Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Quake and latency on Ascend
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, bcurnow wrote:
> The question. Which is better: Dropping overflow packets immediately, or
> buffering them for God knows how many seconds?
Personal opinion - since we're doing UDP here - it'd be better to drop
them. Gives the application (in this case Quake) a better chance to do the
flow control/buffering, something the data link layer shouldn't touch.
Ie. if the packets can't be forwarded because the Max is too busy - the
Max should drop them and get on with forwarding traffic rather than
chewing up buffers.
- --
Josh Bailey (mailto:joshb@xtra.co.nz)
Internet Network Specialist Voice (DDI): +64-9-355-5923
Telecom Internet Services Voice (Mob): +64-25-514-899
Extension: 93423 (Lvl. 4, 120 Mayoral Dve) Fax: +64-9-355-5260
Private Bag 92028, Auckland, NZ Pager: +64-26-114-448
PGP public key available at http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this message are entirely my own opinion, not
necessarily that of my employer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBM+/WKvle+GEe9W4hAQGPDgL+O1dMvsIPL5Ocj0LeK3UfzKbvbUFlz6FF
/0Mwwq+l7E4NMqMDePTTxHsjGcgN/viqaoh8PG9s5bxoM7joRaoJcpHcXed6ao5y
qlR9LPCOCxWvbmiZNq0A0BTg9pfAfIeF
=xT02
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
Follow-Ups:
References: