Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6713
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 23:22:00 -
[181] - Quote
Christ, these changes are awful. "We noticed that inter-node jumps are less expensive than intra-node jumps" And then proceeds to put adjacent systems on the same node to increase intra-node jumps. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2131
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 23:50:00 -
[182] - Quote
Rain6636 wrote:still waiting for confirmation that failed wormhole jumps with traffic control messages count against the wormhole mass, but will be looked into. (meanwhile there will be support tickets, handled by uninformed customer service staff)
Why referencing this dev blog?
As it has nothing to do with wormhole jumps, just which nodes start up on what hardware at the end of downtime? Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Rain6636
Team Evil
824
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 00:18:00 -
[183] - Quote
because this change might be the reason for traffic control messages when attempting to make wormhole jumps. fewer nodes = standby mode which causes jump attempts to fail, with a traffic control message similar to the ones you'll experience on the test server. the problem with this condition is the failed jump also counts against the wormhole's mass limit, even though the jump was unsuccessful. This leads to unexpected wormhole collapse due to mass limitations that are reached prematurely. The inaccurate mass accumulation after failed jumps is the issue, beyond the inconvenience of needing to re-attempt wormhole jumps because the node was unprepared. This dev blog was referenced because internally, within CCP, it's not guaranteed everyone has up-to-date knowledge of changes such as CCP Prism X's node remapping dev blog. Without knowledge of such a change, employees of CCP and players are likely to assume wormhole mass limitations are handled correctly, without any cause to believe otherwise.
The traffic control message is a preexisting condition, and is made worse by the reduced number of nodes dedicated to w-space.
to put the severity of this into perspective, a wormhole with a 3 billion kg mass limit can handle 3 capitals. with a failed jump attempt due to traffic control, the wormhole can only handle 2, after the first capital's mass was inaccurately counted against the wormhole's mass limit. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Rain6636
Team Evil
831
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 07:09:00 -
[184] - Quote
The jump sequence I mentioned:
a set of 3 orcas jump through a 3 billion kg wormhole for two round trips. at a quarter-billion kg each, this sequence of orca jumps will close a 3 billion kg wormhole very cleanly.
normally, simultaneously ("jump jump jump... jump jump jump"):
orca 1 - jump out - jump in orca 2 - jump out - jump in orca 3 - jump out - jump in
return to pos to wait out the polarization timer, and repeat
orca 1 - jump out - jump in orca 2 - jump out - jump in orca 3 - jump out - jump in
and the hole is closed.
on the 6th of December, the sequence looked like:
orca 1 - jump out - jump in orca 2 - jump out - jump in orca 3 - jump out - jump in
return to pos to wait out the polarization timer, and repeat
orca 1 - jump out - jump in orca 2 - jump out - jump, traffic control: you are cleared to jump in 120 seconds, the wormhole closes before your jump completes orca 3 - jump out - jump, traffic control: you are cleared to jump in 120 seconds, the wormhole closes before your jump completes
the unusual part about this sequence is the traffic control notification. the math and prior experience suggests the jumps would be successful. I could be wrong, but my bug report is unanswered (and i have not received the email to say it is a known bug, or that it is new and has been added to the list of bugs).
I run my clients on separate screens, and my jumps were nearly simultaneous. If wormhole mass accumulation and session changes are handled separately, and there are conditions where jumps fail while mass is still counted, it would explain the bug.
I'm bad at explaining things sometimes. is there anything unclear about the situation i'm describing Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Rain6636
Team Evil
842
|
Posted - 2013.12.08 10:44:00 -
[185] - Quote
sorry about the triple post, this is something I found (all I've found so far).
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=777940#post777940
Quote:I could go track down an engineer if you want a totally firm answer, but my understanding is that the client is waiting for the server when jumping rather than vice versa. It's only when the *server* has finished the transfer and told the client it's OK to go ahead and load that it finishes the transaction and deducts the mass, and jump requests are not completed strictly in the order they were requested. (CCP Greyscale)
if that answer could be updated to include how traffic control fits in, that would be greeeeat Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Mr Beardsley
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 12:26:00 -
[186] - Quote
Highsec should have its own server infrastructure. Better yet, it should be a separate game. All EVE problems solved. |
|
CCP Prism X
C C P C C P Alliance
1431
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 15:42:00 -
[187] - Quote
I dislike leaving things hanging.
Wormhole Mass reduction is well outside of the scope of my work. Obviously mass should not be decreased on a denied jump but that should be bug reported through the proper channels so that it receives proper due diligence. Apparently this has been BR'd already so YAY!
Libras are not trustworthy. We're extremely dodgy characters who seem to be willing to adopt any side of everything for the sake of whatever deviant impulses drive us at that given moment.
I do believe everything else has been covered already in previous posts.
Fly safe... ..ish! @CCP_PrismX EVE Database Developer and Expert Ranter Member of a Different Team, every day. |
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
7082
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 00:46:00 -
[188] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:I dislike leaving things hanging. Wormhole Mass reduction is well outside of the scope of my work. Obviously mass should not be decreased on a denied jump but that should be bug reported through the proper channels so that it receives proper due diligence. Apparently this has been BR'd already so YAY! Libras are not trustworthy. We're extremely dodgy characters who seem to be willing to adopt any side of everything for the sake of whatever deviant impulses drive us at that given moment. I do believe everything else has been covered already in previous posts. Fly safe... ..ish! tyty o7 o7 Rainfleet on Twitch |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
150
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 19:20:00 -
[189] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:I do believe everything else has been covered already in previous posts.
So is there going to be any investigation into whether static striping of nodes will give better performance for large fleets moving through systems because of the inter- vs. intra- node thing? |
|
CCP Prism X
C C P C C P Alliance
1432
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 08:19:00 -
[190] - Quote
No. Distributing connected solar systems between different nodes will not make any load dissapear. It will just move it elsewhere. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said that intra-jumps were more expensive: It's more expensive for that specific node as it will have to do both the tasks. Jumping between nodes does not magic away some part of the work that needs to be done. It's just done by two nodes. Remember: We do not want a fleet in the south to cause TiDi in the north.
And to reiterate this point: This is not about reducing load, it's about using currently available resources more efficiently. I've already started on another project, that will take some time, that is aimed at actually reducing load generated per client. It will also most probably end up in offloading much work from the system nodes to other nodes thus making any work put into "no adjacent systems on the same node" redundant. I'd rather just start working on an actual performance boost rather than attempting to satisfy unpredictable spike load with a static load balancer. @CCP_PrismX EVE Database Developer and Expert Ranter Member of a Different Team, every day. |
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6948
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 02:16:00 -
[191] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:No. Distributing connected solar systems between different nodes will not make any load dissapear. It will just move it elsewhere. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said that intra-jumps were more expensive: It's more expensive for that specific node as it will have to do both the tasks. Jumping between nodes does not magic away some part of the work that needs to be done. It's just done by two nodes. Remember: We do not want a fleet in the south to cause TiDi in the north. Who cares about some random system in bum **** egypt? When you have adjacent systems all on the same node, that makes the game even more unplayable than it was previously. It makes the issue of moving large fleets even worse than it was before.
Seriously, what the hell were you thinking? You clearly have no idea how people actually play this game. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6948
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 02:19:00 -
[192] - Quote
Hope the pubbie retards are happy. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |