On Sun, 4 May 2003, Mark Mielke wrote:
> Warning messages, for example, are sent immediately, often as packets
> on their own. I expect that 40 phaser requests would result in 39+
> warning packets as Trent is theorizing.

That what I expected too, but I thought that perhaps there was some kind of
throttle in there that kept it from happening.  A one warning per update limit
of some kind.

> Trent: 'spamming the server' would only allow you to grab cpu time
> reserved for your ntserv process. Eventually, your process gets swapped
> out, and everybody else gets a turn. Could this cause noticable lag?

There is no reaon for the OS scheduler will give every process an equal slice,
or do so in a low latency manner.  Linux has well known problems with
processes getting starved in heavy IO loads.  For instance, I have a system at
work that has five RAID arrays that can do upwards of 70 MB/sec apiece.  If I
copy a huge file from one to another, running ls on a directory with just a
dozen files in it takes 10 to 20 seconds.

> Maybe, but probably not. Each ntserv process is likely limited to a time
> slice of less than 0.1 seconds if it isn't calling system calls, and less

Think about this, .1 seconds is 100 ms.  There are 16 players.  If four of
those players use packet spam borgs and suck up 100 ms a piece, then that's
400 ms added to your lag.  Quite a bit.

vanilla-list mailing list
vanilla-list at us.netrek.org