![]() ![]() 0.8ms, round-trip for 20kb) and require larger packages to be transferred, than switching from 100mbit to gbit can give you a latency reduction, even though you use much less than the 100mbit/s in average (= the link is not saturated permanently). So if you have an application which is very sensitive to latency (4ms vs. 20000 byte package(s) => 80% faster transfer.1000 byte package => 20% faster transfer.56 byte package => virtually no faster transfer.the same number of bytes can be transfered in faster timeīUT the improvement is only appreciable if the packet(s) have a certain size:.Regarding answer from > ping server -i0.05 -c200 -s1400Ģ00 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 9958ms Update: Please read the comments to the answers carefully! The connection is not saturated, and I don't think that this speed increase will matter for humans for one request, but it is about many requests which add up (Redis, Database, etc.). I even would expect 100mbit to 1gbit to be faster, if the connection is through a switch which first waits until it received the whole packet. latency increaces from 0.164 to 0.395 - I would expect this to be a slower increase for a 1gibt to 1gbit connection. Did anybody ever benchmarked this?Įxample (100mbit to 100mbit server) with 30 byte load: > ping server -i0.05 -c200 -s30Ģ00 packets transmitted, 200 received, 0% packet loss, time 9948ms I understand that this refers to throughput but the larger the packets, the faster they can be transmitted as well, so I would expect a slight decrease in response time (e.g. I have a webserver with a current connection of 100Mbit and my provider offers an upgrade to 1Gbit. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |