Originally by: Barakkus

---

This is what I've been beating into my boss' head for the last 2 years. He found out about virtualization and he wanted to virtualize EVERYTHING in the office...I fought tooth and nail to keep some things on dedicated servers. Had to do the same thing when he found out about iSCSI...he figured a heavily loaded Exchange server and PostgreSQL server would be great on iSCSI

---

Originally by: Musical Fist

---

Im confused still...

How exactly will this affect players...

Will this kill the lagg monster?

---

Originally by: Olleybear

---

Originally by: Musical Fist

---

Im confused still...

How exactly will this affect players...

Will this kill the lagg monster?

---

1) CCP is increasing the size of the datacenter housing TQ.

2) At the same time they are increasing their server to server network capacity by 800%. They are expecting the increased network capacity to reduce lag.

3) They then go on to show the current TQ servers.

4) ** My Speculation ** By increasing both the size of the datacenter and the server to server network capacity, it sounds like our beloved TQ is about to get more/more powerfull servers. This will also reduce lag.

---

Originally by: CCP Yokai

---

Edited by: CCP Yokai on 16/06/2010 14:26:51Do some research and see how many servers someone like a game about secondary life needs to operate at that level.

---

Originally by: smaster

---

The last time I was doing second life, there was no lag and no users yelling at their computers, hammering their keyboards in rage.

---

Originally by: A3A3EJ1b

---

I propose to place a server EVE in space .. geostationary orbit .. :)
Pluses:
1. cosmic cold.
2. solar energy.
3. lack of earthly disasters.

---

Originally by: Hawk TT

---

Edited by: Hawk TT on 16/06/2010 19:51:53

Ok, have you tested HS22 w/ Intel Xeon 5667 3.06/3.43GHz? It's a 4 core Westmere 32nm CPU (one generation ahead of Nehalem)?
The fastest CPU bin IBM would fit in a blade (95W TDP limit) is Xeon X5667 @ 3.06GHz, but it has turbo-boost, so one of the cores could go up to 3.43GHz.
If you combine this with the QPI benefits and other microarchitecture enhancements, you would have much better performance.
Let's see Intel X5600 vs X5200/X5400 series & HS22 vs HS21 blades:
- 200-300% memory bandwidth improvement (QPI vs. FSB)
- 40% memory latency reduction (QPI vs. FSB)
- 200% cache memory size w/ completely different cache hierarchy and much lower latency
- 50% more RAM capacity w/ the fastest cheap 4GB DDR3 1333MHz modules (12 x 4GB vs 4 x 8GB)

---

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist

---

Heck pod everyone you pirates, Get off the forums and go kill someone!

---

Originally by: Lord XSiV

---

Your ignorance is obvious.

Cisco isn't used for anything important, just low end enterprise class. People think it is a good choice mainly because they don't know any better. When you get into moving massive amounts of traffic across large areas (or need very low latency, high bandwidth locally) then you go with some real hardware from Juniper.

I can let you in on a little secret in the tele/datacom space - Cisco isn't a hardware manufacturer, they create software. They make their money off IOS support contracts. The hardware is only a fraction of the cost (less than 5%) of purchase price leaving 95% for the services end. Essentially they outsource all of their production to the lowest cost bidders and use 'jit' production/distribution. This is why Cisco has one of the highest rate for port failures on their switching equipment; it is easier (and cheaper) for them to replace the gear under service contract as it ensures the client continues to pay for that contract.

Real companies that are part of critical infrastructure can't risk the downtime and poor performance offered by the Cisco line which is why you only see Juniper, Alcatel, Eriksson and even some old Nortel stuff used for major backbones by any of the 3 IECs. The smaller guys compromise and go with the Cisco junk and more often than not have a higher rate of occurrence for outages which at the end of the day costs them high end customers.

---

Originally by: G'Kar5

---

Edited by: G''Kar5 on 17/06/2010 05:10:26


Sigh... http://www.lightreading.com/ Spend some time on that site.

See for edge router market share:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48649

And the Internet core is mostly CRS-1/T1600 btw.

Yes, I know that Cisco doesn't make their own hardware. They just design the ASICs and IBM builds them; they OEM optics, etc. Cisco just assembles the pieces. But nobody really builds their own silicon in house nowadays.

In reality, no router/switch vendor really knows how to spell IP except for Juniper and Cisco. Yes, some companies bought good startups to give them an IP portfolio (Alcatel bought Timetra, Brocade bought Foundary, Ericsson bought Redback). I guess you should consider Huawei too, but I don't trust them at all.

If you want to argue about why CCP should use and MX over a 7600, then there are reasons. Both platforms have their pros and cons. Anyway, this argument is stupid as it pertains to Eve because network latency is not a problem. CCP is still using GE server connections anyway and almost any platform they picked can handle that just fine. If they need huge 10GE density, then I think Force10 is still the best density.

---

Originally by: Trick Novalight

---

Edited by: Trick Novalight on 16/06/2010 13:13:59
As someone who works in a data center and sees moves like this all the time, getting this done in 4 hours will be a HUGE task....that is if they haven't been prepping for this for the past few weeks and the 4 hours of downtime is actually due to copying files

(1x72GB hd? No raid 5? Seems like setting up 15k rpm HDs in raid 5 or raid 10 would help increase the read/write of the SQL database...)

---