Oops, meant doesn''t have to send an Ack for UDP.

Billy

quote: Original post by AP (Billy)

stefu: The reason it takes longer for larger packets is.. well, because the package that is being sent is larger. If i''m reading your first graph properly... if you sent 1 byte 100 times, it''d take longer than sending 1 100 byte package, simply because the 100 byte pacakge needs 1 header, while the 1 byte package needs 100 headers (which is A LOT of overhead). The less packet losses you have, the more efficient larger packets become (ever notice how all the "cable modem optomizers" increase your packet sizes). The more packet losses, the less efficient larger packets become. (IF I read what you were saying wrong, sorry :D)
Billy

He hee, I was in kinda enthusiasm when writing that.
As the table shows throughput is better for bigger messages!

What I was thinking was that for example for high speed action games where we need immediate reactions of opponent players, it might be better to use smaller messages that can be routed in less time to get smaller latency :p.

Thanks for correcting my thoughts

>> TCP has a much larger header. >>

Actually, this might not be true if your users are connected to the internet over analog modems. The bottleneck for such connections is usually the PPP connection between the ISP and the modem user. The PPP protocol supports compression for TCP headers, making them smaller than UDP headers. Unfortunately no such compression is currently provided for UDP headers.

Henry