nel-all
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nel] TCP vs. UDP


From: alfred
Subject: Re: [Nel] TCP vs. UDP
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:27:09 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010628

DIS and HLA are not solutions for a MMORPG's. They were designed around LAN topologies, and there is an implicit assumption about latencies and bandwidths available. HLA itself is pretty ugly, as all it describes is a framework for a simulation "federate", it still requires lots of specification to get things to talk (I am working with some DIS stuff right now, related to wargaming for the Aust. Defence Dept, and trying to intergrate some comms reality into the system). The other problem with DIS is the amount of bytes it uses on the wire, its pretty heavy....


Gaming requires specific solutions to the problems of latency and bandwidths due to the adhoc nature of gaming (anyone can play, you can't pre-determine optimal toplogies) and because gamers always want the bleeding edge.

I think nevrax should roll their own protocol, with a mix of udp, r-udp and tcp based on some kind of "traffic class" scheme. Shouldn't be too hard to design a nice OO schema to make this easy to use :)

As for simulating bad links, I hear "The Cloud" (http://www.shunra.com/) can be a very useful tool. It can simulate WAN links between two ethernet segments. Useful to stress the networking sublayer to see what higher level effects you get. Other similar tools can be found on this page (http://www.topology.org/soft/sim.html).

I don't know of any papers that have "characterised" the performance of the net, and I suspect that this is because it is such an agile beast. From my own experience I regularly get 2-3sec pings from AU to the US, and 10-30% packet loss is not unheard of. Perhaps some "VoIP" studies exist that provide a more analytical analysis? Or even some backbone providers stats pages?












John Cosby wrote:

The US Dept. of Defense has been doing simulation for decades.  When I first
read this thread, I though of my years-ago experience in Distributed
Interactive Simulation (DIS) and its successor, the High-Level Artchitecture
for Simulation (HLA).  Although designed primarily for LANs, both have been
successfully been used over WANs.

DIS is a protocol defined atop UDP.  Derived from work in the 70s, it's a
bit-level definition of Ethernet packets, the most important of which is the
Entity State Protocol Data Unit (PDU), which describes in all detail
necessary for rendering one particular simulation entity and was rebroadcast
whenever something changed over a configurable threshold (direction change,
speed, etc.) or a max waiting time occurred (5 secs).  Members of the
simulation were responsible for receiving and filtering things they cared
about, dead-reckoning the motion based on PDU updates, and broadcasting the
ES PDUs they were responsible for whenever the dead-reckoning thresholds
were hit or the entities timed out.  Other PDUs describe weapons fire,
detonation, weather effects, etc.  DIS was originally broadcast UDP.

HLA was an OO approach to simulation where Entities published Events, and
subscribed to Events that other Entities published.  It's based on classes,
and some reference object models are available.

There's a lot of stuff published about these topics, and an experience base
that's studied many of the concerns brought up.  Check the US Defense
Modeling and SImulation office (www.dmso.mil) and their HLA site
(www.dmso.mil/hla).  Also check the Simulation Interoperability Workshop
(http://www.sisostds.org/siw/) for lots of interesting topics and papers -
these people have been working on creating worlds for a long time.

-John

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Miller <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Nel] TCP vs. UDP


These two points combined mean that, whichever way one looks at it, a lot

of

scene information will have to be filtered out or sent at low frequency.

If

one isn't careful low frequency sends can obviously be very sensitive to
packet loss - which leads me to the point of this posting: In order to

work

the problem we need to have a good understanding of true internet

behaviour

and to have a good set of test data for simulating it.

The trouble right now is that I have no hard data to use to model packet
loss or delivery latency over time. If anybody knows of any studies that
have been done or has any of their own data I'd be very interested. In
particular I'm interested in moderately bad connections that exhibit both
good behaviour and bad behaviour over time.



_______________________________________________
Nel mailing list
address@hidden
http://www.nevrax.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nel



--
Alfred Reynolds
address@hidden



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]