Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lord Molly
mind games. Suddenly Spaceships.
333
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 10:32:23 -
[1] - Quote
This video documents some real bad tidi issues
If you look closely, you might also notice some glitching, such as smart bombs doing damage in warp.......
All of this is caused by server node overload when to many people are in one system activating too many mod.
To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok.
Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Have you ever been to a public event or a large pre-arranged scrap where tidi is down to 10%? where you fire a volley, then go and make dinner and come back to find you are still on the same cycle?
Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi.
My Youtube Chan
|
FarosWarrior
De Muuzevangers
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 10:39:43 -
[2] - Quote
Let's go back to the time when you had a big battle with 600 guys in local and the following would happen:
- Modules not even activating - You being desynced for an hour without you knowing - Warping on grid and waking up in a clone bay. An hour later...
And all the other crap that happened which are too numerous to write down. Ever heard the story about the battle in which 1 side jumped through a gate, and a 100-man fleet just woke up in clone bays because the other side had so many people on grid, that the jumping party couldn't even load grid?
TiDi was implemented for a reason, while I must admit I don't know the exact reason but I think it had something to do with giving the server more time to do what it has to do so all the bad stuff didn't happen. |
Top Guac
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
68
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 10:40:39 -
[3] - Quote
Aegis sov.
Has worked a lot for the most part. Tidi happens only occasionally now. Used to be weekly just 18 months ago.
Aegis Sov: less conflict, fewer fights, smaller fleets = no server load.
Back in the original devblog by Greyscale about fatigue, this was all predicted:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/long-distance-travel-changes-inbound/
CCP wanted to make the game boring. |
Lord Molly
mind games. Suddenly Spaceships.
333
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 10:46:45 -
[4] - Quote
It just seems like the threat of tidi puts people off doing anything large scale, especially if its short notice.
My Youtube Chan
Alliance Youtube Chan
|
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
28975
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 10:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug.
Depends on where that happens.
Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P
Alex Grison > If there was a bipartisan bill supporting cannabis use for arthritic pain, it would be Joint support for Joint support for joint support
|
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
2046
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 11:03:50 -
[6] - Quote
"Hilariously large fleets created to deter actual fighting cause crippling lag" and "tinfoil is just easier to use than realising you have spies amongst your ranks" |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1094
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 11:05:51 -
[7] - Quote
Lord Molly wrote:To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok.
Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Resources, even re-routed, are still finite.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6991
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 11:18:36 -
[8] - Quote
FarosWarrior wrote:Let's go back to the time when you had a big battle with 600 guys in local and the following would happen:
- Modules not even activating - You being desynced for an hour without you knowing - Warping on grid and waking up in a clone bay. An hour later...
And all the other crap that happened which are too numerous to write down. Ever heard the story about the battle in which 1 side jumped through a gate, and a 100-man fleet just woke up in clone bays because the other side had so many people on grid, that the jumping party couldn't even load grid?
TiDi was implemented for a reason, while I must admit I don't know the exact reason but I think it had something to do with giving the server more time to do what it has to do so all the bad stuff didn't happen. Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. I know it's legacy code and will be a large investment, but it's already a joke that their solar system servers have to run on a single core (because back in the day, CPU power grew primarily on clock speed whereas now it grows on additional cores), and it's only going to get funnier as time goes on.
Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2857
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 11:19:50 -
[9] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug.
Depends on where that happens.
Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P Smart bombs always do damage even if you are in warp still. That's a long standing feature of smart bombs. |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
7226
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 11:22:15 -
[10] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug.
Depends on where that happens.
Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P Smart bombs always do damage even if you are in warp still. That's a long standing feature of smart bombs.
Yeah, this. First hand experience here, been blown up ship AND pod by smartbombs while about to come out of warp on a gate. It's kinda fun .
EDIT: as a side note, also seen it done to others while in a smartbombing gatecamp but not smartbombing myself.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
|
Neuntausend
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
477
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 12:57:32 -
[11] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4rVC4ICQAAr65m.jpg
It's not that easy. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:06:49 -
[12] - Quote
BUWHAHAHAHAHAHA! "Just multithread it" Yeah. No. Id rather light myself on fire and let a thousand rabid chihuahuas feast upon my still living charred corpse.
TiDi is an efficient and much loved replacement to the old method.. The black screen of death. Once upon a time there was no controlled slowdown. You either got in and lagged like a dead monkey trying to play tennis or you got treated to the black screen of "go make dinner while your client crashes and you die".
I know I know.. saying TiDi is good even though it harvests your soul to sit in -10% TiDi seems weird... but trust me the alternative is far worse. |
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
29017
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:09:15 -
[13] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug.
Depends on where that happens.
Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P Smart bombs always do damage even if you are in warp still. That's a long standing feature of smart bombs. Yeah that was my thought as well. Where's Santo Trafficante anyway... ^_^
Alex Grison > If there was a bipartisan bill supporting cannabis use for arthritic pain, it would be Joint support for Joint support for joint support
|
Always Shi
t Posting
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:19:06 -
[14] - Quote
Lord Molly wrote:Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi.
- TiDi is a goddamn luxury compared to what came before it
- Smartbombs have always damaged ships in warp, it's just less noticeable at 100% speed
- The new TQ hardware coming in a couple of months time (plus the recent and ongoing software improvements like BitB) are all helping to make TiDi occur less often.
In summary, your post is bad and you should feel bad. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6993
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:40:05 -
[15] - Quote
Neuntausend wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4rVC4ICQAAr65m.jpg It's not that easy. I didn't say it was easy, but good developers don't give up because a task is difficult. Tidi isn't a real solution.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Kagura Nikon
Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump
2109
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:40:43 -
[16] - Quote
Lord Molly wrote:This video documents some real bad tidi issuesIf you look closely, you might also notice some glitching, such as smart bombs doing damage in warp....... All of this is caused by server node overload when to many people are in one system activating too many mod. To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok. Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Have you ever been to a public event or a large pre-arranged scrap where tidi is down to 10%? where you fire a volley, then go and make dinner and come back to find you are still on the same cycle? Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi.
TIDi cancer? spoiled kid. before Tidi when we jumped into a large fight what hapepned is that you would wait between 30 minutes to 2 hours with a black screen. then 30% of people woudl disconnect, other 33% would load grid and be unable to use any controls of the ship. Other 13% would be able to laod and press fire a ingle time per hour. The rest would wait another hour and try their luck again...
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
227
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:47:39 -
[17] - Quote
ah, ignorance is indeed a bliss.
never change, op, never change. o7
Just Add Water
|
Kagura Nikon
Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump
2110
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:49:38 -
[18] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Neuntausend wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4rVC4ICQAAr65m.jpg It's not that easy. I didn't say it was easy, but good developers don't give up because a task is difficult. Tidi isn't a real solution.
Introducing paralelism on a task whose bottleneck is I/O with the database and sincronization is not always the best thing to do. If you cannot change the model to remove data dependency you are not going to solve anything. Usually it is better to remodel the system. The thigns that are needed for an eve fleet battle are NOT huge and do nto justify even a single modern CPU being bottlenecked.
Physics simulation of particles is a classic example of problem that in theory is a prime candidate for paralelization, but when you do it you incur in the need of a more complex iteration model and syncronization mechanisms that downgrade the performance massively> The result is that you need then to use several CPU to match what you could earlier do with a single CPU. Of course, if you can just throw even more CPUS at the problem you have a gain, but the cost involved is high, therefore it is not always a good solution.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
|
Kagura Nikon
Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump
2110
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:52:14 -
[19] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code.
Sorry, I might be mistaken, but you sound as someone that has no clue what multithreading is. What do you think BIAB is? It IS ALREADY paralelization (external) of the most consuming task of the node.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6996
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:55:06 -
[20] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Introducing paralelism on a task whose bottleneck is I/O with the database and sincronization is not always the best thing to do. If you cannot change the model to remove data dependency you are not going to solve anything. Usually it is better to remodel the system. The thigns that are needed for an eve fleet battle are NOT huge and do nto justify even a single modern CPU being bottlenecked. But we already know that's not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is CPU. This is why when you fill in that form they use a reinforced server, which is one where most of the cores are shut off on the CPU and used as a heat spreader while the core in use is overclocked like crazy. A single modern CPU has multiple cores, all (or most) of which will be used by most CPU heavy game servers. EVE doesn't. A single core has to process all of the information coming in from the thousands of players in the system. Even on a modern CPU, that is too much.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6996
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 14:02:30 -
[21] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code. Sorry, I might be mistaken, but you sound as someone that has no clue what multithreading is. What do you think BIAB is? It IS ALREADY paralelization (external) of the most consuming task of the node. BIAB is taking a service and moving it outside of the solar system service, much like how chat or the market is unaffected by the tidi in a system. Effectively if you undocked or jumped into a system in tidi, the math to work out your stats used to get queued with other action in that system, but now it does not. While that helps, it doesn't fix the issue (and isn't actually multithreading, it's relocating a process) because every action taken in that system by players is still in a single queue relying on a single CPU to process them. A modern game server would have spread the bulk of those actions across multiple CPU cores so that multiple complex calculations could occur simultaneously.
This is why the new sov system takes you into multiple systems, because it spreads players across multiple nodes and thus across multiple CPUs. If they want to be able to run large battles without tidi however then the only real solution is to allow system actions to be spread across CPU cores, i.e. multithreading.
Ed: Oh, and yes, you are mistaken.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Kagura Nikon
Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump
2112
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 14:20:04 -
[22] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Introducing paralelism on a task whose bottleneck is I/O with the database and sincronization is not always the best thing to do. If you cannot change the model to remove data dependency you are not going to solve anything. Usually it is better to remodel the system. The things that are needed for an eve fleet battle are NOT huge and do nto justify even a single modern CPU being bottlenecked. But we already know that's not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is CPU. This is why when you fill in that form they use a reinforced server, which is one where most of the cores are shut off on the CPU and used as a heat spreader while the core in use is overclocked like crazy. A single modern CPU has multiple cores, all (or most) of which will be used by most CPU heavy game servers. EVE doesn't. A single core has to process all of the information coming in from the thousands of players in the system. Even on a modern CPU, that is too much.
Do not dare to think I do not know how a CPU work or a high parallelism system, #!#!@ I have a master degree on it (not an imaginary one, a real one from a good university). And All that do not means that a system is bottlonecked on a task with high parallelism potential.
Let me give you a simple example, sorting a list. You may do it in hunreds of ways, and in 99.99% of time the bottleneck will be CPU. If you are using quick sort (a.k.a. partition search) you have a very high paralelism potential and using several CPU will boost you. If you are doing a bubble sort ( I know very horrible example , but it is an extreme example) and to use even a second CPU you would need to add so much overhead of syncronization that your code would likely get slower.
So if their model, and I do not mean simply the data model but the information flow and data dependency model has bad paralelism qualities , then taking a huge effort to make that code tun in several cores might have a meaningless gain, and on some cases even reduce the performance.
Whenever a problem is defined by a context sensitive grammar, then trying to execute the problem in a paralel way will scale very badly. When that happens the solution is to change your problem in a context free one.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
|
Kagura Nikon
Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump
2112
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 14:25:15 -
[23] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code. Sorry, I might be mistaken, but you sound as someone that has no clue what multithreading is. What do you think BIAB is? It IS ALREADY paralelization (external) of the most consuming task of the node. BIAB is taking a service and moving it outside of the solar system service, much like how chat or the market is unaffected by the tidi in a system. Effectively if you undocked or jumped into a system in tidi, the math to work out your stats used to get queued with other action in that system, but now it does not. While that helps, it doesn't fix the issue (and isn't actually multithreading, it's relocating a process) because every action taken in that system by players is still in a single queue relying on a single CPU to process them. A modern game server would have spread the bulk of those actions across multiple CPU cores so that multiple complex calculations could occur simultaneously. This is why the new sov system takes you into multiple systems, because it spreads players across multiple nodes and thus across multiple CPUs. If they want to be able to run large battles without tidi however then the only real solution is to allow system actions to be spread across CPU cores, i.e. multithreading. Ed: Oh, and yes, you are mistaken.
No I am not, since in a few posts you have proven to be very limited in knowledge of parallel systems. Taking a process to outside of another process is the DEFINITION OF PARALELISM. Since the BIAB is running on a different machine and therefore in a different CPU, by DEFINITION it is running in a different thread since not a single architecture of computers that is used outside academics have a single thread run at same time on different CPUs.
The simple basics of operating systems for you.. a process can have one or more threads, 2 process will have at least 2 threads.. therefore.. multi thread. Now, since it is clearly established that you have no clue what multi threaded really means, maybe you should stop trying to say to CCP how to solve anything?
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
|
Lykouleon
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1676
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 14:51:42 -
[24] - Quote
Can't we just run the server in the cloud? Why don't we use the cloud more? Big Data. MapReduce. Buzzwords.
My work here is done. Someone go tell HR I'm taking the week off.
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Happy holidays
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6996
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 14:56:53 -
[25] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Do not dare to think I do not know how a CPU work or a high parallelism system, #!#!@ I have a master degree on it (not an imaginary one, a real one from a good university). And All that do not means that a system is bottlonecked on a task with high parallelism potential. Good for you? Though more important than a degree is working experience. Most of us that work as developers do, even new starters with very limited knowledge.
The thing is, we already know what the problem is here, as CCP have shared this in the past, and the fact that it would add overhead is irrelevant. Even if they were just offloading some of the math to other cores and still processing the actual events on a single CPU, that would be better than what they currently do which is wait more than 10 times as long to process the events.
Kagura Nikon wrote:So if their model, and I do not mean simply the data model but the information flow and data dependency model has bad paralelism qualities , then taking a huge effort to make that code tun in several cores might have a meaningless gain, and on some cases even reduce the performance. But we know what happens in MMORPG servers. There is wide ranging research into it, and even information given out by CCP. If they threaded the servers and reduced performance that would simply mean they wrote it wrong. I don't even think CCP would suggest that they wouldn't benefit, they simply aren't willing to dive that heavily into their legacy code.
Kagura Nikon wrote:No I am not, since in a few posts you have proven to be very limited in knowledge of parallel systems. Taking a process to outside of another process is the DEFINITION OF PARALELISM. Since the BIAB is running on a different machine and therefore in a different CPU, by DEFINITION it is running in a different thread since not a single architecture of computers that is used outside academics have a single thread run at same time on different CPUs. No, you really are. And I didn't say parallelism, you did. I said multithreading, which can be a form of parallelism but isn't the same thing. Kinda like how an apple is a fruit but fruit isn't just apples.
See, what you are talking about is how they took the old attribute code that existed within the solar system service and they added it to a new BIAB service which operates as a separate process on the server and thus can run on it's own core. That reduces the amount of work inside the solar system service. There's limited scope to do that however as a lot of what bottlenecks the solar system service can't be handed over to a separate service (at least not easily) as it requires granular control over how that service would operate and a lot of shared data.
Taking the actual solar system service however and allowing it to use threads to distribute its workload across multiple cores would allow it to do some of the calculations simultaneously with the main service thread only needing to worry about the events as a whole. Say for example 10 people fire lasers at a target, each of those damage calculations could be done together on different cores and the service thread would take the results of those and apply them to the target.
Kagura Nikon wrote:The simple basics of operating systems for you.. a process can have one or more threads, 2 process will have at least 2 threads.. therefore.. multi thread. Now, since it is clearly established that you have no clue what multi threaded really means, maybe you should stop trying to say to CCP how to solve anything? So if I open a copy of notepad, then I open another copy of notepad, have I multithreaded my notepad? The answer is no, those are two separate processes. Did you actually pay attention when you got that degree?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
29037
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 14:59:52 -
[26] - Quote
lol
Alex Grison > If there was a bipartisan bill supporting cannabis use for arthritic pain, it would be Joint support for Joint support for joint support
|
Harrison Tato
Yamato Holdings
492
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 15:16:20 -
[27] - Quote
*nerd rage intensifies. |
Kagura Nikon
Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump
2114
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 15:28:12 -
[28] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: lots of ignorance...
