Re: slip?

From: Mattias Larsson (
Date: 06/19/95

On Sun, 18 Jun 1995, Steve wrote:

> yeah you'd probably wanna use linux, however running a mud on a slip 
> account even a  28.8k slip is horrendous for your users. Unless you are 
> planning only like 5 at a time you'll want a 57.6k line (minimum) if your 
> just planning on running the mud for test purposes Linux on a 486/25 with 
> 8 megs of ram should go smoothly the faster the CPU and the more Mem the 
> better. I'm working my mud off of a Intel P-90 with 16megs of ram and it 
> loads in about a second or two.

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.

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. 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST