How can I improve my latency?

[Macetheace]

So, playing on US servers from across the pond in London, I'm getting a latency range oftypically 97ms to about 110ms on bad days up to 120ms except during faults ofc

 

Is there anyway I can configure my network, or ISP or route my packet data to go directly to the servers in the US and so doing speed up latency? Or somehow improve it?

 

Will getting a faster package deal from my ISP help ? Anyone has any tips or insight etc?

[Heal-To-Full]

I'm pretty sure the data is routed to the US servers directly already, not through the EU servers. Packets get routed there how they get routed.

A faster package won't help, latency isn't significantly dependent on bandwidth. A different ISP might help, but 100ms doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary.

[Malastare]

Is there anyway I can configure my network, or ISP or route my packet data to go directly to the servers in the US and so doing speed up latency? Or somehow improve it?

 

In short: No.

 

If you buy the fastest router known to man, and a 100GBP network card, running over 10Gb wire to the router, the most you could hope to improve your latency is by a few milliseconds.

 

All you have control over is how the packet is handled between your PC and the first host in your ISP's network. Now, I know what I'm doing when I set up networks, but the time it takes for packets on my PC to reach my ISP's first host (my local gateway) is just 1-2ms. If I were to upgrade to some alien technology that used teleportation to deliver my packets instantaneously to my ISP, my latency would only improve by 1-2ms. Now, some people do have higher latency, but the highest I've seen in a normally functioning, non-satellite network was 12ms. Run a traceroute (or tracepath, or tracert, or use pathping) and see how long it takes to reach the host just beyond your router. If its under 6ms, that's probably as good as you're going to get.

 

There are network cards and routers that claim to speed up game traffic or process packets way faster than normal, but none of them can have any affect after the packets hit your ISP. Any ISP worth its fiber is going to strip your packets of anything that might give them preferential treatment, and then pass them along just like everyone else's packets. You don't get to set their route. You don't get to set their precedence. The ISP controls those, and they should.

 

Will getting a faster package deal from my ISP help ? Anyone has any tips or insight etc?

 

I was tired of writing this again and again: Bandwidth is not a Measure of Speed.

[Arkerus]

That latency is FINE coming from that far away. Not sure what you are concerned about.

 

When my ISP had gateway issues and they were out of date (tech wise) I was pinging at 200-300ms and I could still play the game. It wasn't great but it was playable.

[MillionsKNives]

snip

 

I heard that TWC was offering a new service where they would speed up the light/electrons in their wires for faster speeds. You just need to rent some particle accelerator boxes which you connect along your line and you're good to go. I'm just waiting until they offer it in my area.

 

 

/sarcasm

 

Good write up though. I think you did a good job illustrating the difference.

 

[Malastare]

I heard that TWC was offering a new service where they would speed up the light/electrons in their wires for faster speeds. You just need to rent some particle accelerator boxes which you connect along your line and you're good to go. I'm just waiting until they offer it in my area.

 

Ugh. Don't joke like that. Comcast will hear you and think it's a good idea.

 

"Introducing new Comcast SuperLumina! With our new 400 gigabit service, electricity in your network cables now moves 800 times faster than it used to! Screw you, Einstein! How'd we do it? We wrap each cable in cheetah hide, because cheetahs are fast. By the way, does anyone know where we can find more cheetahs?"

[DOHboy]

speed of light is large..not infinite.

 

Think of it this way: No matter how wide the road is, you can not drive a truck any faster than the speed limit (yes, current speed limit of light is just that, speed of light). You can drive MORE trucks at the same time, but still those trucks all drive at the same speed. So the longer the distance to travel, the longer it will take.

 

bits per second just tell you how many trucks and what size they are. The distance and channel quality dictate how long it takes to get there.

[Orizuru]

FYI - I live in Ohio and play on a west coast server and average about the same latency you do playing from London. Even on an east cost server my latency doesn't go much lower.

 

90-120ms is not that bad at all. That is one tenth of a second.

