Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Today's events in HED GP are just another example in a long line of fights where the outcome is determined by lag and by CCP's continuing refusal to supply proper hardware on which to run these nodes. When will this stop? When is enough enough? When will CCP finally bring some new hardware to the table that will allow fleet battles to occur without one side or another having to deal with infinite warp tunnels preventing hardeners from being activated, lag causing dreads to cycle but not actually do anything, and these fleet fights getting determined by who got their first rather than which side shows up in force with the right ships?
I'm not one saying I have the answer. Like just about everyone here in this community I don't have behind the scenes access to see what pieces of hardware are being used to run these "reinforced nodes" but the fact that 100% server load and 10% tidi are becoming the norm for fleet battles shows that whatever CCP is doing about this is too little, too late.
This battle didn't pop up in some unknown place, this wasn't some stealth attack out of nowhere, this battle was telegraphed in advance so CCP should have been able to handle it.
So CCP, what is the problem? What is the bottleneck? You are in a unique position to have many thousands of vested individuals in the Eve Online community who do this stuff for a living. If Amazon can keep it's servers up and responsive during black friday and Cyber Monday, and laugh off hackers' attempts to DDOS them with the Low Orbit Ion Cannon, why can't CCP build a MegaNode (I'm guessing that the Jita Supernode is still inadequate for this task) that will actually be able to hang with this level of traffic or use? If there is a technical problem, then reach out to the community, talk to people who work for groups used to crunching endless amounts of data. I'd be willing to bet there is at least one person very familiar with the inner-workings of supercomputers who could provide some very positive insight right here in this community.
So CCP, instead of giving us vague replies when we complain like "We're working on it," please trust in the community that supports you and reach out to us, or at least give us some idea of what you're actually doing to solve a game breaking problem that we are facing on a regular basis. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2311
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
I am pretty sure there is no such thing as hardware capable of handling that kind of fight. You can beg and scream and whine about servers as much as you want, but the hardware is simply not the issue here. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
2665
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
There is no better hardware.
The problem with EVE isn't its hardware, it's the 2004 software that doesn't properly scale to 2014 hardware.
Allus Nova wrote:So CCP, instead of giving us vague replies when we complain like "We're working on it," please trust in the community that supports you and reach out to us, or at least give us some idea of what you're actually doing to solve a game breaking problem that we are facing on a regular basis.
@erlendur wrote:We are looking at upcoming hardware, working on Brain in a Box, and always re-balancing game mechanics. Source |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:There is no better hardware.The problem with EVE isn't its hardware, it's the 2004 software that doesn't properly scale to 2014 hardware. Allus Nova wrote:So CCP, instead of giving us vague replies when we complain like "We're working on it," please trust in the community that supports you and reach out to us, or at least give us some idea of what you're actually doing to solve a game breaking problem that we are facing on a regular basis. @erlendur wrote:We are looking at upcoming hardware, working on Brain in a Box, and always re-balancing game mechanics. Source
That reply contains nice buzzwords and all, but WTF does that even mean? It's like a US politician promising change...and at this moment CCP has about as much credibility. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4725
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
Allus Nova wrote:That reply contains nice buzzwords and all, but WTF does that even mean? It's like a US politician promising change...and at this moment CCP has about as much credibility. It means that "they are working on it" and "you need to be patient. Changing the way an existing system (especially one as large and complex as EVE) operates without completely scrapping and starting from square one (which takes almost as much time and results in any further improvements on the old system being "wasted") it is a pain in the ass. Fix one thing and another thing (which may not be related to the change in any way) WILL break.
tldr: anyone who tells you "that will be easy to code and implement" is lying through their teeth. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Hesod Adee
Kiwis In Space
247
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
All the easy changes were made years ago, before TiDi.
The only obvious improvements I can see are: - Making the server code multithreaded. Then they can take advantage of the current direction server hardware is improving in: Sticking more cores into the server. - Change sov mechanics to entourage fleets to split up across multiple systems instead of piling people into a single system. Then the fight can be spread across multiple nodes.
Note that I said obvious, not easy. Multithreading is going to be a lot of work, if it's even possible. I've got no idea where to start with changing sov mechanics. |
Daedra Blue
Shadow Legion X Li3 Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Allus Nova wrote: [quote=Allus Nova]So CCP, what is the problem? What is the bottleneck?
- actions that players take cannot be randomly processed and spat out. They have to follow a clear line of progression based on who started what first. That means that even with multi-threading you cannot process and execute an action further down the que until the ones before have been executed. So if one action is taking longer than the others to process and execute, the rest of the actions behind it have to wait. That is where the "bottleneck" is.
Wrong.
There is such a thing like dynamically synced threads, whereby you create one thread per player, that can be processed in parallel and if players interact it's only then that they start waiting for each other as the threads inter-twine. Even then each thread is capable of consuming one core that means that 100 players CAN consume 100 cores thus paralleling the workload. Unlike now where all 100 players are stuck on 1 single core while the rest of the cores sit idle, mostly disabled to allow for that 1 single core to be overclocked to hell and back. |
princess minervia
Iron Sun Explorations
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:
Wrong.
There is such a thing like dynamically synced threads, whereby you create one thread per player, that can be processed in parallel and if players interact it's only then that they start waiting for each other as the threads inter-twine. Even then each thread is capable of consuming one core that means that 100 players CAN consume 100 cores thus paralleling the workload. Unlike now where all 100 players are stuck on 1 single core while the rest of the cores sit idle, mostly disabled to allow for that 1 single core to be overclocked to hell and back.
There is no possible way CCP could afford a 1 core per player approach. Think about it for a minute - I don't even think they could afford a 1 THREAD per player approach. You log on and see 40,000 players. An IBM Watson is a cluster of 90 servers, each running 4 x 8-core 3.5Ghz CPUs with 4 Threads per core - total is 2,880 cores and 11,520 threads which costs about $3 Million. CCP would need 4 of these ($12 Million + support) to support 40K players @ 1 dedicated thread each.
That said, it is not unreasonable to expect a company with $66M in annual revenue to spit out $3M for one of these, and move the core database processing into the 16 TB of RAM that this monster has.
You are correct though that none of this helps if their base code is not set up for parallel processing.
|
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
35
|
Posted - 2014.02.12 14:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
I believe EVE is in the state that SOE's engineers have called the overbloated EverQuest Code.
The legacy code, which would have to be completely re-written to allow certain changes to itself be processed and no amount of adding new stuff is going to fix that. |
Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1054
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 00:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sylphy wrote:I believe EVE is in the state that SOE's engineers have called the overbloated EverQuest Code.
The legacy code, which would have to be completely re-written to allow certain changes to itself be processed and no amount of adding new stuff is going to fix that. and they wont touch it til we threaten to sacrifice a couple to the icelandic volcano god
but in all seriousness, i want to see a complete rewrite of alot of things in EVE, code, POS, corp, SOV, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |