Can you give a try to the lowbandwidth branch with the --predict=experimental command-line option? You might find that to be more to your liking.
We could flush out on certain characters -- that would be reasonable (but not currently implemented). Cheers, Keith On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Robert Redelmeier <red...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 0022-0700 Tue 21 Apr, Keith Winstein wrote in part: > > Hello Robert, Thanks for your email! > > And thank you in turn for your prompt and detailed reply. > > > We do this to a degree, > > but with the goal of _reducing_ latency -- please see Figure > > 3 of the Mosh paper ( https://mosh.mit.edu/mosh-paper.pdf). > > Fascinating! This 8ms is far too fast for human input, could > it be something like ACK & echo packet combining, or combining > from terminal local [cut'n']paste? > > > With the constants tuned differently, we end up reducing the > > packets sent as you suggest. This is in the "lowbandwidth" > > branch in the Git repository. > > Cheers, > Keith > > I had a peek, thanks, but could not see how this would work > differently from termios.c_cc(VTIME)=5 beyond ^C handling. I tried > this dumb delay, and the added latency on top of a slow connection > was very irksome. But I found I could reduce the irritation greatly > by forcing the buffer out early when a command char was received. > Could the special handling for ^C be expanded to all ^char plus > duplicated chars (many pgms use hjkl for cursor movement)? > > Latency during straight typing is far less annoying unless chars > are lost. Of course this system generates lots of false flushes. > But who cares? Even `bookkeepers` sent as 4 packets is much better > than 11, especially considering the "ACK-echo-ACK" multiplication. > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Robert Redelmeier <red...@sbcglobal.net > > > > wrote: > > > > > First, thanks y'all for your work on mosh! > > > Second, a suggestion for your consideration (_NOT_ a vile "feature > > > request"): > > > > > > Have you considered allowing send buffers to fill a bit before > > > sending? Not sending ASAP, but often sending more than one char > > > per packet? Of course this increases latency, but reduces packet > > > count _tremendously_ and data usage likewise since the payload is > > > tiny compared to overhead (incl ACK).. > > > > > > Not sure how this would interact with SSP, but I hacked ssh to do > > > this 10+ years ago. To minimize the latency when it would most > > > annoy, the buffer was released if a command was received or when > > > typing stopped for 300-600ms. Commands were considered to be any > > > control-char or any duplicated char (likely to be cursor movement). > > > > > > Of course, latency is sometimes noticeable but that is the price > > > of reduced transmission data. Most of the time, I'm typing blind > > > anyways -- I'm not going to focus on the screen unless needed. > > > Sometimes the reductions were as large as 70%, more often 50%. > > > > > > -- Robert in Houston > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > mosh-devel mailing list > > > mosh-devel@mit.edu > > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mosh-devel > > > >
_______________________________________________ mosh-devel mailing list mosh-devel@mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mosh-devel
