCP) you can simply do this: The same applies to me, I have 768 kbyte/s downlink, I doubt that this is an issue when gaming. > For 1000 bytes packets. You can also use --clamp-mss-to-mtu option, which > probably makes sense. Note that the MSS thing only works for new > connections. I have to do this anyways, as my pppoe is limiting the MTU on the virtual ppp0 device to 1492 because ethernet frames can only have a certain size and pppoe still encapsules ppp in the ethernet. > Also make sure you patched the kernel to use the high resolution timer > (info at www.docum.org somewhere). That helped a lot in my case (you can > put the ceilingrates closer to the actual 128kbit and therefore reduce > latency as well). I'm not sure it's still necessary on 2.4.20 and/or > 2.4.21. I have a 133 Mhz AMD 486 - whether setting the resolution timer up would be very good for performance I don't know. - Thilo Schulz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+8FviZx4hBtWQhl4RAkyNAKC+3wE3bqMmQEr8qwkxdpPX6cuzdwCff03Z 6YTVuELLr1BNRPl/hym44Fw= =4Qwt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
