| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Lord WarATron
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:00:00 -
[181]
 Originally by: Nomore Telindus
Originally by: Stein Voorhees
What you are looking at is a fundamental limitation of Blade servers. Despite all of the good things about them, they are limited to a fixed amount of CPU and a fixed amount of memory. This means they have a finite amount of processing power. Put in a massive fleet fight and you will overwhelm the blade.
Modern servers these days can have a hige number of Logical servers within them. To all intents and purposes, these are individual servers held within one (or more) physical boxes. Resources can then be dynamicaly switched between them. For example, all servers are running with 0.1 of a CPU and 500mb of RAM. When the system detects these resources are not enough on a particular server it can automaticaly direct spare capacity to the server that needs it. This allows systems to dynamicaly react to demand at an OS level allowing a very versatile and reactive overall system.
If CCP ever want to look at it then drop me a line  .
Please keep in mind, that EVE uses stackless python and it's green (micro) threads. These threads are all runs in one CPU (by design limitation), therefore a solarsystem cannot use more than one CPU.
And the real problem is: even the most advanced virtual server technology are unable to bound two CPU to one (from a python program's view), hence a virtual server is almost unusable to solve the CPU limitation problem.
To utilize the power of the multiple CPUs of today's computers, EVE needs a COMPLETE rewrite from SCRATCH. (I'm afraid this will never happen)
More info: An article about game programming in stackless python
True. Unless each server handles x numbers of players rather than x number of nodes, there will always be bottlenecks.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:04:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Scavok
Originally by: DubanFP
Originally by: Scavok
Edited by: Scavok on 27/06/2007 12:48:02
Edited by: Scavok on 27/06/2007 12:47:31
Battles in wwiiol are similar in complexity and scale. Their solution was the "64 limit" where people only received updates for 64 other players. Players were never invisible to each other, if you had someone loaded, they had you loaded. As CRS (devs of wwiiol) improved their hardware and code, they increased the player limit. There is obviously a downside to this, but I think it would be a better solution than hardcoding a player limit into the game.
That would NEVER work in eve. In fleets people are called primaries, now if you didn't know who had which people loaded then you would NEVER be able to keep the battle organized.
Yeah, it would be tough and tactics would need to change, but sometimes I think it would be better than what we have currently. Although it would have to be a lot higher than 64 as that would be a little nuts.
It seems that properly implemented this idea is made of win.
-
You keep using that word . . . I do not think it means what you think it means |
Frug
Zenithal Harvest
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:06:00 -
[183]
So limit it to hawt squad on squad action only?
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles |
Skynet91
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:34:00 -
[184]
got to love it how so many people in the thread thing ccp can click there fingers and fix the lag problem in 300 man fleet battles.....
|
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:37:00 -
[185]
Originally by: StarLite
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Bummer. I remember great fleet fights in FoE with 70+ per side, full turrets & effects, and even (shock horror), sound enabled.
Times change I suppose 
70 vs 70 is doable quite well in rev II, just as long the node isn't too stressed out already.
Yeah but is that with everything on the client switched off - stripped to bare essentials? Because the 70 vs 70's at the turn of Exodus were fine with everything on, sounds, turret fire, the works... 
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Bosjathfort
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:49:00 -
[186]
I guess:
It seems that EVE is programmed on a static system. For example I assume there is a server group which consists of 64 CPU cores for hosting the entire EVE universe, and the EVE universe is divided into 8 divisions. So I assume CCP assigns 8 CPU cores for each division at the beginning.
After every downtime, the EVE hosting server might produce a statistic sheet with the average amount of pilots per division during the passed 23 hours. Based on that statistic sheet, CCP will re-organize the process power ômanuallyö a bit, e.g. reduce 1 CPU from division1 and add it to division2 etc.
However, we (players) move almost all the time, jumping around from one system to another. When you gather up a fleet of 300 players and entering anther division which has 500 players already, the process power assigned to that division is obviously not enough to handle 800 players, therefore you have this ôlagö issue.
Currently, it seems that there is only one way to relocate the process power, and it requires to shutdown the server first (DT / node crash). CCP employees will have to relocate the process power manually, which is why I said EVE is programmed on a static system.
There are two possible solutions that I can imagine:
1: Re-program EVE base on a dynamic system, which means that the process power will be relocated automatically without reboot / shutdown the server up on needs.
2: We as customers will have to donate a lot of RL money to CCP, so they will be able to buy another 10000000 hamsters and cages. 
\\(^O^ )// o/ \o !!null |
Cpt Branko
Guardian Heroes
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:51:00 -
[187]
You guess and assume wrong ;)
|
Callthetruth
Caldari
Logical Logtistics
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:53:00 -
[188]
encourage ISK farmers to shift to the GTC system ( extra funds can be used and its legal)
***** down on ISK farmers running missions etc
ongoing technology CCP uses pretty quickly they are adding more hardware atm so its an ongoing process we can at least have 500 withiout a node crash ( 2 years ago 200 would have cuased it) so yes imrpovements are being made
|
O'Ran
BloodStorm Elite
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:54:00 -
[189]
you know
if CCP dont have a immediate fix or answer - they should still reply with things they are going to try and do. Honestly this isnt very good customer relations. They should atleast say SOMETHING on a fix - or how they are going to tackle it.
I bet alot of people feel they dont care....
which i know isnt the case.
-----
My views do not represent the views of my Corporation or Alliance.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 11:58:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Scavok
Originally by: DubanFP
Originally by: Scavok
Edited by: Scavok on 27/06/2007 12:48:02
Edited by: Scavok on 27/06/2007 12:47:31
Battles in wwiiol are similar in complexity and scale. Their solution was the "64 limit" where people only received updates for 64 other players. Players were never invisible to each other, if you had someone loaded, they had you loaded. As CRS (devs of wwiiol) improved their hardware and code, they increased the player limit. There is obviously a downside to this, but I think it would be a better solution than hardcoding a player limit into the game.
That would NEVER work in eve. In fleets people are called primaries, now if you didn't know who had which people loaded then you would NEVER be able to keep the battle organized.
Yeah, it would be tough and tactics would need to change, but sometimes I think it would be better than what we have currently. Although it would have to be a lot higher than 64 as that would be a little nuts.
It seems that properly implemented this idea is made of win.
You could vastly reduce the size of grids to achieve a similar effect, though this would have the character of nerfing snipers.
|
|
|
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:00:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Chelone
The person who said the problem was geometric is correct. If you have 100 people in system, 100 people need info on 100 people (more or less), and then 100*100 = 10000 info packets flying around. 1000 people in system, 1000*1000 = 1 million info packets flying around. Oversimplified, but illustrative of the problem.
The problems exists only if you choose such basic algorithms. 100 people don't need info on 100 other people, they only need info on the grid status and actually even more, they only need info of the change in the grid status.
The grid status is for all players there the same and you don't need different data for all different players.
I don't know the algo's which Eve are using but good ones would need MUCH less time than O(n^2), my guess would be something around O(n*log n) though I cannot prove this, it is just a guess.
Think about it, there has to be information about all other people available to you:
- if you have effects on, you need to see them shield boosting etc.
- if you have effects off, you still need to see stuff like them deploying drones, turning around, emitting smoke due to hull damage etc.
This can't be solved properly if the above functionality is kept as it is now. Perhaps there should be a "fleet" display mode where all graphics are off except those little icons and boxes on the screen (and perhaps just the ship hulls, no drones) and the server should not need to send so much data around.
this is a free post provided to you by a member of the EVE community.
|
Cpt Branko
Guardian Heroes
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:01:00 -
[192]
Originally by: O'Ran
They should atleast say SOMETHING on a fix - or how they are going to tackle it.
When you're asked to do stuff that you don't exactly know how to do, because you can't find it in a textbook, and it was never done before on that scale, you then, erm, don't know how you're going to tackle it. Because, if you knew how exactly to tackle it, it would've been easy.
"We're drinking beer and trying to figure out a solution" would be completely fine for me.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:04:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: O'Ran
They should atleast say SOMETHING on a fix - or how they are going to tackle it.
When you're asked to do stuff that you don't exactly know how to do, because you can't find it in a textbook, and it was never done before on that scale, you then, erm, don't know how you're going to tackle it. Because, if you knew how exactly to tackle it, it would've been easy.
"We're drinking beer and trying to figure out a solution" would be completely fine for me.
