These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

64bit EVE

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rats
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-06-26 19:01:50 UTC
CCP Konflikt wrote:
This is what TQ looks like from the inside.


OMG its the inspiration for Captains Quarters , door at the end goes nowhere ....

Tal

I Fought the Law, and the Law Won... Talon Silverhawk
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#62 - 2012-06-26 19:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
CCP Explorer wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Would it make a large difference? Is it worth doing? Hard to implement?
Really the only reason to create a 64 bit client would be to get access to more memory. But since we would need to maintain a 32 bit client anyway (we still have a lot of Windows XP users and will have for quite some time) then we need to keep the overall memory footprint in line with what a 32 bit client is capable of.

The server is already 64 bit and has been since 2008 (see this dev blog) for exactly this reason. Each blade in TQ has 32 GB of memory and runs 4 nodes, so on average each node has access to 8 GB of memory. At startup then each node uses approx. 700 MB of memory. Nodes with little traffic end up using about 950 MB, most common is 2-3 GB, and then there is normally a handful of nodes that use more than 6 GB (Jita on a busy day, nodes that host WH constellations, nodes where large fleet fights occur).

Since the server is already 64 bit then all code, except the rendering and audio engines and related middleware, is already 64 bit capable. To date then we don't have 64 bit versions of all the needed middleware and we haven't really dug into what it would take to make the rendering engine 64 bit.



When people figure out that a 64 bit client will load a grid or change session faster than the people waiting for them in the bubble camp, you won't need an x32 client any more.

I have an old x32 WinXP system running a single core CPU with 1GB RAM and a x64 Win7 8 core system with 4GB RAM and there IS a difference.

(aside from the graphics from the latter .... "my God, it's full of stars.....")

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Mons Pubis Giganticus
Doomheim
#63 - 2012-06-26 19:21:08 UTC
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Mons Pubis Giganticus wrote:
64 bits is like 8 dollars in the 1800's


3 pages to think something up and that's what you brought to the table?

i necro'd 3 pages worth of threads to get all the locked threads into a single block. and the best YOU could do was this?

fail troll is fail
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#64 - 2012-06-26 19:23:52 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Would it make a large difference? Is it worth doing? Hard to implement?
Really the only reason to create a 64 bit client would be to get access to more memory. But since we would need to maintain a 32 bit client anyway (we still have a lot of Windows XP users and will have for quite some time) then we need to keep the overall memory footprint in line with what a 32 bit client is capable of.

The server is already 64 bit and has been since 2008 (see this dev blog) for exactly this reason. Each blade in TQ has 32 GB of memory and runs 4 nodes, so on average each node has access to 8 GB of memory. At startup then each node uses approx. 700 MB of memory. Nodes with little traffic end up using about 950 MB, most common is 2-3 GB, and then there is normally a handful of nodes that use more than 6 GB (Jita on a busy day, nodes that host WH constellations, nodes where large fleet fights occur).

Since the server is already 64 bit then all code, except the rendering and audio engines and related middleware, is already 64 bit capable. To date then we don't have 64 bit versions of all the needed middleware and we haven't really dug into what it would take to make the rendering engine 64 bit.



When people figure out that a 64 bit client will load a grid or change session faster than the people waiting for them in the bubble camp, you won't need an x32 client any more.

I have an old x32 WinXP system running a single core CPU with 1GB RAM and a x64 Win7 8 core system with 4GB RAM and there IS a difference.

(aside from the graphics from the latter .... "my God, it's full of stars.....")



So then the question becomes, if CCP made a client that used more memory, would it then load grids/sessions faster?
Kieron VonDeux
#65 - 2012-06-26 19:51:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kieron VonDeux
Just going from a 32bit to a 64bit coordinate system should increase the free navigation on the order of 4.3bil times in each direction; plus and minus. That could encompas all of the current Eve Universe, depending on the scale used.

Just partition that out and have system demarcation grids to autoload the system you are closest too and allow freewarp between systems without using stargates.

