These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Would a more powerful server fix tidi?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nivo Green
Stac Enterprises
#41 - 2013-12-26 18:25:39 UTC
The interesting thing is that python is the main supporter and funder of the Stackless Python module, and they have been for many many years ( see the bottom of the page). Stackless exists to circumvent one of the biggests issues with python, which is its Global Interpreter Lock. While because of this normal python can only ever execute code in a single thread at a time, stackless has full parallel interpreting and is clearly not what is limiting CCP's single threaded backend.

In reality one does not simply shift code into multithreading. Multithreading programming is incredibly different and hard to execute well. Infact its really an art form among programmers. Because of this when a programmer decides to multithread something, it requires the architecture of the program to be laid out at its conception, you have to 100% rewrite the code generally for it to be actually a benefit. Rewriting an entire program is the fastest way to break everything. In order to rewrite everything, CCP has to also support the legacy code until they have the new code fully functional, and they have to bridge functionality. This is just not feasible for a technology company as small as CCP. At the end of the day eve works for 96.2% of cases (completely legit statistic), and tidi makes it functional for the other cases. We won't see a backend rewrite for multithreading in our lifetimes I bet.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#42 - 2013-12-26 18:28:12 UTC
My wish for the new year is for CCP to perfect a time machine. So then they could zap these people who keep complaining about TiDi to 2009 so they can spend an hour black screened and then trapped unable to log on in a 600 pilot fight. Then when they come back to the present we can see how much they complain about TiDi.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-12-26 18:44:24 UTC
Jandice Ymladris wrote:
To keep it a bit out the deep hardware discussion.

Fixing TiDi cannot be done by improving coding & hardware. It can only be done by rebalancing 'blob' warfare. How so you ask?

Look at why TiDi was implemented first: it was created so large fleets could still fight without crashing or seeing a black screen. Once TiDi got generally accepted, fleets in turn grew larger, creating heavier TiDi loads till servers crash once more.

Now if yo'ud 'fix' TiDi, what will happen? Fleets will grow exponentionally till they reach the hardware/coding limits again, bringing back TiDi and subsequent crashes. So in short, no amount of hardware coding can fix it, ti can only move up the problem of overloading servers. In this regard, TiDi does an excellent job.

In short: want to fix TiDi? Find a way to put a gameplay limit on huge fleets (not a hardcap, but a gameplay reason that turns huge fleets into a bad idea) What this would be, I don't know, I don't fly caps.
Do keep in mind, you can't erase big fleet fights from EVE, as they are excellent promotional material for the outside world.



I agree with most of what you're saying, but I want to address one technicality. The idea that the player base will fill all available space is a bit of a fallacy. The size of fights is restricted by the size of null sec alliances. Currently a node running at full capacity handles 2000 players + change (rough estimate, perhaps someone has a better one?). Obviously at current player population we will never see a 60,000 person fight due to distribution of players (the most simultaneous players was a little over 60K last I checked). I am curious however to see how many players the null sec coalitions can actually mobilize simultaneously.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#44 - 2013-12-26 18:47:33 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
My wish for the new year is for CCP to perfect a time machine. So then they could zap these people who keep complaining about TiDi to 2009 so they can spend an hour black screened and then trapped unable to log on in a 600 pilot fight. Then when they come back to the present we can see how much they complain about TiDi.


Blob-sec players are the biggest whiners in the game with serious entitlement issues.
Nothing has changed in many years on that front.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2013-12-26 19:22:40 UTC
Telling CCP to fix their game isn't entitlement.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Amarr Citizen 1312151005
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2013-12-26 19:58:13 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
My wish for the new year is for CCP to perfect a time machine. So then they could zap these people who keep complaining about TiDi to 2009 so they can spend an hour black screened and then trapped unable to log on in a 600 pilot fight. Then when they come back to the present we can see how much they complain about TiDi.


Just because something is better does not mean it is fixed.
The thing is we do not live in 2009 we live in what is now almost 2014.

Technology increases at an exponential rate and after 5 years we have a more functional but still broken system.
Hence node crashes and the like. Tidi Is a bandaid not a fix and we are only marginally better off than we were 5 years prior.

EVE is doubled it's age from 5 years ago ofc there will be better performance so your statement is somewhat stupid.
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2013-12-26 20:27:11 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Telling CCP to fix their game isn't entitlement.


But the game isn't broken, its like saying I wish I could play monopoly with 80 people and crying it doesn't work.

Thats a similar situation to what happens in blob warfare, they're packing every man dog and donkey's **** into one board and finding it really does not work well.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#48 - 2013-12-26 20:40:05 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Telling CCP to fix their game isn't entitlement.


Their game works. Blobs don't work, but then, why should anyone be allowed to pile unlimited assets on grid without a hit in performance?

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-12-26 20:47:26 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
you guys are just looking at CPU load which grows linear but ignore network load completely, which however increases quadratically with the number of clients on grid. Assuming server architecture scales perfectly (it doesnt) and you can stuff more and more CPUs into the cluster, you cant extend your network bone infinitely, things have physical limits.


I'm pretty sure TQ is hosted in a multi-homed datacenter and that bandwidth is definitely not the bottleneck here.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#50 - 2013-12-26 21:06:32 UTC
So..Op's secret santa impersonator scam fell through...so decides to post not so stealth Tidi whine thread.


Yep, that's my GD.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#51 - 2013-12-26 23:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: SmilingVagrant
It's a "Our code hasn't caught up to ancient technology yet". Nodes can't process across multiple cores on a server CPU. Now I'm not sure if you've kept up with computing trends in the last few years but we haven't been making great strides in single core processing power for a while now, but we have been adding more and more cores to single processors.

The net effect is the servers in my server room have 2-3 processors in them, each with anywhere from 2-6 cores per CPU. Eve is capable of using a single one of these cores (For most operations, chat for instance can be sent to another core), so about 85% of your processing capability on any given machine is being pissed away.

Ultimately if you want fast large battles this issue needs to be corrected, and I've yet to hear a single devblog saying that they plan on tackling this (And yes I understand the inherent difficulties).
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#52 - 2013-12-26 23:42:17 UTC
I would be interested in seeing what their storage schema is like too. There could be some iops bottlenecks. I mean 500 carriers on grid would be making 3000+ database calls for drone activity alone. EDIT: Probably a lot more actually.
Amarr Citizen 1312151005
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-12-27 00:27:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarr Citizen 1312151005
Cool
Amarr Citizen 1312151005
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2013-12-27 00:28:40 UTC
Lol
Kryptik Kai
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2013-12-27 01:15:59 UTC
IBM has a fairly close relationship with CCP, as CCP abuses the hell out its servers it allows IBM to use them as an example for other clients (i.e., look at the load CCP puts on this server, it will definitely work for you!). Consequently, this has led to IBM hooking up CCP with server technology that hasn't even been commercially released yet and generally bending over backwards for them.

Case and Point

"Shiny.  Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#56 - 2013-12-27 01:16:06 UTC
Jill Chastot wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Telling CCP to fix their game isn't entitlement.


But the game isn't broken, its like saying I wish I could play monopoly with 80 people and crying it doesn't work.

Thats a similar situation to what happens in blob warfare, they're packing every man dog and donkey's **** into one board and finding it really does not work well.


A lot of their promotional material up to this point has shown huge engagements with multiple large fleets. If they don't want to have this kind of warfare they shouldn't have tried to sell it to us.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#57 - 2013-12-27 01:30:23 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Jill Chastot wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Telling CCP to fix their game isn't entitlement.


But the game isn't broken, its like saying I wish I could play monopoly with 80 people and crying it doesn't work.

Thats a similar situation to what happens in blob warfare, they're packing every man dog and donkey's **** into one board and finding it really does not work well.


A lot of their promotional material up to this point has shown huge engagements with multiple large fleets. If they don't want to have this kind of warfare they shouldn't have tried to sell it to us.

Well, who knows

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 ?
Rainbow Dash
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-12-27 04:41:42 UTC
None of the limitations are hardware, they're pretty much all limitations with the code. We'll never see a tidi-free eve until eve starts actually dying, and it gets to the point where alliances can no longer cram 2k people in a system.

As long as Eve continues to grow, or even just maintain subscriber numbers, large fights are going to be a shitshow.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#59 - 2013-12-27 05:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicity Love
Apparently more server horsepower isn't the answer, or so I've been told by "experts".

Ironically, those same people will no doubt go out and buy increasingly more powerful pc's with faster, multi-core cpu's, vasts tracts of memory sticks and every other bit of "MOAR POWAR, GO FASTUR" hardware they can lay their hands, to play their favourite MMO"s on, after they sell their kidneys and/or firstborn to the "market".

Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2013-12-27 05:48:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Felicity Love wrote:
Apparently more server horsepower isn't the answer, or so I've been told by "experts".

Ironically, those same people will no doubt go out and buy increasingly more powerful pc's with faster, multi-core cpu's, vasts tracts of memory sticks and every other bit of "MOAR POWAR, GO FASTUR" hardware they can lay their hands, to play their favourite MMO"s on, after they sell their kidneys and/or firstborn to the "market".
Where's the irony in that? As for the superficially odd juxtaposition of what works where, it's not particularly strange either. In one case, it makes no difference because horsepower isn't what's lacking; in the other case, it makes a difference because the horsepower can be put to good use.