Open Source Client. Use Multiplicity and declare an open source client program where we get a version we can only use with Multiplicity to tool around with. I for one am extremely curious to rip apart some of that code since I want to know how right or wrong I am about where a lot of client side lag comes from.
|
Theladder
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:10:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Theladder on 28/06/2007 12:10:37
...
|
Bosjathfort
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:16:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
You guess and assume wrong ;)
Wanna share yours :D? Kinda interested in eve's architecture
\\(^O^ )// o/ \o !!null |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Guardians of the Dawn
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:21:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Nomore Telindus
Originally by: Stein Voorhees
What you are looking at is a fundamental limitation of Blade servers. Despite all of the good things about them, they are limited to a fixed amount of CPU and a fixed amount of memory. This means they have a finite amount of processing power. Put in a massive fleet fight and you will overwhelm the blade.
Modern servers these days can have a hige number of Logical servers within them. To all intents and purposes, these are individual servers held within one (or more) physical boxes. Resources can then be dynamicaly switched between them. For example, all servers are running with 0.1 of a CPU and 500mb of RAM. When the system detects these resources are not enough on a particular server it can automaticaly direct spare capacity to the server that needs it. This allows systems to dynamicaly react to demand at an OS level allowing a very versatile and reactive overall system.
If CCP ever want to look at it then drop me a line .
Please keep in mind, that EVE uses stackless python and it's green (micro) threads. These threads are all runs in one CPU (by design limitation), therefore a solarsystem cannot use more than one CPU.
And the real problem is: even the most advanced virtual server technology are unable to bound two CPU to one (from a python program's view), hence a virtual server is almost unusable to solve the CPU limitation problem.
To utilize the power of the multiple CPUs of today's computers, EVE needs a COMPLETE rewrite from SCRATCH. (I'm afraid this will never happen)
More info: An article about game programming in stackless python
aahhh python!! ahhhh Me runs in circles screaming (experience of developing an MMO server with python caused some psicological damage)
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Guardians of the Dawn
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:24:00 -
[197]
Well problem coudl be aleviated with a game feature.
Make that ships sensors can only load up one target per second. So the server tries only to send one ship each time to every one. Then it will be easier to escalate and distribute the load among all players equaly. That on the "load" target .. because the feel is that the lag happens moslty when loadign something "new to overview."
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
The Proff
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:36:00 -
[198]
CCP claim they want to make this the best game they can
Yet they are spending 7 million dollars on marketing to get MORE !!! subscribers. They want to reach 300k subscribers by the end of the year ..... things are going to get ALOT worse
If eve ever wants to evolve, the client needs a recode, its old and its just not performing. A new client will mean they can get their 300k subscribers whilst keeping them all happy and lag free hopefully.
|
Gavin Darklighter
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 12:46:00 -
[199]
An extra 50-100k subscribers in empire shouldnt really add much to fleet warfare lag. I'd hate to be running missions with 200 or more other people in local though.
If they can hit 300k players then they will have that much more money to spend on overhauling the code or upgrading the cluster.
|
Eskalin
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 14:29:00 -
[200]
i'm a sad panda ccp wont answer it's customers and give us answers on what is being done to fix the broken fleet warfare.... i pay for fun and this isnt it the lack of a responce it just the cleveland steamer to top it off
If babies were not meant to be eaten then they wouldn't be hibachi sized.
|
|
|
Cornucopian
Gallente
Dutch Omega
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 14:50:00 -
[201]
Originally by: The Proff
CCP claim they want to make this the best game they can
Yet they are spending 7 million dollars on marketing to get MORE !!! subscribers. They want to reach 300k subscribers by the end of the year ..... things are going to get ALOT worse
If eve ever wants to evolve, the client needs a recode, its old and its just not performing. A new client will mean they can get their 300k subscribers whilst keeping them all happy and lag free hopefully.
Here's what went down when EVE TV was pitched to CCP by their contracted marketing firm, as an excellent proposition for a marketing avenue:
Marketing:
"I know, lets have some news show with HAWT CHIX!!!! YEAH!!! HAWT CHIXXX!!!!! that should get us into the 15 y/o demographic: I mean everyone knows that gamers are 15, at BEST. HAWT CHIXXXXX. Here's your business case for HAWT CHIX CCP, now give me my 100k consultancy fee, you morons!!"
CCP:
"uhm, can we charge them for it, so we get more PHAT LOOT? "
Marketing:
"SUUUREEE, everyone will buy the program, every week, for $1.50, to watch people talk about a game they know nothing about. you know why? because we got HAWWWWWWT CHIXXXXX !!! woohoo! "
CCP:
"okeydokey "
Markteing:
"OMFGSCAMNOOB, lol....uhm. ...ahem... thank you for taking this obviously valuable additive to your worldwide marketing scheme. Do give us a call when you want throw away, uhm, ahem, when you want another valuable plan. You take care of those HAAWWWT CHIXX y'hear?!"