Of course, it would take a BS 6 hours per light year to get anywhere. Blink
An hour and a half per light year for non-rigged Cov Ops.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#66 - 2012-06-26 20:08:52 UTC
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
Just going from a 32bit to a 64bit coordinate system should increase the free navigation on the order of 4.3bil times in each direction; plus and minus. That could encompas all of the current Eve Universe, depending on the scale used.

Just partition that out and have system demarcation grids to autoload the system you are closest too and allow freewarp between systems without using stargates.

Of course, it would take a BS 6 hours per light year to get anywhere. Blink
An hour and a half per light year for non-rigged Cov Ops.
The coordinate system in EVE is 64 bit and so are item IDs in the database, and so on and so forth. Being 32 bit only restricts the memory that the client has access to.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#67 - 2012-06-26 20:26:34 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Would it make a large difference? Is it worth doing? Hard to implement?
Really the only reason to create a 64 bit client would be to get access to more memory. But since we would need to maintain a 32 bit client anyway (we still have a lot of Windows XP users and will have for quite some time) then we need to keep the overall memory footprint in line with what a 32 bit client is capable of.

The server is already 64 bit and has been since 2008 (see this dev blog) for exactly this reason. Each blade in TQ has 32 GB of memory and runs 4 nodes, so on average each node has access to 8 GB of memory. At startup then each node uses approx. 700 MB of memory. Nodes with little traffic end up using about 950 MB, most common is 2-3 GB, and then there is normally a handful of nodes that use more than 6 GB (Jita on a busy day, nodes that host WH constellations, nodes where large fleet fights occur).

Since the server is already 64 bit then all code, except the rendering and audio engines and related middleware, is already 64 bit capable. To date then we don't have 64 bit versions of all the needed middleware and we haven't really dug into what it would take to make the rendering engine 64 bit.
When people figure out that a 64 bit client will load a grid or change session faster than the people waiting for them in the bubble camp, you won't need an x32 client any more.

I have an old x32 WinXP system running a single core CPU with 1GB RAM and a x64 Win7 8 core system with 4GB RAM and there IS a difference.
That has nothing to do with 32 bit vs. 64 bit but has everything to do with single core vs. multi core. And also 1 GB of RAM vs. 8 GB, but 8 GB allows the operating system to cache much more aggressively. Also, I daresay that there are very different graphics cards in these two machines?

Let's start with the number of cores: Even just a dual core makes a tremendous difference. That way EVE can be running on one core but the operating system can do network and hard disk IO on the other, in addition to running other programs (such as your browser, media player, antivirus, ...). You don't get a lot in addition with 8 cores unless you are running a lot of programs.

More RAM: More RAM is better since that allows the operating system to cache more of the file system. As soon as you have started one client then starting the second client will be a lot faster since the file IO actually doesn't hit the disk.

SSD: This is the best thing you can do for your computer. I have a three-year old laptop that I recently upgraded by replacing the spindle disk with an SSD (and upgraded from 2 GB to 8 GB RAM). It's a "new" machine.

Graphics card: This is the next-best thing you can do for your computer (if you play games). But do note that you want to buy from the high-end of a line of cards; if you need to buy something less expensive then you might be better off buying the high-end card from from the next line below what you really wanted.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
Kieron VonDeux
#68 - 2012-06-26 20:56:58 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
Just going from a 32bit to a 64bit coordinate system should increase the free navigation on the order of 4.3bil times in each direction; plus and minus. That could encompas all of the current Eve Universe, depending on the scale used.

Just partition that out and have system demarcation grids to autoload the system you are closest too and allow freewarp between systems without using stargates.

Of course, it would take a BS 6 hours per light year to get anywhere. Blink
An hour and a half per light year for non-rigged Cov Ops.
The coordinate system in EVE is 64 bit and so are item IDs in the database, and so on and so forth. Being 32 bit only restricts the memory that the client has access to.


How much of the available coordinate system is actually used with the current Sol design though?

While going from 32bit to 64bit; did they change the "resolution" of the coordinate system? And/or, do they plan to more fully use the extra space provided? Or a combination of both?

Just the scale of the difference between the two is quite impressive. I did a test coordinate system at a 1-inch scale per tick and came up with a ~120k mile cube in 32 bit, and that changed to a ~100 ly cube when changed to 64 bit.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#69 - 2012-06-26 21:03:23 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:

SSD: This is the best thing you can do for your computer. I have a three-year old laptop that I recently upgraded by replacing the spindle disk with an SSD (and upgraded from 2 GB to 8 GB RAM). It's a "new" machine.

Graphics card: This is the next-best thing you can do for your computer (if you play games). But do note that you want to buy from the high-end of a line of cards; if you need to buy something less expensive then you might be better off buying the high-end card from from the next line below what you really wanted.


Would it make a huge difference over an existing rather higher end conventional HDD?

So, interpreting you right, of cards A, B, and C (A being best, B being second best, and C being worst in terms of performance)

Getting top of the line B would be better than medium grade A given similar pricing?
bassie12bf1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2012-06-26 21:07:32 UTC
Couldn't you introduce a new premium client when/if you do another graphics/trinity-like overhaul which the client is 64bit?
Flakey Foont
#71 - 2012-06-26 21:23:13 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:

SSD: This is the best thing you can do for your computer. I have a three-year old laptop that I recently upgraded by replacing the spindle disk with an SSD (and upgraded from 2 GB to 8 GB RAM). It's a "new" machine.

Graphics card: This is the next-best thing you can do for your computer (if you play games). But do note that you want to buy from the high-end of a line of cards; if you need to buy something less expensive then you might be better off buying the high-end card from from the next line below what you really wanted.


Would it make a huge difference over an existing rather higher end conventional HDD?

So, interpreting you right, of cards A, B, and C (A being best, B being second best, and C being worst in terms of performance)

Getting top of the line B would be better than medium grade A given similar pricing?



Yes an SSD is substantially faster. Think "no moving parts." They do wear out though. After a very long time.
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2012-06-26 21:23:30 UTC
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Would it make a large difference? Is it worth doing? Hard to implement?
Really the only reason to create a 64 bit client would be to get access to more memory. But since we would need to maintain a 32 bit client anyway (we still have a lot of Windows XP users and will have for quite some time) then we need to keep the overall memory footprint in line with what a 32 bit client is capable of.

The server is already 64 bit and has been since 2008 (see this dev blog) for exactly this reason. Each blade in TQ has 32 GB of memory and runs 4 nodes, so on average each node has access to 8 GB of memory. At startup then each node uses approx. 700 MB of memory. Nodes with little traffic end up using about 950 MB, most common is 2-3 GB, and then there is normally a handful of nodes that use more than 6 GB (Jita on a busy day, nodes that host WH constellations, nodes where large fleet fights occur).

Since the server is already 64 bit then all code, except the rendering and audio engines and related middleware, is already 64 bit capable. To date then we don't have 64 bit versions of all the needed middleware and we haven't really dug into what it would take to make the rendering engine 64 bit.


I thought you guys already sent a message to the XP users with that whole boot.ini thing Twisted


rofl I remember that - for the first time did that Moral Philosophy course give me any real use - if I'd gone to my apartment 1 hour earlier.....ugh.....
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#73 - 2012-06-26 21:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
CCP Explorer wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Would it make a large difference? Is it worth doing? Hard to implement?
Really the only reason to create a 64 bit client would be to get access to more memory. But since we would need to maintain a 32 bit client anyway (we still have a lot of Windows XP users and will have for quite some time) then we need to keep the overall memory footprint in line with what a 32 bit client is capable of.

The server is already 64 bit and has been since 2008 (see this dev blog) for exactly this reason. Each blade in TQ has 32 GB of memory and runs 4 nodes, so on average each node has access to 8 GB of memory. At startup then each node uses approx. 700 MB of memory. Nodes with little traffic end up using about 950 MB, most common is 2-3 GB, and then there is normally a handful of nodes that use more than 6 GB (Jita on a busy day, nodes that host WH constellations, nodes where large fleet fights occur).

Since the server is already 64 bit then all code, except the rendering and audio engines and related middleware, is already 64 bit capable. To date then we don't have 64 bit versions of all the needed middleware and we haven't really dug into what it would take to make the rendering engine 64 bit.
When people figure out that a 64 bit client will load a grid or change session faster than the people waiting for them in the bubble camp, you won't need an x32 client any more.

I have an old x32 WinXP system running a single core CPU with 1GB RAM and a x64 Win7 8 core system with 4GB RAM and there IS a difference.
That has nothing to do with 32 bit vs. 64 bit but has everything to do with single core vs. multi core. And also 1 GB of RAM vs. 8 GB, but 8 GB allows the operating system to cache much more aggressively. Also, I daresay that there are very different graphics cards in these two machines?

Let's start with the number of cores: Even just a dual core makes a tremendous difference. That way EVE can be running on one core but the operating system can do network and hard disk IO on the other, in addition to running other programs (such as your browser, media player, antivirus, ...). You don't get a lot in addition with 8 cores unless you are running a lot of programs.

More RAM: More RAM is better since that allows the operating system to cache more of the file system. As soon as you have started one client then starting the second client will be a lot faster since the file IO actually doesn't hit the disk.

SSD: This is the best thing you can do for your computer. I have a three-year old laptop that I recently upgraded by replacing the spindle disk with an SSD (and upgraded from 2 GB to 8 GB RAM). It's a "new" machine.

Graphics card: This is the next-best thing you can do for your computer (if you play games). But do note that you want to buy from the high-end of a line of cards; if you need to buy something less expensive then you might be better off buying the high-end card from from the next line below what you really wanted.




The rundown on the machinesif you are interested:

x32 WinXP Single Core:
AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3200+ (2010 MHz)
Windows XP SP 3
1.00GB RAM
DirectX 9.0c

Video card: geForce 8600 GT
Forceware version 169.06
Memory 512 MB
Bus: PCI Express 16


The faster system:
Windows 7 Pro SP1 64 bit
Intel Core i7-2760QM @w.40GHz
8.00 GB RAM

The only thing I can find out the video system, this being a laptop, is that it's an "nvidia quadro 1000M". It is a Lenovo Thinkpad W520.




The video card of the old system was installed in 2009 but the system was built in 2006. Still going - but on very low graphics settings for the client.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#74 - 2012-06-26 21:29:30 UTC
Flakey Foont wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:

SSD: This is the best thing you can do for your computer. I have a three-year old laptop that I recently upgraded by replacing the spindle disk with an SSD (and upgraded from 2 GB to 8 GB RAM). It's a "new" machine.

Graphics card: This is the next-best thing you can do for your computer (if you play games). But do note that you want to buy from the high-end of a line of cards; if you need to buy something less expensive then you might be better off buying the high-end card from from the next line below what you really wanted.


Would it make a huge difference over an existing rather higher end conventional HDD?

So, interpreting you right, of cards A, B, and C (A being best, B being second best, and C being worst in terms of performance)

Getting top of the line B would be better than medium grade A given similar pricing?



Yes an SSD is substantially faster. Think "no moving parts." They do wear out though. After a very long time.


I understand that they are faster, my question is more, does the 1/3 of a second justify the $200 price tag? Or is it more of a substantial increase?
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#75 - 2012-06-26 21:30:28 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
SSD: This is the best thing you can do for your computer. I have a three-year old laptop that I recently upgraded by replacing the spindle disk with an SSD (and upgraded from 2 GB to 8 GB RAM). It's a "new" machine.

Graphics card: This is the next-best thing you can do for your computer (if you play games). But do note that you want to buy from the high-end of a line of cards; if you need to buy something less expensive then you might be better off buying the high-end card from from the next line below what you really wanted.
Would it make a huge difference over an existing rather higher end conventional HDD?

So, interpreting you right, of cards A, B, and C (A being best, B being second best, and C being worst in terms of performance)

Getting top of the line B would be better than medium grade A given similar pricing?
SSD might not make a lot of difference compared to a high-end desktop drive, but it will make difference compared to a low-end drive and vastly outperforms spindle laptop drives.

