got lag?

Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in the amount of lag experienced since the implementation of 0.6.0 or 0.6.1? In versions 0.5.x and below, I was a relatively lag-free person unless I went to Hawthorne. Those two little vertical thermometer bars down in my lower right hand corner of the client window? I never even knew what they were because the so rarely even flashed a color that I never even bothered to hover my mouse over them.

With versions 0.6.x and up, I've noticed the left one (which I now know to be the packet loss indicator) is red a huge majority of my time IW and FULL a good portion of that time. When this happens, I fly off into the sunset when crossing sim boundaries, chat messages overlap, cross each other, or don't show up for seconds/minutes at a time, and playing sounds or music is spotty at best.

The right one (which I now know is the bandwidth indicator, and I am going to presume it means bandwidth USED and not bandwidth AVAILABLE) fluctuates wildly and rapidly, and not too infrequently turns red and fills up as well.

When not in SL, I have DSL that is 1.5mb/384kb (speed tests show it as 2.5mb/530kb on average. When in SL, my system performs like it is switching between a 14.4kbps modem and a 33.6kbps modem. I submitted a bug on this IW.

I (re)set my network settings to 500kbps, cache to 1000mb, pretty much max everything since my system could handle it. It is important to note that under the prior 0.5.x versions, my system handled these same settings quite well. I know I am hitting all the same settings again since I have to reset them to the same values EVERY TIME I DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL A NEW CLIENT (HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT) (oh, and HINT, in case I didn't mention it).

So I thought I would wonder out loud if anyone is else noticing this or is it just me?

as far as the setting changes, i mentioned something to the lindens (either in an e-mail or in a forum post, can't remember) about offering to rewrite their installer (i know which installer they use, and i know how to script for it) so that it doesn't delete users' settings every time. i could even configure the installer so that, if they NEED the settings to be erased, like if a setting's function is being changed or something, then swapping a # in the installer script would allow for that.

just for giggles, try setting network lower (ie to 400 then 300 .....) till you dont lag anymore. i know your system sounds like it can handle max everything....mine can too but to eliminate lag i lower my network settings down,and now i do not lag as much as i used too

Tell them again, Phil! Do it as a thread, a PM to a linden from the forums, an IW IM...SOMETHING! If they are not aware this can happen, they should be. It's annoying...especially with these recently frequent "Oh well you don't REALLY need this version but it fixes stuff and if you don't take it I'm going to keep asking you" thing they have going on!

[/SIZE]
I will try that, but if that works (and pardon my skeptiscism--nothing personal), then it would seem to me that something is REALLY wrong with the app!

i think alot of it has to do with packet loss , the higher the settings the more its trying to send to you at one time which results in more packet loss which i believe is one cause of lag ...the client slowes down and rereads the info sent to it

hope i make sense with this still to early in the day

Ok, I reduced the settings. While I would not say that it made a tremendous difference, it certainly did make at least SOME difference. I read your explanation of why you think it works (reducing bandwidth), and I understand where you are headed with what you are saying, but I cannot understand something.

If I have:
1) A 1000kbps MINIMUM connection
2) A fast router (CISCO 2650)
3) A fast LAN (100mbit FDUX)
4) A fast system (2.53GHz)
5) Fast memory (DDR-333)
6) A fast HD (ATA-100 w/8mb CACHE)
7) A fast video card (AGP 8x w/128mb DDR RAM)

Then why is asking for more data making it worse? What part of the components listed above is getting saturated by asking for a 500kbps data stream that I am not saturating by asking for a 200kbps data stream? Did I miss something? Ok, I won't be running eBay from the above components any time in the near future, but I cannot understand why I should have ANY problems running ANY client/server technolgy based environment.

I understand the impact of the streaming aspect well enough (I was senior IT for several recent dot-bombs dealing with 70+ developers all using Napster, RealPlayer, and Quake at the same time), so I think I understand at least the basics there.

I would have to imagine that with LL's staff's pedigree, they understand it REALLY well and would not build "plainly incapable" servers.

I even understand the "Chaos Theory" involved in Internet traffic in general. With all that in mind, the solution of dropping the data stream size (while clearly working and correct, let me reiterate) isn't sensical. Unless I am missing something in my math--and I am ABSOLUTELY not claiming that I know it all, so this is certainly the most probable thing.

I just wanna understand.

Philip, Peter? Anyone? Care to share?

Geforce video Card? Are you running driver version 43.45?

I hate to ask this as it doesn't make sense but...
Can you downgrade to driver version 41.09? It is located on the Nvidia website in the driver archive section. (I had to go through the motions of getting the latest drivers, then just just before downloading them, the link appeared on the left.)

In the v. 43.45 drivers, Nvidia removed support for a particular draw method that we were using. We are updating the client to fix this, but until we do, I found that using the 41.09 drivers at home increased FPS dramatically.

