For 1 I would increase the timeout, but I have no practical experience with wireless and enet. For 2 I think it's better to split yourself. You could then allow some packets to drop and re-request missed parts of the transferred file yourself. This keeps communication more efficient than a single send & retry (if only 1 of the UDP packets of a fragmented packet fails, I assume the entire fragment fails, which will happen too much in wireless).
Cheers, Ruud On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Eric Young <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I use enet in my project to tansfer file in wireless network but I met > some problems. > 1. Wireless is unstable so sometimes enet disconnect unexpectedly. > Should I change these settings? (1) enet_peer_ping_interval or (2) > enet_peer_timeout to avoid this unstable network disconnect ? > or this should be normal case so I shouldn't change these timeout configs? > > 2. Fragment is enet's feature for big packet? > If I have a huge packet and its size is over 100000 B, send huge packet > directly (fragment by enet)or I should send many small divided > packets(packet size under MTU )orderly if I could split the packet content? > IMO, if I can send small divided packets and enet is just responsible for > assemble. But if I send huge packet directly, enet would handle packet both > fragment and assemble. > which one is better performance for enet packet transfering? > > thanks in advence. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
