Cucumba said:
As a minor correction . . . you PING the server and get 100 ms latency (not ping). Though the rest of his sentance is accurate.
As a minor correction ... nowadays the word ping is more used as "delay" instead of the function which gave it its name
ping is still an important function everywhere ...
yeah .. ping was just a function ... but why did HL call the row (is it row ?), if it means delay ??? ... ping was a function with tested the delay ... there's no real pinging after you connected to the server ... there's just time to travel for the information .. pinging while you're connected would just be waste of bandwidth
Cucumba said:
Thus the latency you observe after pinging a server is based on bandwidth, geographical distance and hops.
As a minor correction ...
the geographical distance doesn't really matter ... do you think it matters if you LAN cable has 10ft or 20ft ???
distance in network means hop (for those, who dunno what this is: a hop is equal to a router ... so just another connection point between you and the target, you've to pass)
bandwidth is a relative word ... (my LAN cables have a width from about 0.5cm
) if I'm correct it basically means the speed of your connection ... so both of use misused this word ...
connection would be the better word to describe (as I said first) ... because you can have a 100MBit/s cable and just a 56kBit/s connection to the target ...
i.e. if you're up-/ downloading something or the traffic (in the area of the traceline) is too high, your connection to the server gets worse ...
I hope you got my points ...