[Cordarn]

Theirs an addon called leatrix latency that improved my latency greatly, but you have to download something called mission control first and drop it in there once you open it. (I know some will say addons won't work in swtor, but this one does.) Edited November 20, 2014 by Cordarn

[BuriDogshin]

In short: No.

I was tired of writing this again and again: Bandwidth is not a Measure of Speed.

 

Bandwidth does influence latency.

 

First, because the first router in the route has to receive some amount of the header for each packet before it can decide where to send that packet, increasing bandwidth will decrease latency by reducing the time it takes receive the needed information in the packet.

 

That is: Say the router needs to receive 100 bits of the header before it can start deciding where to send a packet.

If you are connected to that router via a 56Kbps modem (an extreme example, just to illustrate), waiting for those 100 bits will add about two milliseconds to your latency. It you are connected to the router at 1Mbps, it will only add 100 microseconds. It you are connected to the router at 100Mbps, it will only add 1 microsecond.

 

Second, if the router is doing a bit-rate conversion, which you would hope it is, it will typically wait until an entire packet is received before outputting the packet on the next hop. So if the packet is 1500 bits, this adds 30 milliseconds in our 56Kbps modem example, 1.5 milliseconds in the 1Mbps example, but only 15 microseconds in the 100Mbps example.

 

So, switching your broadband from 1Mbps to 100Mbps could be expected to produce a slight (1-2 millisecond) improvement in latency, all else being equal.

[Malastare]

Theirs an addon called leatrix latency that improved my latency greatly, but you have to download something called mission control first and drop it in there once you open it. (I know some will say addons won't work in swtor, but this one does.)

 

I believe this "works" by altering TcpAckFrequency. From what I see, it only works on XP and Server 2003. Even on those systems, its effects might be considered unfriendly to others on the network.

[Malastare]

Bandwidth does influence latency.

 

Not in any meaningful way. That is, the latency is affected far more by the physical layer implementation than the bandwidth allotment given to a user. Changing the bandwidth allotment has virtually no impact. Changing the physical layer implementation can have a minor impact.

 

First, because the first router in the route has to receive some amount of the header for each packet before it can decide where to send that packet

 

No. Packets are received and processed as total units. No modern network hardware makes decisions on a packet that is only partially received.

 

Say the router needs to receive 100 bits of the header before it can start deciding where to send a packet.

 

Routers don't work that way. They receive the entire datagram, check that it is complete, valid, and not corrupted, then start working on where to send it.

 

If you are connected to that router via a 56Kbps modem (an extreme example, just to illustrate), waiting for those 100 bits will add about two milliseconds to your latency. It you are connected to the router at 1Mbps, it will only add 100 microseconds. It you are connected to the router at 100Mbps, it will only add 1 microsecond.

 

Again, that's not how routers work. Even 56k modems didn't process packets on a byte-by-byte basis. In order to support fragmentation, modern routers have packet buffers that are filled with incoming packets. Only when the packet is complete are they processed. The time it takes to fill that buffer is dictated by the physical layer medium and protocol, not by the bandwidth policy.

 

So if the packet is 1500 bits, this adds 30 milliseconds in our 56Kbps modem example, 1.5 milliseconds in the 1Mbps example, but only 15 microseconds in the 100Mbps example.

 

You're treating bandwidth as speed again. It's not. The maximum bandwidth for a line is dictated by a combination of physical and protocol limitations. A 10Mbit/s line can transfer 10Mbit of data in a second. That works out to 1 bit every 0.9ns. However, that is an averaged rate. The actual transmission occurs in bursts, with the rest of the time spent handling the protocol on the physical layer and allowing for the signal to return to a "quiet" state. The data arrives far faster than the declared rate, and that rate is determined not by business policy, but by the physical medium and layer 2 implementation.

 

So, an analog modem line has more latency than a 10Mbit ethernet line. A 10Mbit ethernet line has very slightly more latency than a 100Mbit ethernet line. However, the latency on one 100Mbit ethernet line is going to be virtually identical to every other 100Mbit ethernet line. Because the latency is dictated by the physical layer and the layer 2 implementation, and that exists at a level that is below the concept of "packets" and "routing".

 

When you ask your ISP to upgrade you from a 10Mbit plan to a 20Mbit plan, do they come out and rewire you onto a new network implementation? Do they replace all the wires? Do they have to send a technician out to plug your cable into a faster gateway?

 

So, switching your broadband from 1Mbps to 100Mbps could be expected to produce a slight (1-2 millisecond) improvement in latency, all else being equal.

 

No.

 

You're ignoring the most fundamental topic here.

 

Do you actually believe that when you upgrade from a 10Mb to a 50Mb plan with your ISP, that your local modem, the local wires, and the local routers start suddenly working faster than they had been the week before? Do you think that the wires know the account number of every packet so they can choose how fast the electricity is going to travel?

 

ISPs run lines that have far more bandwidth than any customer. I have a 20Mbit connection. My modem recognizes the local segment as a DOCSIS 3.0 network with 6 channels. That's a 180Mbit line. When I upgrade from a 20Mbit line to a 40Mbit line or an 80Mbit line, the physical network doesn't change at all. All that changes is a rate limiter on the local modem/gateway that says Modem #31337 only gets to send this much data per 20 second period. Nothing else changes. Thus: No latency changes. Its the same network. The same hardware. The same router. Electricity is moving at the same speed and the light/electrical pulses on the line are going high/low at the same frequency.

 

My ISP bandwidth is determined by a simple rate limiting setup on a line that is already faster than anything they offer me. Changing the value of that rate limiting doesn't make the packets move faster or slower.

[ChroniKill]

100ms sounds pretty reasonable for London to the US. I seem to recall when reading about the lines linking stock markets that it takes about 65ms for a signal to do London-New York, and they will use the fastest switching equipment possible thanks to the HFT. 100ms for a computer game sounds pretty good (and about right from when I used to play FPS games).

 

I think pretty much the only way to get better latency would be to use European servers. I'm in London and get about 25ms to TRE (when it's not broken).

[BuriDogshin]

No. Packets are received and processed as total units. No modern network hardware makes decisions on a packet that is only partially received.

But they could, correct? I was talking about the information the router must have before it can start routing. This places a limit on the minimum effect of bandwidth on latency.

 

You're treating bandwidth as speed again. It's not. The maximum bandwidth for a line is dictated by a combination of physical and protocol limitations. A 10Mbit/s line can transfer 10Mbit of data in a second. That works out to 1 bit every 0.9ns. However, that is an averaged rate. The actual transmission occurs in bursts, with the rest of the time spent handling the protocol on the physical layer and allowing for the signal to return to a "quiet" state. The data arrives far faster than the declared rate, and that rate is determined not by business policy, but by the physical medium and layer 2 implementation.

 

I am quite aware of the overhead involved. But it is not relevant to illustrating the effects of bandwidth on latency.

 

So, an analog modem line has more latency than a 10Mbit ethernet line. A 10Mbit ethernet line has very slightly more latency than a 100Mbit ethernet line.

Wait, after all that you are agreeing with me? Seriously?

 

When you ask your ISP to upgrade you from a 10Mbit plan to a 20Mbit plan, do they come out and rewire you onto a new network implementation? Do they replace all the wires? Do they have to send a technician out to plug your cable into a faster gateway? No. ... Do you actually believe that when you upgrade from a 10Mb to a 50Mb plan with your ISP, that your local modem, the local wires, and the local routers start suddenly working faster than they had been the week before?

On my first ugrade, I switched me from DOCSIS 2 to DOCSIS 3. On the next , the cable company increased the number of channels my DOCSIS 3 modem uses to send data upstream (to 4) and downstream (to 8). So yes, I do believe that I am seeing higher dps on the cable. More channels = more raw bps on the cable. YMMV.

 

Also, you are ignoring the possibility that an "upgrade" is also a change in technology, such as when I went (long ago) from 1.5Mbps DSL to 25Mbps cable internet.

[Aussircaex]

I heard that TWC was offering a new service where they would speed up the light/electrons in their wires for faster speeds. You just need to rent some particle accelerator boxes which you connect along your line and you're good to go. I'm just waiting until they offer it in my area.

