Hi Peter,
Following is my (Tokyo, Japan) data. Tough I'm not familiar with
network, the latency seems greater than 250 ms, right?
-Hideki
$ tracepath 208.100.19.102
1: 192.168.1.100 (192.168.1.100) 10.849ms
2: softbank219186009254.bbtec.net (219.186.9.254) 76.856ms
3: 10.199.68.69 (10.199.68.69) 42.630ms
4: 10.199.66.5 (10.199.66.5) 42.087ms
5: 10.8.17.133 (10.8.17.133) 43.359ms
6: 10.0.61.57 (10.0.61.57) 43.772ms
7: 10.0.193.37 (10.0.193.37) asymm 9 43.539ms
8: 10.9.192.62 (10.9.192.62) asymm 10 178.793ms
9: xe-4-1-0.a21.tokyjp01.jp.ra.gin.ntt.net (61.120.145.197) asymm 11
44.846ms
10: xe-1-0-0.r20.tokyjp01.jp.bb.gin.ntt.net (61.213.162.229) asymm 11
44.893ms
11: p64-2-3-0.r20.lsanca03.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.4.70) asymm 13 161.646ms
12: po-1.r00.lsanca03.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.254) 163.627ms
13: xe-0.level3.lsanca03.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.8.182) asymm 14 159.331ms
14: ae-32-56.ebr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.190) asymm 16 161.664ms
15: ae-78.ebr3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.135.14) asymm 17 170.680ms
16: ae-2.ebr3.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.132.9) asymm 14 163.003ms
17: ae-63-63.csw1.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.226) asymm 13 156.617ms
18: ae-62-62.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.134.209) asymm 17 170.999ms
19: ae-3.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net (4.69.132.58) asymm 21 212.984ms
20: ae-1-100.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.69.132.38) 213.209ms
21: ae-3.ebr3.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.69.132.62) asymm 19 245.683ms
22: ae-78.ebr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.69.134.61) asymm 21 240.050ms
23: ae-14-53.car4.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.72) asymm 21 240.632ms
24: WBS-CONNECT.car4.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.79.208.154) 388.569ms
25: 61.216-86-149.static.steadfast.net (216.86.149.61) asymm 14 199.415ms
26: vswitch3.steadfast.net (216.86.146.24) asymm 22 236.644ms
27: boardspace.net (208.100.19.102) asymm 24 237.667ms
reached
Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 27 back 24
$ ping 208.100.19.102
PING 208.100.19.102 (208.100.19.102) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=1 ttl=41 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=2 ttl=41 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=3 ttl=41 time=212 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=4 ttl=41 time=213 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=5 ttl=41 time=213 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=6 ttl=41 time=213 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=7 ttl=41 time=213 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=8 ttl=41 time=213 ms
64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=9 ttl=41 time=213 ms
Peter Christopher: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>About my net lag,
>
>Don asked, "What do you do when you play on KGS?"
>
>When playing against humans, there is hardly ever a problem because
>humans either resign quickly, pass normally, or quit the game (ugh!) -
>humans don't notice the net lag. In the kgs computer tournaments,
>it's still my bot that ends up resigning anyway ;(
>
>>From what you say Don, the server is already using slight Fisherish
>rules - 5 min + .25 sec ? I like your idea of making it even more
>Fisherish. I think it would help normalize the ratings in the
>1300-2000 bracket where my bots play, if it were increased to 5 min +
>1 sec, or 3-4 min + 2 sec, or something like that. It sounds like an
>easy-enough change and one that doesn't seem to have bad side-effects.
>
>Thanks again for the great work in putting up the CGOS server & to all
>the other programmers who put bots up there to play.
>
>Peter
>
>p.s. This is my network setup - ethernet from laptop to a tower on
>the roof of my house. Parabolic Directional antenna wireless B, to an
>intermediate tower 5km away receives it on a 180 degree nondirectional
>antenna, sends it via directional antenna over wireless b to a
>directional antenna at my ISP it-outlook another 5km away. From the
>ISP I think there are several more wireless hops, eventually to
>Manila, Philippines, then across some cable (I assume a cable).
>
>The real dog, as you can see, is the hop across the ocean, about 80%
>of my ping time. I assume that from Japan they have shorter ping
>because they have better infrastructure but I'd be curious to hear a
>confirmation of that. I know that in China some technical
>universities even have terrible networks (I was trying to get Yu Ping,
>7d chinese pro pursuing his masters in go programming, to put his java
>bot on cgos but to the best of my knowledge I failed to get him to do
>it. maybe china blocks the cgos port. don't try to read wikipedia
>from china either, it's blocked along with anything else that has
>certain unofficial accounts of supposed history.)
>
>1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tracepath 208.100.19.102 ~
> 1: 192.168.1.51 (192.168.1.51) 0.242ms pmtu 1500
> 1: 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) asymm 36 14.985ms
> 2: 172.16.0.254 (172.16.0.254) 33.483ms
> 3: router.it-outlook.noc (192.168.1.254) 27.493ms
> 4: 222.127.77.143 (222.127.77.143) asymm 3
>34.011ms pmtu 1452
> 5: 203.177.68.197 (203.177.68.197) 84.384ms
> 6: 203.177.31.89 (203.177.31.89) 84.382ms
> 7: 203.177.254.185 (203.177.254.185) 369.732ms
> 8: POS3-1.IG4.LAX1.ALTER.NET (157.130.214.193) asymm 14 337.252ms
> 9: 0.so-5-0-0.XL2.LAX1.ALTER.NET (152.63.112.254) asymm 12 342.739ms
>10: 0.so-5-0-0.XL2.CHI13.ALTER.NET (152.63.64.14) asymm 13 362.669ms
>11: POS7-0.GW1.CHI13.ALTER.NET (152.63.69.181) asymm 13 378.225ms
>12: wbsconnect-gw.customer.alter.net (65.207.236.126) asymm 19 378.225ms
>13: 61.216-86-149.static.steadfast.net (216.86.149.61) asymm 19 540.291ms
>14: vswitch3.steadfast.net (216.86.146.24) asymm 15 363.857ms
>15: boardspace.net (208.100.19.102) 378.845ms reached
> Resume: pmtu 1452 hops 15 back 15
>
>There is also about 15% packet loss (I think all in the first leg from
>my house to the ISP) that depending on the protocol probably doesn't
>make much difference because it's only a 30ms trip to get it resent.
>
>0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping 208.100.19.102 ~
>PING 208.100.19.102 (208.100.19.102) 56(84) bytes of data.
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=333 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=340 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=327 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=6 ttl=50 time=344 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=7 ttl=50 time=332 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=8 ttl=50 time=425 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=9 ttl=50 time=362 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=10 ttl=50 time=350 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=11 ttl=50 time=337 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=12 ttl=50 time=375 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=13 ttl=50 time=346 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=14 ttl=50 time=384 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=15 ttl=50 time=342 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=16 ttl=50 time=398 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=17 ttl=50 time=335 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=18 ttl=50 time=339 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=19 ttl=50 time=327 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=20 ttl=50 time=365 ms
>64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=21 ttl=50 time=336 ms
>
>--- 208.100.19.102 ping statistics ---
>22 packets transmitted, 19 received, 13% packet loss, time 21134ms
>rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 327.380/352.887/425.192/25.698 ms
>_______________________________________________
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@computer-go.org
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
