<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000080; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'">
<DIV><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000080; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'">Hi,</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><SPAN class=469531013-13122007>I tried using ENet for an high
throughput application on a gbit LAN as well a few months back. I added a line
that increases the sendbuffer of the socket to make it work at all somehow
- such a line is in the current enet version as well. However, I never
managed to get it really fast. I'm not exactly sure why. I dono't know the exakt
max speed I was able to get anymore, but it was below 20mb/s, but also above
2.3mb/s for your cropped frames. What happened if I treid to send more than the
max speed that worked it just didn't get faster instead the memory consumption
on the sender grow and grow until it crashed because of out of memory. I used
reliable packets so it probably queued them all up over time. Anyways, after
fiddeling around with the bandwidth throtteling part and timeouts of enet and
not managing to get it working I switched to tcp and that's where the 20mb/s
limit now comes from. I left it that way because I remember that solution being
faster than ENet. I guessed ENet is more suited for internet kind of speed like
<1mb/s at that moment.</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><SPAN class=469531013-13122007></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><SPAN class=469531013-13122007>I also did some simple test: The
maximum speed I was able to get with simple tcp connections was around 20mb/s on
a gbit lan. It might be limited by cpu power instead of bandwidth limit. I
also tried sending udp packets and was able to get 80mb/s - with some dropping
packets.</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><SPAN class=469531013-13122007></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><SPAN class=469531013-13122007>Note that this is based on experience
I had with ENet around Feb 2007. I didn't test a current version for that
application.</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000080; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'">Marc<BR><BR></FONT></DIV></FONT>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=de dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>Von:</B> enet-discuss-bounces@cubik.org
[mailto:enet-discuss-bounces@cubik.org] <B>Im Auftrag von </B>top
ugv<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 09:09<BR><B>An:</B>
enet-discuss@cubik.org<BR><B>Betreff:</B> [ENet-discuss] Streaming live
video<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=rtl>
<DIV dir=rtl>
<DIV dir=ltr>Hello,</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Is ENet appropriate for streaming live video?</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I tried it, sending 30 frames per second, each frame as
a 230400 byte sized unreliable packet. I have a 1 gbit LAN.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>The results were not good. The frames weren't arriving fast enough,
the video played on the client in slow motion. I tried cropping the video, so
that each frame would be only 76800 bytes, and there was little to no
improvement. </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>When I cut the frame rate down to only 2 frames/packets per second
(each packet 230400 bytes), then things worked ok, but this is
unsatisfactory.<BR clear=all><BR>Thanks</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>