 

 

/sarcasm

 

Good write up though. I think you did a good job illustrating the difference.

 

 

From Bioware's own Mass Effect 2:

"It’s stunning how many people think light moves faster through expensive fiber optic cables than it does through cheap ones.”

[DOHboy]

From Bioware's own Mass Effect 2:

"It’s stunning how many people think light moves faster through expensive fiber optic cables than it does through cheap ones.”

 

reminds me of the monster cable experiment people pulled on audiophiles.

 

compared the expensive audio gold plated $100 a foot audio cables to wire coat hangers. In general the coat hangers got better reviews.

 

The one caveat i would say is that in cheap cables you potentially have more impurities in the fiber, less reflective coatings on the cladding and thus a bit more dispersion and diffusion of the light which can affect propagation of the signal as high speeds thus reducing the speed to maintain reliability. But yes, light travels the same speed in the same medium, have different mediums you'll have different speeds potentially.

[Malastare]

But they could, correct? I was talking about the information the router must have before it can start routing.

 

Not in any Layer 3 implementation used today.

 

Wait, after all that you are agreeing with me? Seriously?

 

No. You're associating bandwidth with physical-layer implementation. While the physical layer does dictate maximum bandwidth, bandwidth limits are not implemented on the physical layer. While 100Mbit ethernet has slightly lower latency than 10Mbit ethernet, there are other physical networks that can have bandwidths that are equal or higher, but with much higher latencies, due to the cost of physically sending the data (eg: satellite networks). Lesson here: Bandwidth is not linked with latency. Its not even an indirect correlation. You can have high bandwidth and low latency (10g ethernet), or you can have high bandwidth and high latency (satellite), or you can have low bandwidth and low latency (early ATM digital voice networks).

 

On my first ugrade, I switched me from DOCSIS 2 to DOCSIS 3. On the next , the cable company increased the number of channels my DOCSIS 3 modem uses to send data upstream (to 4) and downstream (to 8). So yes, I do believe that I am seeing higher dps on the cable. More channels = more raw bps on the cable. YMMV.

 

Nope. You had higher bandwidth, but that didn't change the latency of data arriving on the channels. DOCSIS does not spread data evenly across all channels, so packet data arrival is still dictated by the single-channel transfer rate.

 

Also, you are ignoring the possibility that an "upgrade" is also a change in technology, such as when I went (long ago) from 1.5Mbps DSL to 25Mbps cable internet.

 

No. I explicitly stated that was outside the topic at hand. Why not also consider the "upgrade" of replacing your 1.5Mbps DSL to a 25Mbps direct fiber cable to the SWTOR server? Because that's not what anyone was talking about.

 

OP asked about upgrading his bandwidth, not in changing his service type. The answer remains the same: Bandwidth has no effect on latency. Latency is determined by the physical layer (and layer 2, implicitly) of the local connection and remote routing. Bandwidth controls are implemented in a layer above layer 2, and make no changes to the physical performance of the connection.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Malastare

[DOHboy]

So, playing on US servers from across the pond in London, I'm getting a latency range oftypically 97ms to about 110ms on bad days up to 120ms except during faults ofc

 

Is there anyway I can configure my network, or ISP or route my packet data to go directly to the servers in the US and so doing speed up latency? Or somehow improve it?

 

Will getting a faster package deal from my ISP help ? Anyone has any tips or insight etc?

 

well considering its 5500 km from London to NY alone the minimum latency you would expect is around 36ms, it physically takes the light that long to propagate (round trip). Any thing will only make it worse such as routers, hubs, repeaters etc.

[teclado]

I heard that TWC was offering a new service where they would speed up the light/electrons in their wires for faster speeds. You just need to rent some particle accelerator boxes which you connect along your line and you're good to go. I'm just waiting until they offer it in my area.

 

 

/sarcasm

 

Good write up though. I think you did a good job illustrating the difference.

I heard that if you live at the bottom of the ocean, your data rates would be faster because gravity would speed up the packets. Electrons always flow faster downhill.