CCP:
"Awesome! (yells over his shoulder) guys, enough already with coding the new client and getting the hardware working properly, we got a party tonight with our newest employees: TEH HAWWWT CHIXXX!!! "
Rest of the staff:
"OMFG WOMEN!!!!" 
<sigh> FFS..... REAL companies spend millions just to get to KNOW what their customers want from them.... yet CCP, who has boards filled with the most dedicated community clamoring for Less Lag, seems unable to even ANSWER them. 
Is there a raspberry for business policy? Can we nominate CCP?
I seriously love eve, and all it has to offer, which is why this reply is so d*mn negative: because it KILLS me that CCP is dropping the ball...down a very deep well.....with alligators at the bottom.
(starts weeping)
as Hunter kressel once said about mac: "mac KILLS my inner child"
as to the current issues I would say: "CCP KILLS my inner child, but the game is so damn good, my grown up self keeps on playing it."
you win CCP..... don't reply, be the corporation you always aspired to be and give us the finger. you've earned it 
-----------------------------------------------
"CCP can't reply to Lag issues; our offices are currently experienceing desynch/lag issues. we are working on the problem." |
Arrs Grazznic
FireStar Inc
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 14:51:00 -
[202]
Wrangler has posted here that this is a known issue and CCP are investigating it. Here is his short post:
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
I know we're aware of it, but please submit petitions on it so we can get as much info as possible. And as always, make sure you read Easy steps to bugreporting.
Cheers,
Arrs
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 14:53:00 -
[203]
Originally by: The Proff
CCP claim they want to make this the best game they can
Yet they are spending 7 million dollars on marketing to get MORE !!! subscribers. They want to reach 300k subscribers by the end of the year ..... things are going to get ALOT worse
If eve ever wants to evolve, the client needs a recode, its old and its just not performing. A new client will mean they can get their 300k subscribers whilst keeping them all happy and lag free hopefully.
Having much more money pouring in to throw at the servers wouldn't help?
And all the lag problems are caused by the client?
-
You keep using that word . . . I do not think it means what you think it means |
Cornucopian
Gallente
Dutch Omega
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 15:03:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Arrs Grazznic
Wrangler has posted here that this is a known issue and CCP are investigating it. Here is his short post:
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
I know we're aware of it, but please submit petitions on it so we can get as much info as possible. And as always, make sure you read Easy steps to bugreporting.
Cheers,
Arrs
Yes, very true.
I could give the same response after comitting a murder:
"Yes, I am aware of the current situation, please submit any information you have to me, so I can evaluate."
Such posts are a complete NON-argument, and are basically a stopgap to keep the community from whining about a very legitimate problem. which, I might add, is failing miserably.
-----------------------------------------------
"CCP can't reply to Lag issues; our offices are currently experienceing desynch/lag issues. we are working on the problem." |
Zenst
Gallente
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 17:24:00 -
[205]
Issue is that side A will form up and side B will form up and eventualy meet. Usualy when A and B are at critical mass.
Its like getting a overloaded nuclear reactor and another and putting them together.
What can be done to reduce this system blobbing and thats the issue.
CCP have come up with some anti blob features but they only address grid based blobs, which is ironic as to get those you by default have a sytem blob and THAT is the crux of it as they all run on the same node.
Once you get this type of blob any crig based blob actions of introduced anti-blob factors are limited.
Remote ecm bursts and bombs are great if your having a capital fun fest but atm `delays` make for the ability to use them to remote rep people unreliable as they suffer from the same module delays as you. This reduces response times to the stage that the remote repair is no use and all you show is another big target.
Now I've been in many large fleet fights and had horrendoucs lag and the classic ew whole BS>POD before I even saw anything, which logs show was no lag (not that logs show there wasn't lag -= but hey - lets not go there).
HOW can you address this, well its hard but here are a few idea's that will help - if you think them thru.
1) ability to tempry disable jump gates - would add tactical manovering.
2) increase your sig radius a small percentage for every person that locks you - there fore if 100 peopel want to shoot you the last person will have a long long lock time due to interferance from all the other locks (help reduce the alpha effect and prolong battles).
3) A force session change button - akin to a force resync/refresh of client with setrver without havibng to relog or having to dock or jump out of the system to get the same effect. This needs to be limeted though to avoid silly people spamming said button to lag the node (same types that go ew lets load up with lots of usless bookmarks in my hold).
4) double HP's of HULL on all ships - why not - also helps balance sheild regen balance a lickle.
5) have a ingame channel were FC's of respective fleets can ask a GM to come watch - we know before when battles kick of, or atleast very close to and this will help as somebody who is independant from both sides can cut thru the mustard, see the facts and avoid all this luck-spin blame pointing when its effecting BOTH sides.
All that said I can apprecieate that unlike myself there seems to be alot of new people getting involved in fleet battles or large scale that for them is there first T2 ship and for all effect there first big battle were they experience the `Jita` effect. I can understand how they feel as we have all been there. Just most of BOB have been there and done that and worn out the Tee-Shirt so we deal with it better.
Personaly I'd like the whole concept of smaller gangs thesedays as big fleet battles realy rarely lean to realtime and more akin to postal-chess :(.
Of course there is the case were the two FC's can go - well were goona lag - fancy a match-up between the two fleets and everybody will get a fair fight.
|
Nevada Tan
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 18:21:00 -
[206]
Originally by: MotherMoon
they allready said they know it's python
and they have said they are making trinity 2.0 for rev 3
meaning you'll have to download the game over again
becuase it won't be a patch
That is about the only thing which will fix this - a complete rewrite of the server & DB code into something more suitable to what EVE has become nowadays.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
I have done a bad thing. |
Garek
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 18:25:00 -
[207]
Hey,
first of all I have to agree with the actual problems of Eve. Combat Tactics are impossible to do if you are not able to move fast and do the things right. This is for every player in any alliance the same problem. I can tell you I have lost many ships due to lag, desynch and abuse of the game. I think I lost few in real combat.
Devs should be talking with other MMO organisations to try to make the best of it. I have played WoW, Planetside and other MMO's.
WOW cannot be compared to EVE as wow is instance based except for the large PVP battles infront of Ironforge and Orgrimar. When this happend on WoW the server lagged too, and battles where 300 against 300 so no worries.
I think Planetside would be a better source of information. There are battles than can run from 250 against 250 against 250 in the same grid without any lag or desync and guns firing from eveyside with all kind of aircav, tanks, infantry, cloacked etc etc.
Sharing information is good. Call SOE for some help; admitting you can't solve it on your own is not a defeat, doing nothing about it it your loss and ours too... Because I love this game. And for the rest you are doing fantastic work CCP
----------------------------------------------
Nothing... |
BCE 3AHRTO
Free Space Pilots aka Banderlogs
Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 22:20:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Garek
admitting you can't solve it on your own is not a defeat...
CCP? Admitting they have a problem? What's next, peace in the middle east? :)
But seriously, DESYNCH/lag is killing the game. I'm sticking to ratting until it's fixed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Robin Sherwood
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 10:08:00 -
[209]
Huge fleet battles? WTF?!!!
Last night we started experiencing severe lag in a 30-ish man gang, almost alone in the system (1-2 hostiles) doing NOTHING, besides travelling. After several minutes we logged off and in 5 minutes more started logging back in.
I spent probably half in hour in "Entering game ..." message. When I finally loggied in, there were initially no chat windows, no local, no overview. In few minutes local appeared, showing 7 pilots. In few more minutes overview appeared.
I was 15km from a gate, attempted to approach gate and jump. It took three minutes for the ship to react to the approach command. Still seven people in local.
Then I decided to dock (NPC station). It took three minutes to initiate warp. I warped to the station. It took eleven (OMG!!11eleven) minutes from tow-in message tо actualy docking.
Local was at five.
|
Nobues
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 10:14:00 -
[210]
god I remember a time were we had 900 people in local, there was lag, but wasnt enought to stop us from fighting it out, I think I made a few billion in loot along that day. But we are talking 2 or 3 years ago.. Try to pop 1/2 that money in local and you crash everything, I'm not talking about a node, I mean you crash eve all together.
I mean for real CCP do something other then remove somethings and add more powerful things in its place.
Stop looking at the how much is in the game and start looking at how much information is past, way to much of it, you cut 5% of the information sent to the client from the server and your cut 25% of the lag in eve.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |