That you didn't. I was wrong about what your claim was. It was actually
I apologize
See how nice it is when you actually ADDRESS AN ISSUE rather then attack the PERSON who raised it for 3 pages in a row? I immediately admitted I made an error and apologized because I AM NOT OUT TO GET YOU. I am trying to have a discussion like a civilized adult.
However I would like to point out that making a mistake about what YOUR argument does not in any way means that my OWN reasoning is based on lies. I made a perfectly true and accurate argument... I just accidentally made it against a strawman... debunking a statement you never made.
But rather then point this out you personally attacked me for 3 pages, proclaimed your credentials, and dismissed all my arguments as being based on lies (they weren't. They were factually true).
You also showed via large size and red lettering that you consider my statement about switching being the major source of latency a lie and a proof of my ignorance. Interestingly I have clearly stated that switching INCLUDES protocol latency which YOU YOURSELF have proclaimed to be one of the two major things responsible for latency. Do you perhaps disagree with my definition of the term switching? (since otherwise you are calling yourself a liar)
Finally... in your sole argument on post
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33473492&postcount=156 you only pointed out my mistake about YOUR claim... you did not in any way address the meat of my argument which you have been proclaiming to be false.
All along my argument was a contrasting of switching vs distance; wherein I stated that switching accounts for the majority of latency, not distance. I further argued that protocol latency, incorrect routing (bouncing us to denmark to uk to us again), and other such delays fall under switching.
I argued that the actual physical distance between you and a service accounts for very few ms of the ping by itself (I haven't explicitly mentioned it but implied that if it is actually a far away service, then you need more hopes to reach it and switching accumulates even more of a delay). And you did not respond to it still... instead after bashing you over the head with your refusal to address my point your sole response was to correct my accidental strawman. Thanks. Now answer the actual argument which you have proclaimed to be all lies.
So lets see how it revises my argument.
Revises to be:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sending a packet from US, to denmark, to UK, back to the US means that the issue is one of "distance". Its not, its a switching problem where packets are routed incorrectly.
You claimed that the majority of ping is from the protocol latency (which is a switching issue) and distance. I do not think distance playes a major role unless switching has been done improperly.
The example you provided showed it taking LESS than 1ms to bounce from the local router proving that the network stack took under 1ms.
In comparison, it took 10 ms to bounce it from local ISP (which is way way closer then 2 million meters = 1,242.74238 miles.) which is pretty much all switching (mainly protocol latency) and not distance.
Then the ISP shitty system makes a critical error and tosses the connection across the ocean. That adds a serious amount of lag. Distance is only indirectly involved here... because all that distance traveled is distance that should NOT have been traveled. If I drive my car in circles around the destination then the reason I am using up a lot of fuel is not the distance to my target, its the fact I don't know how to read a map.