diff options
| author | neodarz <neodarz@neodarz.net> | 2018-08-11 20:21:34 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | neodarz <neodarz@neodarz.net> | 2018-08-11 20:21:34 +0200 |
| commit | 0ea5fc66924303d1bf73ba283a383e2aadee02f2 (patch) | |
| tree | 2568e71a7ccc44ec23b8bb3f0ff97fb6bf2ed709 /pipermail/nel/2001-July/000487.html | |
| download | nevrax-website-self-hostable-0ea5fc66924303d1bf73ba283a383e2aadee02f2.tar.xz nevrax-website-self-hostable-0ea5fc66924303d1bf73ba283a383e2aadee02f2.zip | |
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'pipermail/nel/2001-July/000487.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | pipermail/nel/2001-July/000487.html | 147 |
1 files changed, 147 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/pipermail/nel/2001-July/000487.html b/pipermail/nel/2001-July/000487.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..476feec6 --- /dev/null +++ b/pipermail/nel/2001-July/000487.html @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Nel] TCP vs. UDP</TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:zane%40supernova.org"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="000485.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="000490.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Nel] TCP vs. UDP</H1> + <B>Zane</B> + <A HREF="mailto:zane%40supernova.org" + TITLE="[Nel] TCP vs. UDP">zane@supernova.org</A><BR> + <I>Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:05:07 -0700</I> + <P><UL> + <LI> Previous message: <A HREF="000485.html">[Nel] TCP vs. UDP</A></li> + <LI> Next message: <A HREF="000490.html">[Nel] TCP vs. UDP</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#487">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#487">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#487">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#487">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>----- Original Message ----- +From: "Vincent Archer" <<A HREF="mailto:archer@frmug.org">archer@frmug.org</A>> +Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:04 AM + + +><i> This post (and the rest of the discussion) do highlight the problems of +</I>><i> AO. However, only one post, in the whole thread, seems to be close to the +</I>><i> real "problem". +</I>><i> +</I>><i> I have two friends who are playing AO together. They often experience +</I>><i> "bad lag" (i.e. 20-30s delays between a command and it's execution). +</I>><i> However, there's one strange thing during these periods of bad lag. +</I> +I also play AO but every time I've experienced real "bad lag" you cannot sit +or do any action that requires server-side confirmation including ALL chat +channels. In fact, I frequently will say something or shout something so +that I know as soon as it shows up it's done lagging and this works like a +charm. What they're experiencing is a different type of lag than is +discussed in the above post, that's when a particular zone they're in lags +(or the server hosting that zone) but not all servers are affected. I +haven't experienced that type of lag since beta. + +As a side note I've noticed that when I get the "bad lag" others around me +appear to get it too (at least sometimes) which lends weight to the packet +storm theory. + +><i> My guess is that their architecture is based on a front-end/zone service +</I>><i> model. Clients connect to a front end, and said front-end connects to a +</I>><i> zone service, depending on the zone you are in. This is further supported +</I>><i> by various analysis points during beta, notably when the zone service +</I>><i> crashed while I was in it (and the whole mission dungeon got resert and +</I>><i> randomly re-rolled), and the numerous problems people have for zoning +</I>><i> (zone... after a strangely fixed 45s - the default TCP connection +</I>timeout - +><i> you get "Area Change not initiated on server). +</I>><i> +</I>><i> So you have: +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Client ---- TCP ----> Front End ---- TCP ----> Zone server +</I>><i> ^ / +</I>><i> | / +</I>><i> V / +</I>><i> Client ---- TCP ----> Front End ---- TCP -/ +</I>><i> +</I>><i> which is probably the worst architecture I can imagine, specially as there +</I>><i> appears to be one front-end per client, and front ends closes and opens +</I>><i> communication to zone servers. :( +</I> +There doesn't need to be one front-end per client. There can be several +load-balanced front-ends that handle multiple clients each. The major +problem with this is if one front-end crashes all those clients get dropped +(although under UNIX (I haven't been able to get win32 to do this) you can +pull some funky sockets tricks and recover from a crash without dropping +most players, just majorly lagging them & loosing some updates). + +The good side to this is you only need one connection per client per +protocol (so 2 connections if using both TCP and UDP). Unfortunately with +TCP that's both a pro and a con. With one TCP connection a dropped packet +on a chat message delays all other TCP traffic, but it also lessens +bandwidth and server resources over multiple connections (larger, more +efficient packets). Also, with a single front end you can have as many +seperate services as you want without having to have a ton of different +connections to the client. + +Regardless, we have no data as to wether or not AO is doing it that way. +Maybe tonight I'll run it in windowed mode and check netstat. If we've got +more than one active TCP connection to Funcom servers than that model +probably isn't what they're using. + +On a side note, using multiple TCP connections would eliminate some of the +packet-loss latency issues at the cost of increased bandwidth. Say you have +one connection for chat channels, one for inventory & stat handling, one for +world actions and one for combat. If connection 1 drops a packet its lag +won't affect the other connections as much. But of course if they all drop +packets at the same time we get the packet storm problem again. :) + +><i> Packet loss is a non-sequitur under TCP. You *cannot* lose packets under +</I>TCP :) +><i> (you lose connection first) +</I> +Yes but TCP has latency issues, UDP has packet-loss issues. Why can't we +have the uber protocol that has neither??? :) + +BTW, does anyone know if ipv6 has addressed this issue? I'm aware of QoS +but not sure to what degree they've taken it. Personally I think the only +way we could get garunteed delivery with low latency is to have each router +along the way garuntee a packet is delivered (if, of course, it's load +allows that packet to be accepted in the first place). That way if a packet +is dropped by a router due to load (or some other issue) the previous router +expects a timely response and when it doesn't get one it resends or sends +via a different route. (Of course I would expect a per-packet ack, probably +a CRC-ack for a certain amount of traffic) The point being the original +sender should never have to resend as long as the first router gets all the +packets. + +-E.J. Wilburn +<A HREF="mailto:zane@supernova.org">zane@supernova.org</A> + + + +</pre> + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI> Previous message: <A HREF="000485.html">[Nel] TCP vs. UDP</A></li> + <LI> Next message: <A HREF="000490.html">[Nel] TCP vs. UDP</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#487">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#487">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#487">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#487">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> +</body></html> |