Medium-line A will always be better than high-line C. Medium-line A will possibly be similar to high-line B but that would depend on the exact cards.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
#76 - 2012-06-26 21:35:11 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
SSD: This is the best thing you can do for your computer. I have a three-year old laptop that I recently upgraded by replacing the spindle disk with an SSD (and upgraded from 2 GB to 8 GB RAM). It's a "new" machine.

Graphics card: This is the next-best thing you can do for your computer (if you play games). But do note that you want to buy from the high-end of a line of cards; if you need to buy something less expensive then you might be better off buying the high-end card from from the next line below what you really wanted.
Would it make a huge difference over an existing rather higher end conventional HDD?

So, interpreting you right, of cards A, B, and C (A being best, B being second best, and C being worst in terms of performance)

Getting top of the line B would be better than medium grade A given similar pricing?
SSD might not make a lot of difference compared to a high-end desktop drive, but it will make difference compared to a low-end drive and vastly outperforms spindle laptop drives.

Medium-line A will always be better than high-line C. Medium-line A will possibly be similar to high-line B but that would depend on the exact cards.


This would be why SSDs see the biggest improvements in laptops. Laptops have slow drives(I still see 5400rpm units being sold) while a desktop drives for SATA are up to 10,000rpm. I had a VelciRaptor that actually could blow a Serial SCSI away in performance when loading games.

EVE is like swimming on a beach in shark infested waters,  There is however a catch...  The EVE Beach you also have to wonder which fellow swimmer will try and eat you before the sharks.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#77 - 2012-06-26 21:36:59 UTC
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
How much of the available coordinate system is actually used with the current Sol design though?

While going from 32bit to 64bit; did they change the "resolution" of the coordinate system? And/or, do they plan to more fully use the extra space provided? Or a combination of both?

Just the scale of the difference between the two is quite impressive. I did a test coordinate system at a 1-inch scale per tick and came up with a ~120k mile cube in 32 bit, and that changed to a ~100 ly cube when changed to 64 bit.
The calculations were already being done using 64 bit integers and floating point numbers when the server was 32 bit. The only change was really the available addressable memory.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#78 - 2012-06-26 21:37:29 UTC
Ampoliros wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Nodes with little traffic end up using about 950 MB, most common is 2-3 GB, and then there is normally a handful of nodes that use more than 6 GB (Jita on a busy day, nodes that host WH constellations, nodes where large fleet fights occur).


Interesting. Do W-space systems consume more memory than your average system? Or is it a case where many WH systems are mapped to one node (because overall low per-system activity?)


In my experience they probably host more WH systems as many of them don't even load between downtimes
I've had many many times where I was the one who loaded the hole late in the day.

when you try and log in you get a message that the system is still loading, then you try again and get in
Syllviaa
Hole Exploitation Inc.
#79 - 2012-06-26 21:40:39 UTC
Morganta wrote:
Ampoliros wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Nodes with little traffic end up using about 950 MB, most common is 2-3 GB, and then there is normally a handful of nodes that use more than 6 GB (Jita on a busy day, nodes that host WH constellations, nodes where large fleet fights occur).


Interesting. Do W-space systems consume more memory than your average system? Or is it a case where many WH systems are mapped to one node (because overall low per-system activity?)


In my experience they probably host more WH systems as many of them don't even load between downtimes
I've had many many times where I was the one who loaded the hole late in the day.

when you try and log in you get a message that the system is still loading, then you try again and get in


It probably doesn't start loading until someone tries to enter.

RIP Richard A. Butt
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
#80 - 2012-06-26 21:41:30 UTC
I remember that on SISI plenty of times waiting for a system to load. Does make sense to pack WHs onto one node though, I bet they rarely have lots of people in them. well nothing compared to a high sec system with L4 mission agents.

EVE is like swimming on a beach in shark infested waters,  There is however a catch...  The EVE Beach you also have to wonder which fellow swimmer will try and eat you before the sharks.