Just wanted to chime in, but say that I've never had any issue like this
and I'm transferring at 10mbit/s on my wireless by sending data in
64-256kbit chunks at once per ENet packet.
I'm not sure why you're getting such slow transfer-speeds, fragmenting
or not.
Sincerely,
Stefan
On 2012-08-28 23:47, Pablo de Heras Ciechomski wrote:
Thanks Lee and thanks Dennis! It was fragmentation and now the
sleep command makes a difference again. Fixed.
Pablo
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Lee Salzman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You could try the ENET_PACKET_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT option if you
really need fragmentation but your packet sizes are still only a
handful of multiples of MTU.
I would make the packets smaller than 1400 if you want to avoid
all fragmentation, though, 1300ish would be safer since it leaves
room for headers.
On 08/29/2012 12:01 AM, Pablo de Heras Ciechomski wrote:
Kind of solved,
Made the packets into less than 1400 bytes and now it's
faster. I guess it
has to do with fragmentation.
Pablo
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Pablo de Heras Ciechomski
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
Hello,
I am playing around with unreliable unordered packets in
ENet and I am
trying to figure out why I am not transferring fast
enough. My packets are
all around 1800 bytes and are sent continuously. I seem to
get the same
speed on most any machine independent of wifi/Gigabit
LAN/local intra-
process communication. This is disturbing to me as I don't
understand
why. I am using the same loop as in the tutorial and I am
getting no more
than 250kB/s transfer rates, when it should be around
10MB/s in the best
scenario. Is it due to all the packet_create calls? Is it
due to some internal
throttling? Packets don't seem to be lost so I am at loss :-)
I changed the timer to 0 ms wait on the host loop function
if that makes
any difference, but it doesn't seem so. Adding or removing
a 5m Sleep
(windows function so working on the whole process) doesn't
seem to make
any change other than making the whole system unresponsive
if removed.
Pablo
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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
