These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Permanent fix to a long standing problem: Node crashing

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#221 - 2013-12-17 11:42:35 UTC  |  Edited by: tiberiusric
Khanh'rhh wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
If eve must be on one server

It's not. Please don't suggest patently silly things, like "CCP just needs to re-write the whole game!" when you seemingly haven't taken the few seconds it would require to look up the basics of how TQ works.


Stop being a douche, you know i didnt mean ONE server as in one box ffs. For you kids out there, one shard, one universe, one instance. Jeez i didnt think i really needed to explain that

Are you completely and utterly stupid? Did i say rewrite the whole game? no i did not.] Evil
You are the pinnacle of dumb, hence why you are in goonswarm

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2013-12-17 11:46:11 UTC
TQ isn't one server?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Fiona Kirath
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#223 - 2013-12-17 12:23:51 UTC
ISD Gallifreyan wrote:
After a complaint that I locked this thread pre-maturely, I have decided to re-open it for the time being.
I will look into this thread tomorrow. If nothing constructive has come of it. I will re-lock it.

The OP has stated he has posted his last coment on this already, and while open discussion is allowed, repeating the same statement over and over would fall under either of the following Forum Rules.

Quote:
12. Spamming is prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words “first”, “go back to ********” and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post.

22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

WHEN WE SEE ANY POST FROM CCP ???
HOW CAN PPL PLAY! ?
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#224 - 2013-12-17 12:25:15 UTC
To break down the OP, what they are saying it "Hey CCP, I know that you and your servers can handle more players in one interactive space at the same time than any other MMO in existence, but it's not good enough. Waaahhhhh"

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#225 - 2013-12-17 14:15:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes
No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game.


Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy.

Broken game is right, no wonder most players avoid sov like the plague.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2013-12-17 14:18:20 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes
No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game.


Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy.

There should be a rule against making baseless accusations of EULA violations. Because that's what this is. Baseless.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2013-12-17 14:28:39 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes
No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game.


Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy.

There should be a rule against making baseless accusations of EULA violations. Because that's what this is. Baseless.


What EULA violation? There is nothing in the EULA banning mass recruitment and flooding a system with your people, on the contrary it's encouraged.

So no need to get all guilty and butthurt.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#228 - 2013-12-17 14:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Sentamon wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes
No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game.


Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy.

There should be a rule against making baseless accusations of EULA violations. Because that's what this is. Baseless.


What EULA violation? There is nothing in the EULA banning mass recruitment and flooding a system with your people, on the contrary it's encouraged.

So no need to get all guilty and butthurt.

Don't pretend what you said wasn't alluding to the EULA. Crashing the node intentionally would be a EULA violation.
Your operative word(s) there being DDOS. It's an accusation. Don't play dumb.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#229 - 2013-12-17 16:09:55 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:

In particle simulations, each particle is generally identical. And not interacting with every other particle in the simulation (what's your range to every other particle on the field or in D-scan range?). And not changing its behavior every update (Active modules, navigation inputs, etc). And not spawning more particles at random times (Missiles, Drones, Wrecks, Oh My!). And not changing its state every update (Shield, Armor, Capacitor, etc). And not worried about packaging up all that information and propagating the information appropriately (who can see what and when?).

I'm judging difficulty by looking at the number of other companies doing real time multi-user simulations on the scale of EVE's fights. That I know of, that's a big old doughnut (though a new contender would make me happy).

Without being hip deep in a project, I've always liked the "Who's doing it better" test as a sanity check on "Oh, that doesn't sound hard."


Not necessarily. Broaden it out to a "physics" simulation. Players are particles, they have a state and there are update rules. On a conceptual level it's really that simple. Now I personally don't know where the bottleneck is in Eve that would prevent a node handling 30,000 players in a single system. It might be assembling the pre-tick state or serialising the post-tick state, but whatever happens between those two is in principle tractable within a reasonable time bracket, especially on modern hardware and even more especially on compute hardware like Tesla.

With respect to "who's doing it better", perhaps nobody has tried to do it any other way? These software architecture designs have been around for a decade or more. Technology has moved on a lot over the last 10 years.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#230 - 2013-12-17 16:24:58 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system.
This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing?
Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec.
This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running.
Thank you have a nice day!


New York Times won't be interested in that.
Jean deVallette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2013-12-17 16:34:11 UTC
Not 100% on the architecture of Eves code, but is this limit down to a single threaded process that cant be .. split .. across CPUs/ nodes in a blade chassis?

If it is single threaded then its a done deal and requires some fugging horrific reworking (bless me, but we have just done such a task in my workplace, took 4 years, and, fugg me, it is amazing to see it scale). I suspect its nothing like as complex as the eve codebase.

With that in mind, what chance that a small 24 core blade with 256G ram could run one node from hell, with 20k players across 100 threads.

Limit a node to 1k in System B? Wouldn't someone think tactically that all they need to do is encourage Blob Alliance X to fill that system, and then actually attack System C instead. Perhaps force Blob X to defend across multiple fronts ....

One thing to change the whole single node single solar system mechanic would be to change how timers work and how they relate to those single systems. Make them relate to Clusters perhaps, or ...

Oh well - time to be shot down.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#232 - 2013-12-17 16:35:35 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system.
This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing?
Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec.
This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running.
Thank you have a nice day!


New York Times won't be interested in that.


And therin lies the rub.

CCP has this truly warped idea that the NY Times and other magazines covering these mass battles is the best marketing for the game there is.

Is it free? Yes.
Does it promote the game as something unique out there? Yes.
And those 2 things are a marketing guy's wet dream.

But the reality is once someone experiences that 10% Tidi/node crash crap, with some whacked out FC screaming on comms, then they just as quickly stop playing.

It would be truly truly interesting to see CCP publish the retention rates of new players 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after they subbed to the game with a unique IP address (no alts).

How about CCP get creative, and maybe fraps a few FW fights of 10 on 10, or some wh fights, or even maybe RvB.
Put out some high definition vid's of some small gang warfare, at real time.

That has a far better chance of attracting players who will commit long term to Eve.

But hey, I know it won't happen.
Why actually think up ways to show how cool the game can be when you can have the NY Times talk about 4000 pilot blobs for free?
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#233 - 2013-12-17 16:39:58 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

But the reality is once someone experiences that 10% Tidi/node crash crap, with some whacked out FC screaming on comms, then they just as quickly stop playing.

Do you have a legitimate mental illness?
fisk Alabel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2013-12-17 16:57:10 UTC
501 fleet size would always win because of the greater number of ships.

there is a lot of reasons why a cap is stupid and this is just another one.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#235 - 2013-12-17 17:10:47 UTC
I don't see any permanent or easy fix to this issue. They could certainly approach it in a triage fashion though. There might be some ways they can significanly reduce cpu load on the node, but the obvious ways will definitely generate many tears, especially for drone users.

While I would love for CCP to shelve drones altogether, I can't see this happening. Maybe there is a way that drone attributes could be homogenized during tidi (ie all drones share the exact same attributes). This might relieve the server from having to calculate every attribute and affect from every drone separately.

I would also suggest other things...such as, in tidi, abandoned/disconnected drones dissappear instantly. Frankly, I have two somethings in my pocket to show for the something I don't give for the bloke who hopes to collect those drones afterwards.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#236 - 2013-12-17 18:06:47 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
If eve must be on one server

It's not. Please don't suggest patently silly things, like "CCP just needs to re-write the whole game!" when you seemingly haven't taken the few seconds it would require to look up the basics of how TQ works.


Stop being a douche, you know i didnt mean ONE server as in one box ffs. For you kids out there, one shard, one universe, one instance. Jeez i didnt think i really needed to explain that

OK.

So if you know that TQ is a load-balancing cluster of servers and the population in, say, Jita can't impact the performance of people in, say, VFK, then what possible issue do you think is "fixed" by not having it a single shard? (Hint: none. You don't know what you're saying).
Quote:
Did i say rewrite the whole game?

Yes you did. Specifically:
Quote:
Infrastrucuture, multi threading and rewriting and optimising old code and database functions. Thats where I would start


If you're going to call someone stupid, at least learn to read (your own posts).

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Pipa Porto
#237 - 2013-12-17 18:32:29 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
Not necessarily. Broaden it out to a "physics" simulation. Players are particles, they have a state and there are update rules. On a conceptual level it's really that simple. Now I personally don't know where the bottleneck is in Eve that would prevent a node handling 30,000 players in a single system. It might be assembling the pre-tick state or serialising the post-tick state, but whatever happens between those two is in principle tractable within a reasonable time bracket, especially on modern hardware and even more especially on compute hardware like Tesla.

With respect to "who's doing it better", perhaps nobody has tried to do it any other way? These software architecture designs have been around for a decade or more. Technology has moved on a lot over the last 10 years.


Sure, I'll broaden it out to a "physics" simulation.
The most powerful supercomputer in the world is designed for protein folding simulations. It can, in 24 hours, simulate 17 milliseconds of an environment with 23,000 particles. And it doesn't have to worry about each atom arbitrarily changing its properties or behaviors.

Mathematics is the bottleneck preventing the real time simulation of a complex 30,000 particle system.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#238 - 2013-12-17 19:36:33 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

OK.

So if you know that TQ is a load-balancing cluster of servers and the population in, say, Jita can't impact the performance of people in, say, VFK, then what possible issue do you think is "fixed" by not having it a single shard? (Hint: none. You don't know what you're saying).


That is an incredible important point many people seem to forget. When a system is alone on it's node it never impact performance in other system. The single shard was never the problem and adding more nodes to further distribute more finely all the systems won't help with the current problem of a node with even a single system running on it being completely crushed by the number people into it. Every single system could be on it's own node and the current large fleet fight would still bring soul crushing TiDi. A mechanic change to the game to change the current meta of massing all your god damn eggs in the same basket need to happen. If no change comes, the number will only get pushed back some and we will only see bigger slow fights. There is no actual difference between a 2k player fight not moving and a 4k player fight not moving either except one will last even longer with so many ships to destroy. It would still be slow as ****.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#239 - 2013-12-17 19:53:05 UTC
Gotta steal the Jita node for the next big timer fight.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2013-12-17 19:57:23 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Gotta steal the Jita node for the next big timer fight.



It worked fantastically in 6VDT.

.....now we just have to get PL and NC. to warn CCP the day before they drop 300 slows onto a TCU so we get this party going properly.