DUST Search - [Question] Supporting large scale battles

Malkai Inos wrote:

Maken Tosch wrote:

Malkai Inos wrote:

The best solution would be to realize on-the-fly node switches so that the server can react to load spikes while preserving the current game state.

The worst what would happen with such a system would be a single lag spike whenever the instance switches to reinforced mode.

The best, best solution would be to have sufficient head room available at all times so that reinforcement is unnecessary in the first place, though running all instances on hardware that is horribly oversized for the load 99% of the time is not the smartest thing to do financially since the overcapacity will not result in any practical advantages.

The "best solution" you referred to will end up being negated eventually as Eve Online's battle history is solid proof of that. Back then servers were not that strong and most battles back then were only able to support up to 500 players at once (TOPS). As the servers began to be upgraded and was able to support more players in one system, suddenly the battles grew in size from 500 to 1,000 strong. Once again, the server had to be upgraded and from 1,000 we went into 3,000 players stronger over the course of just a few years. Even now, with TiDi implemented, people still feel that the servers need to be upgraded. It's a never ending cycle.

It absolutely is. However, the load any server instance (system, map, you name it) puts on the physical machine can vary from essentially nothing, when no one's there and it's just kept running, to OMFGBBQ in cases of good ol' blob warfare with thousands of players.

Because the former scenario, or something very close to it, makes up at least 90% (more like 95-98%) of the time in terms of load per system if you exclude Jita and surroundings, having every single system handled by the best server money can buy is a ridiculous waste of money and energy.

That's why you need some ability to scale the computational power dedicated to every instance. In the case of EVE the current solution is to have most systems be handled in groups per physical machine because that's generally enough.

Only when things go south does CCP start to reserve more, including 100%, of the resources a server blade can offer to make sure you still get the highest performance possible when you need it.

So while, yeah, you have to keep your hardware and software up to date to handle increasingly extreme load scenarios, should they occur, going for maximum performance at all times in every instance is completely infeasible and quite simply useless because the extra power provides zero benefit for the vast majority of time.

Edit: I'm starting to feel that you were talking about the second "solution" and the impossibility of having "enough" resources to begin with because players invariably respond by dumping just more stuff onto the field which is obviously true. Disregard if that's the case.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 8845	Posted - 2014.07.05 22:21:00 - [1] - Quote Considering this is a first person shooter with completely different mechanics involved vs that of Eve's point-to-point mechanics, the server load caused by Legion might be handled differently. I don't expect to see CCP require us to do something like that with Legion. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 8845	Posted - 2014.07.05 23:13:00 - [2] - Quote Malkai Inos wrote: The best solution would be to realize on-the-fly node switches so that the server can react to load spikes while preserving the current game state. The worst what would happen with such a system would be a single lag spike whenever the instance switches to reinforced mode. The best, best solution would be to have sufficient head room available at all times so that reinforcement is unnecessary in the first place, though running all instances on hardware that is horribly oversized for the load 99% of the time is not the smartest thing to do financially since the overcapacity will not result in any practical advantages. The "best solution" you referred to will end up being negated eventually as Eve Online's battle history is solid proof of that. Back then servers were not that strong and most battles back then were only able to support up to 500 players at once (TOPS). As the servers began to be upgraded and was able to support more players in one system, suddenly the battles grew in size from 500 to 1,000 strong. Once again, the server had to be upgraded and from 1,000 we went into 3,000 players stronger over the course of just a few years. Even now, with TiDi implemented, people still feel that the servers need to be upgraded. It's a never ending cycle. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 8846	Posted - 2014.07.06 10:24:00 - [3] - Quote Malkai Inos wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Malkai Inos wrote: The best solution would be to realize on-the-fly node switches so that the server can react to load spikes while preserving the current game state. The worst what would happen with such a system would be a single lag spike whenever the instance switches to reinforced mode. The best, best solution would be to have sufficient head room available at all times so that reinforcement is unnecessary in the first place, though running all instances on hardware that is horribly oversized for the load 99% of the time is not the smartest thing to do financially since the overcapacity will not result in any practical advantages. The "best solution" you referred to will end up being negated eventually as Eve Online's battle history is solid proof of that. Back then servers were not that strong and most battles back then were only able to support up to 500 players at once (TOPS). As the servers began to be upgraded and was able to support more players in one system, suddenly the battles grew in size from 500 to 1,000 strong. Once again, the server had to be upgraded and from 1,000 we went into 3,000 players stronger over the course of just a few years. Even now, with TiDi implemented, people still feel that the servers need to be upgraded. It's a never ending cycle. It absolutely is. However, the load any server instance (system, map, you name it) puts on the physical machine can vary from essentially nothing, when no one's there and it's just kept running, to OMFGBBQ in cases of good ol' blob warfare with thousands of players. Because the former scenario, or something very close to it, makes up at least 90% (more like 95-98%) of the time in terms of load per system if you exclude Jita and surroundings, having every single system handled by the best server money can buy is a ridiculous waste of money and energy. That's why you need some ability to scale the computational power dedicated to every instance. In the case of EVE the current solution is to have most systems be handled in groups per physical machine because that's generally enough. Only when things go south does CCP start to reserve more, including 100%, of the resources a server blade can offer to make sure you still get the highest performance possible when you need it. So while, yeah, you have to keep your hardware and software up to date to handle increasingly extreme load scenarios, should they occur, going for maximum performance at all times in every instance is completely infeasible and quite simply useless because the extra power provides zero benefit for the vast majority of time. Edit: I'm starting to feel that you were talking about the second "solution" and the impossibility of having "enough" resources to begin with because players invariably respond by dumping just more stuff onto the field which is obviously true. Disregard if that's the case. Yes, I was referring to the second solution. However you do have a valid point about the first solution and I support that. Overall, players do just dump stuff on the part of the game that has the most resources devoted to it. Again, Eve Online is an example especially within Jita system. In fact, Jita is a prime example in which we don't need a combat scenario in order to see excessive server load. For those who don't know anything about Jita, the star system within Eve Online, it is the famous economic hub of New Eden followed by Amarr, Rens, and Dodixie respectively. Because it is the go-to system to buy/sell everything you can think of, players naturally flock to it. Amarr, Rens, and Dodixie naturally act as a buffer in case Jita gets too crowded for the server to handle. When the server can't handle anymore, the stargates connecting to Jita start momentarily locking down simulating congested traffic like how you see rush hour traffic in an expressway. There are millions of transactions done every day in Jita along with thousands of daily jumps into and out of Jita plus the constant spamming of local with "BUY NOW" offers (mostly scam). As an added tidbit, Jita was never really decided by CCP. From what I heard about it, Jita was selected by the players simply because its location in relation to everything else was the most convenient. This was also at a time when Caldari once had an advantage over the other races in terms of Learning Skills (which were eventually removed). It is just about 10 jumps away from Amarr, hardly anymore than 10 jumps to and from the nearest low-sec systems, and the nearby systems within its constellation offers decent resources for those who know how to work a tight and demanding mining schedule while being competitive. Jita has it all. So naturally players converged there and Jita eventually grew to become the go-to system for anything you need. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.