[ENet-discuss] Prioritisation

[Jim Purbrick]

Hi Lee,

I was suggesting that you nescecarily change ENet at all, just discussing
the changes I intend to make and the best way to make them. If I can ask
your advice on how to move forward and share my findings with you then you
can maybe decide if it's the way you want to take ENet later.

The first step is to get all packets sent using rate based flow control.
Could you describe how the current rate based scheme works for unreliable
data. Do you send as much unreliable data as you can each service and then
bin the rest? To you allow unreliable data to build up if the rate is too
low to send it all? How does the trottling and probability drop stuff work?
Does the sending rate go down, or the drop rate go up with conjestion?

Cheers,

Jim.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Salzman [mailto:lsalzman at telerama.com]
> Sent: 03 February 2004 05:21
> To: Discussion of the ENet library
> Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Prioritisation
> 
> 
> Well, something like that would require a bit rewrite of how 
> all packets
> are handled, so needs to really wait for a 1.1 release.
> 
> For now I just want to get a 1.0 out the door some time this 
> century so
> people have a stable library to use. :)
> 
> This is something to consistently harp on me about after 1.0, though.
> 
> Lee
> 
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:58:14PM -0000, Jim Purbrick wrote:
> > I imagine something like the retransmission scheme used for 
> all packet
> > sending. Given a target data rate and the size of the next 
> packet, you
> > calculate when the next packet should be sent and store it 
> as the next
> > transmission timeout, which you check on each service call 
> and send the
> > packet when it's due.
> > 
> > Without prioritisation the packets are sent on a FIFO 
> basis, prioritisation
> > can be used to re-order the outgoing queue.
> > 
> > The only difference between reliable and unreliable packets 
> is that reliable
> > packets are remembered and retransmitted, unreliable are 
> sent once then
> > forgotten about. 
> > 
>