Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 12:36:00 -
[31]
The question of sharding Eve cannot be looked at only by the "technical" point of view.
What makes Eve a Big game, is, most of all, it's history, it's community (one can say its inhabitants), and it's politics.... all of this has been brought to the the level we know by the "One-shard" technical infrastructure
Yes, you're certainly right, from a technical point of view it may be more reasonable to have multiple shards for smoothing things a little, but ... then you'll lose all the essence of Eve, all of it soul and transform it from it's Virtual universe status to just another MMORPG
Asking to shard Eve for technical reason is exactly the same question as asking to cut a country, or a city in parts because there is traffic jam everyday in the morning ... That's not an option.
|
|
CCP Atropos
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 16:28:00 -
[32]
EVE is and always will be one 'shard'. That shard is made up from many servers each running the separate systems. So depending on your definition it's either sharded already or not at all.
The layout of the server will not change, only the hardware it is running on will adapt over time to better cope with the load. We're constantly working on improving the scalability of the game, and whilst we're pushing the boundaries for a single server community, the game will always remain as a single server.
|
|
Ming Zhan
Alt Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 17:25:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Mishi Khan Also...CCP will not or cannot make changes to their use of Python, which is a dynamic coding system for sake of ease and speedānot quite ability or power. While a powerful and versatile language, it has MANY problems due to it being a "dynamic" code. Seems CCP opted for Python because its easier for their coders (during initial coding, but the dynamic typing kills you on capability, leaks and trying to solve issues after being launched), AND...it is free...which seems to fit right into CCP's price point.
A++++++ troll, will take the bait again. For the non-programmers: OP is wrong just subtly enough to sound plausible. Python has very specific, glaring flaws. He missed them by a mile, of course.
Quote:
Also, these developers, while making a wonderful game, can still be considered to be "amateurs" at what they do, meaning, they are more "gamers" then "coders", etc. Again...we see the lacking of funds to be able to move to the next level of qualified and experienced personnel needed, along with the hardware and software changes.
Score! Judging by the kind of ****ups CCP continually makes, they *are* employing 50k/year programmers. Can you even hire decent burger flippers at that price in an expensive place like Iceland?
|
Sevarus James
Minmatar Meridian Dynamics FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 20:06:00 -
[34]
Another way to look at it:
By keeping EVE "one world" i.e. no multiple instances, CCP has created a social experiment in a milieu that only 2nd life has attempted to tackle.
You do NOT understand the intricate complexities of EVE's markets, politics, or the interdependencies between 0.0 and empire. You shard this environment, ALL of these unique and amazing qualities die.
Ubuntu 3d Beryl-Linux Desktop+EVE |
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:45:00 -
[35]
Originally by: CCP Atropos EVE is and always will be one 'shard'. That shard is made up from many servers each running the separate systems. So depending on your definition it's either sharded already or not at all.
The layout of the server will not change, only the hardware it is running on will adapt over time to better cope with the load. We're constantly working on improving the scalability of the game, and whilst we're pushing the boundaries for a single server community, the game will always remain as a single server.
<3 Reikoku Diplomatic Forums |
mucklavee
Minmatar Coruscant
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 03:19:00 -
[36]
nothing to do with topic i just wanted to say HI SEVARUS JAMES.
now for topic Jesus said if ccp shards eve he will kill all the kittens on the planet, he told me so
|
Maltar
Gallente KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 11:58:00 -
[37]
So....
What strikes me besides from the discussion about sharding. That you keep calling everybody imcompatant nerds. While CCP has some of the most talented and devoted people on the eve project. Just the sheer ammount of new releases (expensions) and the fact that they rewritten the graphics engine speaks for itself. While wow with it's how many million subscribers still have the same engine and only 1 real expension.
I think the word nerd is verry broad applicable, and does not apply to IT people that only do there job properly.
|
Maximillian Power
Minmatar The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 08:22:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Maximillian Power on 17/09/2007 08:22:05 Eve is sharded - just not in the traditional sense.
Architecturally, different systems/regions/stations etc can exist on separate nodes.
The fact is 500 - 1000 players on a regular basis choose to play on a single shard at a time (jita).
Sharding in the traditional sense will not stop this from happening.
Good day sir.
edit: missing comma |
cardGames
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 09:21:00 -
[39]
Edited by: cardGames on 17/09/2007 09:26:52 What people need to understand (atleast with jita concerned) is that the server running jita isnt overloaded or atleast shouldnt be... the issue is the ammount of connections to that server. The ammount of bandwith the servers need just isnt possible to get yet.. their to many people using that same amount of bandwith and it gets backed up... thus logging in takes 25mins at prime time...
|
Maximillian Power
Minmatar The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 09:55:00 -
[40]
Originally by: cardGames Edited by: cardGames on 17/09/2007 09:26:52 What people need to understand (atleast with jita concerned) is that the server running jita isnt overloaded or atleast shouldnt be... the issue is the ammount of connections to that server. The ammount of bandwith the servers need just isnt possible to get yet.. their to many people using that same amount of bandwith and it gets backed up... thus logging in takes 25mins at prime time...
If that were the case every other system and region would also be lagging at prime time which blatantly is not true.
|
|
Breal D'nie
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 16:25:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Breal D''nie on 17/09/2007 16:36:14 Edited by: Breal D''nie on 17/09/2007 16:26:30 IMO, regardless if EVE should be, will be, won't be, or whatever, single/multiple shards, it would be nearly impossible to impliment successfully. Either you arbitrarily move ppl, and effectivly split the player base, there by destroying wars, alliances, established systems, and possibly even corps. Or you make it so its voluntary to move. meaning that the more independent corps and players would head over to EVE2, such as miners and mission corps. Now, over time perhaps it would even out, but so many ppl log on to fight their war, or defend their systems that until those wars end or the aggressors go away, they aren't going anywhere. so then what happens to the market?
Sharding at this point in EVE's life would be detrimental to everything. players would be choked that everything costs more now on EVE1 and that mineral prices and mission loot prices suck on EVE2. The general EVE public would then turn on CCP saying that they ruined the game and that it was the worst decision ever. People would stop playing, and OP is right, that would solve the lag issue...
|
Jita TradeAlt
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 16:46:00 -
[42]
just make a us and a eu shard already. you've proven again and again that you cannot support even a single digit percentage of the online player base in the same system at all. Not only that, but players closer to london get less destroyed in those lag fests simply because of better latency. Either split the servers or do something radical to the way you handle heavy loads such as fleet battles, because having nodes crash whenever trying to engage a respectable sized fleet is a bit of a joke.
Anything above 100v100 is unplayable and these days I regularly see 400v400. Potentially anyway. Most crash out before actually engaging.
|
Tonto Auri
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 19:00:00 -
[43]
From time to time, here and there I see many options to reduce client-server network traffic and reduce traffic spikes.
For example, whenever You warp to gate, Your client lags. When that gate is camped, client lags much more. When there's fight already, or gate is "smartcamped" by carrier/mothership. But solution is way simple: start sending data when client leaves actual grid and enter warp. Lag spike at that time means absolutely nothing, and even if You expect 20-sec lag from that data packet, You are still in warp and it is not affecting Your life.
Why it is not implemented? Dunno. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig> |
cardGames
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 20:19:00 -
[44]
Quote:
If that were the case every other system and region would also be lagging at prime time which blatantly is not true.
no, no thats not true at all jita has a huge central population... 1000 poeople in 1 system on just a few servers... Most of the time in 0.0 unless people are fighting theirs not anywhere near that many all in 1 spot all at the same time
|
solbright altaltaltalt
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 21:17:00 -
[45]
Originally by: cardGames
Originally by: Maximillian Power
If that were the case every other system and region would also be lagging at prime time which blatantly is not true.
no, no thats not true at all jita has a huge central population... 1000 poeople in 1 system on just a few servers... Most of the time in 0.0 unless people are fighting theirs not anywhere near that many all in 1 spot all at the same time
So, you're saying that the LAN bandwidth at the Jita node is the bottleneck? Lol, I don't think so!
|
Xilimyth Derlin
Gallente OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 21:52:00 -
[46]
EVE as a whole doesn't have problems from a single 'shard' except for server maintenance and 'emergency reboots'. Otherwise it stays up most of the time and runs rather well.
If you're complaining about Jita, or when 300 v 300 fleet battles erupt in a single system... that's a different story, and you can be sure the developer staff is researching it. (I'm blaming collision code made super complicated by drones ^^)
|
Maximillian Power
Minmatar The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 07:02:00 -
[47]
Originally by: cardGames
Quote:
If that were the case every other system and region would also be lagging at prime time which blatantly is not true.
no, no thats not true at all jita has a huge central population... 1000 poeople in 1 system on just a few servers... Most of the time in 0.0 unless people are fighting theirs not anywhere near that many all in 1 spot all at the same time
I'm sorry - but you are making huge assumptions here that are completely unfounded.
Your statement was that there is not enough bandwidth available anywhere to support 1000 people connected to a single server over the internet. I'm sorry. That is patently not true. The amount of data that eve sends back and forth is a pittance.
Eve is just as playable over dial up as it is over broadband. It just doesn't use much bandwidth.
It is far more likely, as a previous poster suggested, that collision detection code is probably a major contributor to the issue. Basically everything that moves in space in a single system has to look at its surroundings to see if it is touching anything. The more objects that are in space, the more live threads there are running on that node checking all the surrounding objects to see if there is a collision with one of the surrounding objects. I've no idea if this _is_ the cause, but its actually plausible, unlike your explanation which is, to be quite honest, ridiculous.
To get to the point - If the issue is collision detection code, then the issue will still exist if the server is "sharded" in the traditional sense. Lots of people on here assume that sharding will help, but they do so without the intimate knowledge of the architecture of the system to determine if that is really going to help the situation. I don't have the intimate knowledge to know if it will help or not, but I know enough, from observation, to be able to know that it is unlikely that "sharding" will resolve any of the issues that you see on a daily basis.
Moving to multiple servers per node, i.e. a cluster under a node rather than a cluster of nodes, might help, and I believe that this is something that is being looked at (again from previous posts) -------------------------------- So.... |
Oche Firestar
FireStar Inc FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 15:11:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Sevarus James Another way to look at it:
By keeping EVE "one world" i.e. no multiple instances, CCP has created a social experiment in a milieu that only 2nd life has attempted to tackle.
You do NOT understand the intricate complexities of EVE's markets, politics, or the interdependencies between 0.0 and empire. You shard this environment, ALL of these unique and amazing qualities die.
This is perhaps the most unique thing about EVE. That is that 1 person MAY be able to change the universe and affect everyone else (for good or bad). Other MMORPs do not have that feeling about them and for me that is why I stay with EVE. Breaking it down to smaller populations via sharding would, as has been mentioned in other posts, destroy that which makes EVE what it is. This is not to say that EVE does not have problems but considering the history of other companies versus CCP they still are ahead of the pack with what they do and how they handle things.
|
the'internet is'for'porn
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 18:40:00 -
[49]
Okay first, these programmers have been working far too long AND have educations to be called amatures.
this is simply name-calling and will NOT gain you any love from CCP.
Second, new technology comming from a partnership between Intel and Microsoft will shortly render this moot as clustering will be handled abstractly.
If you need more power for a system, the underlying OS will simply assign more computers on the cluster.
Need more processing ina single grid? Same deal.
Additionally.. CCP said no. and they also said no way. Oh CCP also said "Never".
Do you REALLY want CCP to take apart the current cluster to make more than one? Seriously, it's not that there are 30k people on, that does not cause lag, it's the 200 people in one system that causes severe lag.
Frankly with more than one shard you will STILL see large bunches of people clustering in single systems and causing lag.
Problem duplicated rather than solved.
Frankly I for one would prefer CCP spend time and resources improving the current cluster's performance via new clustering tech, Managing traffic (changing jumps so that 300 people don't pass through one "highway" system every hour and by moving around agents so that all the caldari lvl 4's are not within spitting distance of each other (As an example).
All of the above preferred solutions are indeed on the drawing board.
|
solbright altaltaltalt
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 21:46:00 -
[50]
Originally by: the'internet is'for'**** If you need more power for a system, the underlying OS will simply assign more computers on the cluster.
Need more processing ina single grid? Same deal.
A strongly suspect a single node is also a single OS thread. The internal multitasking of a node is reliant on cooperative task switching. Splitting that across multiple processors will, at best, do very little to help due to the synchronous nature of the codebase and, more likely, completely fall over due to lack of synchronising locks.
CCP aren't kidding when they say the hurdle is a biggie.
|
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 01:41:00 -
[51]
Agreed, the multithreading is a big challenge but I have a feeling that it eventually can be improved. There's a processor I read about which has x physical cores, but appears as one and transparently splits single processes between them at a hardware level. Plus the code can be improved and calculations shuffled off to other processes (and thus other processors) or even other machines via infiniband. I think in the future it'll be possible for them to dynamically resize systems to use multiple processors and nodes based on the load demands placed on it.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |