On 12/25/20 12:53 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> said:
On 12/25/20 12:40 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
The other aspect of it is that we're doing these downloads while
continuing to play other games and chat (both things sensitive to
latency). Some have family/roommates in the home, so they may be
streaming audio and/or video at the same time. Do we fill up a gigabit?
No, probably not... but we'd notice if we had a lot less.
But using the right queuing disciplines it a lot cheaper than the
brute force and ignorance of just upping the bandwidth, right?
Queueing doesn't get me my next game in time to play it tonight. I've
always seen general queueing as a work-around for "not enough bandwidth
and can't add more"... but when more is available, why not just use
more?
I'm fine with "free stuff". But it seems we've hit saturation on a
number of front like camera and screen pixels, ghz of cpu, TB's of disk,
Gb's of netio for residential stuff.
My provider on the other (Volcano Internet) doesn't seem to have got
this memo though. They are building out fiber and the rate sheet is the
same as for DSL. I mean, wtf? Why would I want the probable expense of
getting it from the curb (assumedly) to my home if it's for the same
price? Even if it's ftth at their expense, it seems rather pointless.
I mean, i understand the arm's race, but now it seems to be an arms race
for its own sake.
Mike