If this doesn't solve the problem, please let us know.

-Peter

The 1000kbps connection is what gets saturated. For a couple reasons, one is that (at least currently) the network setting seems to be a rough estimate - "This is how much data I would like you to send". I set mine at 500k and have seen it hit 750k+ before when flying to crowded areas.

Another factor could be latency but it doesn't look like you are dealing with that. When I use my wireless (I am the only one on it, getting 100% signal strength) I have to cut my network setting down to 300 or 200, otherwise I get too much packet loss. Its the same cable modem and network that I hook up to via cat5 though and can run fine at 500k.

And there is usually other traffic on the network so that even though you may be getting 1000kbs total, your portion is slightly less.

And really though, do what Peter Linden says. Because that may be the real factor that you are noticing.

Well I hate to burst the bubble, but I'm on an ATI card (9700 Pro). Doesn't seem to matter much what version of drivers I am on, but for what it's worth I have not upgraded it (or downgraded it) in a while. Catalyst 3.2 I believe it is. Been that way since before the switch to 0.6.x as well. Since 0.4.3 I do believe. Never noticed this lag problem THIS way before.

As far as the connection goes. Even when I have it set to 500kbps, I can watch the right-most meter (the one that measures throughput) and even when it goes RED all I am getting is 350+kbps, not 400 and certainly not 500. So why is it Red when I am 150kbps+/- away from the max.

And I do not believe that latency is the issue here. I certainly understand how it could be, but I am the sole active user on the network. If one of my servers (also on my network) was being hammered or someone was doing something, I'd see the traffic on my switch (near my desk) and I'd know that and go "Oh, the server is taking bandwidth too" but that is not the case. While I have a wireless access point, it is not even turned on. All my stuff is hard-wired at the moment.

So I guess I am mostly alone in experiencing this issue. For that, I will just grin and bare it.

*bump*

Still experiencing lag. I've also noticed that if I move objects while a lag spike occurs, the objects just keep moving until they disappear. Sometimes, if I leave the sim and come back, they are back where they were before. Other times, they are just gone and I am still out my $.

Ok, at 100Mbps, 200Mbps, and 300Mbps, the packet loss meter is red most of the time, but not full all the time. At 400Mbps and 500Mbps, it is full most of the time. There is no discernable difference between 100 and 300, and no discernable difference between 400 and 500, but between the two ranges, there is SOME difference, though I would argue that it is not big by any stretch.

I am not running firewall software as my Cisco does that function for me at the router, and I am certain all the right ports are open..at least so far as I can tell based on the docs I have found here. Any other suggestions? Am I really the only one that is having this problem?

Over this same DSL line, I can download Win2K Sp3 from Microsoft at a rate of well over 180kbps and the lights blink much faster than they do when I play SL. (Obviously I cannot do these two things at the same time).

Ouch, red packet loss at 100k? That really sounds like a network issue, but I'm not sure what. Is there anything else you changed / upgraded / installed since when this lag started?

Make sure the windows firewall isn't on too.... I just dunno, you shouldn't be getting that much packet loss.

also, if you can, do the standard network diagnostic: plug directly into your connection. no switches/firewalls/etc. -- see how you do there.

Hey, folks -

A little bit of explanation about the network health meters -

There's two meters in the lower right of your screen. The one on the left reflects packet loss, the one on the right reflects downstream (to your viewer) network usage.

The network bandwidth that you set in the Preferences/Network panel is a MAXIMUM bandwidth setting, so most of the time you should not be hitting that maximum bandwidth.

Also, the threshold at which the bar turns red is not the full threshold for the network bandwith - it turns yellow when you hit 50% of the setting, and red when you hit 75% of the setting. So seeing a red bar in the bandwidth bar doesn't necessarily mean that bad things are happening, just that we would be getting very close to saturating your network if your network is near the bandwidth cap).

The packet loss meter turns yellow at 1%, and red at 3% packet loss.

Also, remember that "lag" is often a result of poor server performance, not necessarily poor network performance. Also, especially if you're on an ADSL line where you have limited upstream bandwidth, running other apps such as P2P file sharing apps (Kazaa, gnutella) can significantly decrease network performance.

Zanlew, the problems that you're seeing seem to indicate that you actually ARE seeing packet loss for some reason. Maybe it's your Cisco? We tend to send more packets at you, from more machines than downloading a single file from a website would at the same bandwidth. Sort of like a distributed service attack, as opposed to a DDOS.

As far as we know, we didn't significant changes to our network code in 0.6 that should have had the impact that you're describing. Find me in world sometime and I can do some debugging...

- Doug

Oh, and I forgot. We DID move colo facilities last Wednesday night, did you start seeing more issues then?

- Doug

Ok, so today my lag and packet loss problems are gone! I am at the 400kbps setting and I have not seen the packet loss meter even so much as flicker. My bandwidth has been stable at 47kbps the whole time I've been here so far pretty much.

