The smallest packet header is no packet header, eh? On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Ruud van Gaal <[email protected]> wrote:
> In that case it sounds like the optimization chances are more at your end, > trying to aggregrate information. If overhead is larger than the data, > you're probably sending too little data. ;-) > Ruud > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Emmanuel Rivoire <[email protected]>wrote: > >> At 01:00 25/05/2012, you wrote: >> >>> Cost of performance? Because of a few bytes per payload? That's not a >>> performance cost, it won't be visible to anyone except yourself. >>> That's premature optimization. >>> >> >> I can save up to 23% on my total packet size ( = my data + ENet + UDP + >> IP). That means if I do nothing, the needed bandwidth for my game would be >> 30% higher. I don't think it'd go unnoticed... >> ______________________________**_________________ >> ENet-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cubik.org/**mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss<http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ENet-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
