On 9/30/11 4:52 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Hello, > > On Sunday 04 September 2011 21:24:45 Philip Prindeville wrote: >> On 9/4/11 11:43 AM, Michael Büsch wrote: >>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:11:08 -0700 >>> >>> Philip Prindeville <philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote: >>>>> And finally, I'm not really convinced that any of the routers/APs >>>>> that OpenWRT supports have "latency requirements in the milliseconds >>>>> range". I'd rather say throughput matters a _lot_ more than a >>>>> millisecond of latency for these devices. >>>> If you're doing VoIP, then I'd certainly say latency matters. >>> No it doesn't. At least not in the MILLISECONDS range. >>> It does not matter at all, if your voip call has 300 or 302 ms latency. >>> But it _does_ matter that there's enough throughput bandwidth to get most >>> of the packages through the pipe. >> Who the heck has 300ms latency??? >> >> pbx*CLI> sip show peers >> Name/username Host Dyn >> Forcerport ACL Port Status ata_1/ata_1 192.168.1.12 >> D N 5060 OK (15 ms) ata_2/ata_2 >> 192.168.1.12 D N 5061 OK (11 >> ms) bedroom_1/bedroom_1 192.168.1.5 D >> N 5060 OK (14 ms) bedroom_2/bedroom_2 192.168.1.5 >> D N 5061 OK (13 ms) bedroom_3/bedroom_3 >> 192.168.1.5 D N 5062 OK (16 >> ms) cell_1/cell_1 184.72.221.84 D >> N 45983 OK (211 ms) cell_2 (Unspecified) >> D N 0 UNKNOWN guest_1 >> (Unspecified) D N 0 UNKNOWN >> guest_2 (Unspecified) D N >> 0 UNKNOWN guest_3 (Unspecified) >> D N 0 UNKNOWN guest_4 >> (Unspecified) D N 0 UNKNOWN >> kitchen_1/kitchen_1 192.168.1.6 D N >> 5060 OK (12 ms) kitchen_2/kitchen_2 192.168.1.6 >> D N 5061 OK (10 ms) office_1 >> (Unspecified) D N 0 UNKNOWN >> office_2 (Unspecified) D N >> 0 UNKNOWN office_3 (Unspecified) >> D N 0 UNKNOWN sip_proxy >> 66.232.80.9 5060 Unmonitored >> sip_proxy-out 66.232.80.9 >> 5060 OK (46 ms) softphone (Unspecified) >> D N 0 UNKNOWN 19 sip peers [Monitored: 9 >> online, 9 offline Unmonitored: 1 online, 0 offline] pbx*CLI> >> >> >> My local softswitch is at the other end of a PON link 1.2km away... >> >> The VoIP agent on my iPhone 4 has terrible latency just because I'm on >> AT&T... >> >> If I were using an Android on T-mobile that would be around 100ms... > The discussion in question is about a scheduler latency, not a network one, > though both can be related in the end.
The assert was made that scheduling delays didn't matter because network delays are so much higher (by orders of magnitude). My point was simply that network delays aren't always as substantial as some might believe. -Philip _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
