On Mon, 19 Jun 1995, Mattias Larsson wrote: > Maybe I'm just stupid, but I transferred a 2MB log of a MUD session, with > my 28.8k modem. I reached an average speed of 60k (because of the v42bis > compression). A MUD supposedly transfer mostly text, so my MUD session > log should be accurate enough. Also, a MUD player hardly uses more than > 2k bandwidth in average (It's probably less). A 28.8k CSLIP link should > be able to handle about 30 players. Another thing to consider is that a > modem can send data in both directions at the same time. I have run a MUD > with over 20 players at the same time on my CSLIP link, without the players > even noticing. Some things to think about though, keep the MTU low for > decent interactive access, and use CSLIP, to keep the header size to a > minimum. Of course it doesnt hurt with a "real" link, but I say it's very > much possible to run a MUD on a 28.8k slip link (if you have v42bis > enabled), without causing any serious lag to the players. I may not be using a 28.8k, (only 14.4k CSLIP) but it is horrendously laggy for 1 player, non-locally, let alone when 2 or 3 people come in to test it it is NASTY. I will be buying a 28.8k modem soon to 1. try out how much nicer 2x the bandwith is but i doubt it would still be very comfortable... > About CPU power, I've been running a MUD on a 486SX/33 with 20MB for > quiet some time now. The computer is running Linux+X, and average > non-MUD users is 5. I have had no problems with computer lag > whatsoever. Okay, it doesnt load in 2 seconds, it takes more like 15 > seconds, but the mud runs just fine. If thats 20MB of ram then yes of course it will run nicely, but if you've got like 4 megs of ram and 16megs of swap file then your gonna be laggin whenever your players type <look>...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST