[ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches

[Chris Jurney]

When you're picking your update rate, keep in mind users' up channel
limitations.  128kbit is a very common cap in Internetland.  I think the
size of an unreliable eNet header (~32 bytes) + UDP (8 bytes) + IP (20
bytes) gives you a minimum packet size of roughly 60 bytes.

Upstream header overhead = 60 byte header * rate * 8 bits/packet

If you send at 60/s, you'll have at least 29kbit of packet overhead before
you send your first byte of payload.  If you're on a console, that overhead
potentially goes up with their wrapper as well.

(I'm not 100% sure of my size number for eNet because we have fiddled with
headers a bit)

Chris

----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Salzman" <lsalzman1 at cox.net>

> To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <enet-discuss at cubik.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:27 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending approaches
>
>
>  Don't rely on the throttle. Choose a reasonable rate to begin with.
>> 20-30 times a second is probably fair. Keep in mind that on average an
>> event will occur half-way between an interval, so 20 Hz does not
>> correspond to 50 ms latency, but rather on average more like 25 ms, and
>> by the time you get to 30 Hz your average latency is like 16 ms. Taking
>> that up to 50 Hz, and your average latency is only about 10 ms, so
>> you're making huge jumps in bandwidth usage for very marginal benefits.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> Philip Bennefall wrote:
>>
>>> I understand what you're saying there. But say then that I start at a
>>> rate of 50 per second, and then let ENet's dynamic throttle take it
>>> down if necessary? Would that be a safe approach? It would allow for
>>> 50 packets a second in ideal network conditions such as a lan or two
>>> super connections, and automatically adapt itself to other
>>> circumstances. What do you think?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Philip Bennefall
>>>
>>>    ----- Original Message -----
>>>    *From:* Nuno Silva <mailto:little.coding.fox at gmail.com>
>>>    *To:* Discussion of the ENet library <mailto:enet-discuss at cubik.org>
>>>    *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:04 AM
>>>    *Subject:* Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending
>>>    approaches
>>>
>>>    60 times per second would probably be overkill on most
>>>    connections, considering you send packets every 16ms, which IMHO
>>>    may be a bit too fast even for TCP. Do notice that i'm no
>>>    networking expert, but having a guy from the other side of the
>>>    world send/receive packets every 16ms instead of the usual 50ms
>>>    will need a pretty darn good connection.
>>>
>>>    On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Philip Bennefall
>>>    <philip at pbsoundscape.net <mailto:philip at pbsoundscape.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>        Lee,
>>>
>>>        Would it be acceptable to send small packets out, say 60 times
>>>        a second or so? Will ENet handle it if it getst oo much?
>>>
>>>        Kind regards,
>>>
>>>        Philip Bennefall
>>>        ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Salzman"
>>>        <lsalzman1 at cox.net <mailto:lsalzman1 at cox.net>>
>>>        To: "Discussion of the ENet library" <enet-discuss at cubik.org
>>>        <mailto:enet-discuss at cubik.org>>
>>>        Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:00 AM
>>>
>>>        Subject: Re: [ENet-discuss] Reliable packets and data sending
>>>        approaches
>>>
>>>
>>>            Mihai is mistaken. Sauerbraten only sends 30 times a
>>>            second. Events like
>>>            gun shots are sent reliably. Only position data for
>>>            players is sent
>>>            unreliably.
>>>
>>>            Lee
>>>
>>>            Philip Bennefall wrote:
>>>
>>>                So what is the game frame rate in sauerbraten? How
>>>                often does it end
>>>                up sending updates, how many times a second?
>>>
>>>                Kind regards,
>>>
>>>                Philip Bennefall
>>>
>>>
>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>            ENet-discuss mailing list
>>>            ENet-discuss at cubik.org <mailto:ENet-discuss at cubik.org>
>>>            http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>>>        Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.32/2459 - Release
>>>        Date: 10/25/09 19:57:00
>>>
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>        ENet-discuss mailing list
>>>        ENet-discuss at cubik.org <mailto:ENet-discuss at cubik.org>
>>>        http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    ENet-discuss mailing list
>>>    ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>>>    http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>    No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>    Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date:
>>>    10/26/09 20:22:00
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: 10/26/09
> 20:22:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> ENet-discuss mailing list
> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20091028/fd53e8db/attachment.htm>