I have not changed ANY settings in SL, my router or firewall, or my ISP. That I am aware of, they did not do anything either (because of my type of account, I am on their hot list so I know when they make server changes, etc.).

So whatever it is that no one did, thank you!

AAh! I've had these lag problems since I first started in Beta. Admittedly, that has only been this week (Tuesday) and I've only been on three times. However, I'm still having a lot of problems moving around the world.

I did try to drop my bandwidth down to 200 and that has helped with packet loss, but doesn't solve the lag issues, oddly. As for FPS, when I first logged on with default settings I was running at 50-60 FPS. When I realized what "FPS" was, I bumped everything up and now sit around 20 FPS. This hasn't really affected performance, since 20 FPS is still pretty quick.

So, it's not packet loss, it's not graphics settings. However, when I click the ground and choose "Go To", 9 out of 10 times I'll either just sit there for 30-45 seconds before moving or I'll take off immediately and just keep going.

Oh, and I don't have any other programs running besides SL. I guess there could be a virus eating my bandwidth, but it's a pretty fresh install of Windows.

I'm going to try to connect my computer straight to my cable modem tonight and see if that helps. Also, I'm going to watch my connection to see how much is actually passing through. If nothing works, does anyone have any other ideas?

Well, while my problem is resolved, I have little to say, except that I have to differ with you on the claim that it's not packet loss and is instead graphics-related. As my earlier posts to this thread should indicate, graphics are(were, actually) not my issues. Especially with the hardware I am presently running combined with the fact that I can use max settings on other on-line based games that do not stream the same way that SL does and they work just fine.

The notching down of my bps settings did clear up the problem a little, but not on a significant basis. However after that one day where I said it was fixed, the problem has not since re-occured. No new client software was needed, no changes had been made to my system, and LL never said whether they had made any changes that day, so I do not know what "fixed" my problem, but graphics were certainly NOT the issue in my case.

Yulidin, what you describe sounds very much like packet loss of some kind or another. When you try to do something and it doesn't happen or doesn't happen for a long time that is a good indicator of packet loss.

Let us know how the connection straight to cable modem works. And make sure you aren't running anything in the back ground (file sharing programs are especially bad).

True. Even something simple like a chat program (Yahoo!, MSN, AIM) can cause or add to lag on your end. Even an email program running in the background. Also, see if the lag comes and goes or is always there. If it comes and goes, see if it is cyclical--meaning does it happen every 5 minutes or 1 minute, or something? All good places to start diagnosing.

Well, I kept a close eye on the bandwidth this time (both through my router and directly connected to the cable modem). It seems that it will run nice and fast for a while (70-115kbps--set at 100) and then drop to under 10 kbps. That's when the lag is occuring.

I've had problems with other online activities (from other MMORPGs to streaming videos to downloading files) and this seems to be fairly consistent. I really think that it's my service provider. I think there's probably other cable modem users in my area and my bandwidth keeps dropping to nil every now and then.

It used to happen twice an hour, but when I tried to time it, it turned out to be random. So... what about DSL? Does it seem to be pretty stable as far as bandwidth?

In my opinion, if I can have stable bandwidth, then I don't really have "broadband", do I?

Edit: I tried setting everything back to default (300kbps, 64 for audio streams) and when the bandwidth was there, it was much higher--in the 200-400 range. So, it's just unreliable, not necessarily slow.

lemme guess... you're in a populated area...

i'm betting what's happening is your cable node is overloaded (i know of one here in sac that has 600+ users on it, when they're only supposed to have 250), and the node tries to accomodate your bandwidth needs briefly when you first start consuming it, but then ratchets you down, down, down, until you're using an equal chunk to everyone else... which on an overloaded node, is very little. check the times of the day this is happening... see if it happens more at certain times of the day than others. try logging in like 11:50PM PST, and see if you have fewer problems than when you log in at like 1 or 2 PM...

That is what my guess is too. I'm going to check, but it seems to be fairly random. I'll try again throughout the week and at various times and see what I find. At any rate, though, it's unacceptable to me. I'm going to start a new topic about DSL and whether it would be more stable than cable. Thanks for your help everyone. Hopefully I can get to a point where I can enjoy this game fully.

Due to the nature of TCP/IP as the upstream channel becomes saturated on an overloaded node, the downstream channel will be affected because the necessary ACK packets are delayed on the upstream. If your node is overloaded, I would think that is your problem. Its nothing more than the result of a retarded ISP.

Jag, SL uses UDP. There are no ACK packets.

Besides, when you have 20 people in one location, somebody deletes an item, and it ghosts for 18+ of those people, simple logic dictates that the problem is on the server, not the client.

It's like the server sends the packet to a couple of people, then just forgets to send it to everyone else that's supposed to be getting it.

*Edit: Yes, I realize this thread is well over a year old, but I didn't dredge it up!