The overhead goes up as the packet size goes down. Check out this write up for the gory details in an entertaining story: http://www.tamos.net/~rhay/overhead/ip-packet-overhead.htm<http://www.tamos.net/%7Erhay/overhead/ip-packet-overhead.htm>
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Nicholas J Ingrassellino < [email protected]> wrote: > This just inspired me to do another test. > > I am now only sending 1 out of every ~10,000 pixels. It still takes about > half of one second to receive ~50 pixels (7 byte packets per pixel). All the > CPU usage is on the client, not the server. I am very familiar with this > graphics library (Allegro) having used it many times before. If I receive, > discard the packets, and do not render the pixels my CPU usage remains at > ~100% leading me to believe it is *enet_host_service()* and not something > having to do with rendering data onto the screen. > > Is ~350 bytes split into ~50 unreliable, unsequenced packets still too > much? >
_______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
