| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
C C P
   |
Posted - 2011.03.22 15:56:00 -
[1]
CCP Veritas's latest blog is all about fighting the war on lag. This blog is the first of a few technical blogs in the pipeline and you can read it here.
Zymurgist
Community Representative
CCP NA, EVE Online
Contact Us |
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 17:01:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Mashie Saldana
What is the new Jita cap?
2000 currently. We expect there to be plenty of headroom above that, but we want to see each boundary along the way reached safely before we raise it more.
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 22:19:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Taedrin
Quote:
Naturally this load reduction has given us a whole lot more headroom in Jita, so the cap is on its way up - hopefully higher than y'all need it to be.
Is that a challenge? Because it certainly sounds like a challenge.
It's a bit of a challenge. Obviously there are things that can be done that would make any system squeal like a pig, but I'm hopeful that we can have the Jita cap high enough that it isn't hit in the normal course of events while maintaining responsiveness.
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 23:07:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Abramul
There's been some banter about staging a 2000-man fleet battle in Jita to let highsec-dwellers know what lag feels like. Would this be a problem?
Yes, that would be a problem. Kind of a silly question really.
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 23:47:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Soldarius
Just because it doesn't blow up doesn't mean that it is working as intended. In fact, according to CCP Veritas, he has no data at all a to whether or not their changes have made any effect. I find this unacceptable. CCP Masterplan had plenty of data. Why not perform those same tests again and compare the results to the previous results?
I have plenty of data on these changes as well, it was included in the first blog on the subject as they're lab tests, as Masterplan's was. The intention behind this blog is to follow up saying deployment went well (as the changes had not been deployed when the first blog went out) and to talk about notable live effects.
We just don't have the kind of metric collection on live servers that would allow me to say "missiles used to take X% CPU and now they take Y%". That level of instrumentation would introduce significant load by itself, which goes against what we're trying to do here in the first place.
But, based on the lab tests and the uneventful deployment, I feel confident saying that missile spaming is far less impactful than it used to be.
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 23:54:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
It does seem like you mislabeled your graph.
You assume I meant "Absolute Difference" where I actually meant "Relative Difference". I went through a whole lot of potential titles for the graph and they all had faults - I'm just happy you could sort out what I was trying to convey in the end~
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.23 00:32:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Abramul
On a less joking note, do you happen to have on-hand how the per-ship CPU use of a heavy missile drake compares to that of an 1400mm artillery Maelstrom or mega pulse Armageddon? The previous graph lists repeats per second, but that sounds like it's per group rather than per ship.
Too many variables there to give you a definitive answer. Skills/fittings/implants can cause changes in rate of fire, and the usage of weapon grouping has a profound effect as well (1 group of 8 guns is about 1/8th the load that 8 groups of 1 gun is, as one would expect).
So instead I'll walk you through how to figure it out yourself based on the data you have. We have # of firings per second to reach full load (on my now-deprecated test server), we want # of ships needed to reach the same load. So really, you just need to figure out how many repeats a given ship will generate, then divide the number I gave by it.
So if, for instance, you had a ship with 4 weapons that had a rate of fire of 20 seconds (that is, 3 shots per minute) post skills-implants-fitting. The pilot is a jerk and doesn't group the weapons. That ship is able to put out (4 * 1/20) = .2 repeats per second. If that type of weapon system were able to spam out 1000 repeats per second, then we're looking at (1000/.2) = 5000 ships to saturate.
There's a pile of assumptions under that all, the most egregious of them being that this in this hypothetical situation the absolute only thing going on is all those ships shooting one single target who is never going to die. But it does give you some idea of the relative cost between ship types.
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.23 09:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Galandil
With the current changes. What is your estimated cap?
My gut feeling is that we'd be able to pull off 2500-2750 people doing normal Jita-type things.
|
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.03.23 10:01:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
The amount of effort invested in sorting out inventory problems and missile optimisations is not small. However, are you sure that you are "barking at the right tree"?
We spend a fair bit of time asking this question of ourselves. There's more to how we decide what to work on than just what the worst symptom is - some estimation of difficulty and expectation of being able to deliver improvements in a reasonable amount of time has to be a part of it too. I'll be going into more detail on how we choose what to work on in my Fanfest presentation (Friday 4pm), so stay tuned for that~
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Frankly, the first thing that will be noticeable to actual players would be when this start to function as intended: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Logging_out.
That's one of the problems that's been in the back of our heads for some time now. Nearly impossible to just sit down and work directly on that problem - there's no clear starting point. It's like approaching a great problem in Physics - you rarely go directly for the end goal, but you work in the general neighborhood of the problem and, if you're lucky and paying attention, you might stumble on something great.
The savings in Jita is a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. We had been pondering what Jita's problem was for some time. The profiling slices we had from it looked perfectly reasonable, in that it was mostly inventory work, which makes sense given what people in Jita tend to do. So the problem just simmered in our minds for months. Then, while working on missile optimizations, I stumbled on the inventory data structures and immediately it was clear what Jita was spending its time doing.
So my point is, even if we're not working directly on the problem you see as the worst in the world, there's good reasons for that and we're working in the neighborhood of it, so serendipity may strike at any moment.
|
|
| |
|