From quozl at us.netrek.org Thu Mar 8 22:33:02 2018 From: quozl at us.netrek.org (James Cameron) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 15:33:02 +1100 Subject: [netrek-dev] Time based packet transmission Message-ID: <20180309043302.GB2818@us.netrek.org> New feature for Linux kernel may be used to more accurately pace packets sent from Netrek server to client. https://lwn.net/Articles/748744/ At the moment packet timing has jitter because it is implemented in user space. -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ From netrek at gmail.com Fri Mar 9 22:06:31 2018 From: netrek at gmail.com (Zachary Uram) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 23:06:31 -0500 Subject: [netrek-dev] Time based packet transmission In-Reply-To: <20180309043302.GB2818@us.netrek.org> References: <20180309043302.GB2818@us.netrek.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:33 PM, James Cameron wrote: > New feature for Linux kernel may be used to more accurately pace > packets sent from Netrek server to client. > > https://lwn.net/Articles/748744/ > > At the moment packet timing has jitter because it is implemented in > user space. > Cool. Zach -- http://www.fidei.org Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sven-netrek-dev at sven.de Thu Mar 15 03:56:55 2018 From: sven-netrek-dev at sven.de (Sven Neuhaus) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:56:55 +0100 Subject: [netrek-dev] Time based packet transmission In-Reply-To: <20180309043302.GB2818@us.netrek.org> References: <20180309043302.GB2818@us.netrek.org> Message-ID: <0dd62a8f-dc80-837c-756f-26f66a23f764@sven.de> Am 09.03.2018 um 05:33 schrieb James Cameron: > New feature for Linux kernel may be used to more accurately pace > packets sent from Netrek server to client. > > https://lwn.net/Articles/748744/ > > At the moment packet timing has jitter because it is implemented in > user space. Interesting. However, do you think it's worth it? Have you measured the jitter? My guess is that it's less than 1ms unless the server and/or its network interfaces is/are under considerable load. Also delaying the packet just to reduce the jitter would make them stale, wouldn't it? Dropping a packet when it couldn't be sent in time doesn't sound very appealing either. -Sven