Will MWEB utilize WACS? (Improved UK Latency)?

[grim]

I doubt we'll see a reduction of more than 20 maybe 30ms

Latency tests on the WACS system carried out earlier this year from Yzerfontein in South Africa to Highbridge in the UK measured a round trip delay (RTD) of 138.5 milliseconds

I'm already getting about 190-200ms to Ireland minus the 40 or so it takes me to get to CPT that's already 150-160, there isn't going to be some magical drop in latency.

 

[grim]

Yup! But it will depend on how much is being "lit".

I think they said 500Gbps will be lit initially which is a lot considering that SAT3 is at 340Gbps, Seacom at 100Gbps and Eassy is at at least 110Gbps.

So they are effectively doubling what is currently available.

 

[MickeyD]

I think they said 500Gbps will be lit initially which is a lot considering that SAT3 is at 340Gbos, Seacom at 100Gbps and Eassy is at at least 110Gbps.

So they are effectively doubling what is currently available.

Agree, I posted it in the other WACS thread...

 

[HavocXphere]

Yes, but latency does tend to increase with load, regardless of available capacity.

e.g. Take an ADSL line. With the line clear it gives you say 200ms. Now put the line under 50% load. Latency is no longer 200ms...

i.e. Latency doesn't suddenly crash at 100% load, it gradually worsens.

 

[grim]

Yes, but latency does tend to increase with load, regardless of available capacity.

e.g. Take an ADSL line. With the line clear it gives you say 200ms. Now put the line under 50% load. Latency is no longer 200ms...

i.e. Latency doesn't suddenly crash at 100% load, it gradually worsens.

As long as there is sufficient bandwidth and the network devices can handle the amount of required simultaneous connections latency shouldn't be affected by load.

I can happily download at 500KB/s and still game without any increase in latency on my line.

 

[ambo]

Yes, but latency does tend to increase with load, regardless of available capacity.

e.g. Take an ADSL line. With the line clear it gives you say 200ms. Now put the line under 50% load. Latency is no longer 200ms...

i.e. Latency doesn't suddenly crash at 100% load, it gradually worsens.

Not quite...

Latency is due to queueing and queueing is normally as a result of congestion. Routers have buffers in them so that if a burst of packets all arrive at once they won't be dropped but will rather be stored up and sent after a delay.

Latency remains pretty constant up to the point when more packets arrive than can fit on the circuit. At that point the buffers fill to capacity and latency becomes the time taken to transmit the full capacity off the buffer due to FIFO. Next you see packet loss due to tail dropping.

Of course there are plenty of ways to manage bandwidth better than this but giant sized buffers were all the rage in the 2000's. And now we're stuck with bufferbloat.

 

[Death Master 88]

What about the USA Pacific Servers or general USA Servers as I just won't play with the stinky Europeans.

Better latency there will also be appreciated.

 

[grim]

What about the USA Pacific Servers or general USA Servers as I just won't play with the stinky Europeans.

Better latency there will also be appreciated.

Europeans far > than Americans.

Americans act like they are 12

Europeans are rude.

I'll take rudeness over 12 year olds any day.

 

[Death Master 88]

I'll take 12 year olds rather than rudeness.

 

[Anthro]

H.O.N Servers Locally = being called a P(*&^ so many times you cannot even count

H.O.N Servers Internationally = People are willing to teach and learn in the same game

Regardless, I will appreciate a bump in latency, cause most of my MMORPG servers pipeline (packet wise) goes
ZAR>London>USA