A multi process system is by definition multi threaded. If you run a task in a different machine, you are running it in a different process, therefore a different thread. More than one thread is multi thread. You can have one or more threads within a proccess but you cannot have a process that is not a thread since a process by definition shares its data with itself. Since the addressing model used in x86 and MAD 64 architectures do not allow for sharing of address space, when you run something in another computer you are running in another process. If you have another process you have another thread.
So bad that your work experience has thought you nothing . At least 1+1 > 1(one thread + other thread means multi) should be the very least to expect.
Just to be clear, I do not even care with what you think, ignorance and stupidity are things not worth to fight against, but other people read these forums and they should not learn wrong things by people like you.
That is why kids you should all go to school, to not end up like this guy.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7019
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 15:48:45 -
[29] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:A multi process system is by definition multi threaded. If you run a task in a different machine, you are running it in a different process, therefore a different thread. More than one thread is multi thread. Are you aware that one process can have multiple threads, and that parallelism by multi-threading a single process and parallelism by creating multiple processes are not the same thing? Running a single-threaded process twice or running two single-threaded processes that communicate with each other does not make the processes multi-threaded. The bulk of the work of the solar system process cannot be split into multiple processes, and so the only way to increase throughput without increasing the speed of a single CPU core is by multi-threading the single process and distributing the load across multiple cores.
Kagura Nikon wrote:You can have one or more threads within a proccess but you cannot have a process that is not a thread since a process by definition shares its data with itself. Since the addressing model used in x86 and MAD 64 architectures do not allow for sharing of address space, when you run something in another computer you are running in another process. If you have another process you have another thread. See, here you seem to be confused. At no point did I claim you could have a 0 thread process, and you're going on about shared address space and multiple computers as if that's part of the conversation. It's not. I get the feeling that you think the solar system service uses all of the cores of a single CPU and that we're talking about distributing the workload onto another machine. We are not, we are talking about how the solar system services uses one of many cores on a single CPU, and how by utilising more cores the single process could get more work done in less time even with the overhead.
What I find amazing here is that you have the audacity to insult me as if I'm the one that is confusing the terminology. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the posts. You seem to have no understanding of why "parallelism" and "multi-threading" are not directly interchangeable. I call bullshit on you having a degree if you can't even work that out. Screenshot or it never happened.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
7228
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 15:54:37 -
[30] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: lots of ignorance... A multi process system is by definition multi threaded. If you run a task in a different machine, you are running it in a different process, therefore a different thread. More than one thread is multi thread. You can have one or more threads within a proccess but you cannot have a process that is not a thread since a process by definition shares its data with itself. Since the addressing model used in x86 and MAD 64 architectures do not allow for sharing of address space, when you run something in another computer you are running in another process. If you have another process you have another thread. So bad that your work experience has thought you nothing . At least 1+1 > 1(one thread + other thread means multi) should be the very least to expect. Just to be clear, I do not even care with what you think, ignorance and stupidity are things not worth to fight against, but other people read these forums and they should not learn wrong things by people like you. To the people learning computer science out there, the difference in in sharing or separation of data, a process is in a separate address space from other process, while a thread might be on same address space of other thread. A process can have one or more threads, when you have 2 process executing a task you therefore have at least 2 threads executing the task, but you can have more, but at least 2 of those do not share the same address space. When you are trying to solve a problem where the concurrency is over completely independent set of data, there is no need to keep the threads on the same address space. Those cases are usually the best candidates to be offload to a completely different machine. That is why kids you should all go to school, to not end up like this guy.
Don't worry, no one that's actually capable of understanding computer science is taking Lucas seriously on anything ever anyway. He's a nobody. Hide his posts, pretend he doesn't exist, and the world will become immensely better for you, I promise.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |