141 replies to this topic

[Campitor]

It will be later today. Were queuing everything up first. In the mean time we've reduced the death penalty by 50%

 

 

Notes:

The following maps will be redistributed

• Geffen Field
• Prontera Fields
• Clock Tower
• Aldebaran
• Mjolnir Mtns
• XMas Dungeon
• Payon Fields (Gets divided into two chunks)
• Izlude
• Training grounds
• Glast Heim
• Comodo
• Beach Dungeon
• Comodo Fields

[Arctism]

Maybe consider upgrading the server alone for SEA players? Gosh. This is just making it from bad to worse.

[ShekelShark]

 

It will be later today. Were queuing everything up first. In the mean time we've reduced the death penalty by 50%

 

 

Notes:

The following maps will be redistributed (WIP)

• Geffen Field
• Prontera Fields
• Clock Tower
• Aldebaran
• Mjolnir Mtns
• XMas Dungeon
• Payon Fields (Gets divided into two chunks)

 

 

 

oy be a good goy and fix the servers, i need to make more shekels.

[HugPorings]

 

oy be a good goy and fix the servers, i need to make more shekels.

 

been unable to play yesterday and today way to much lag

[4042140120123858710]

What does it mean - redistributed? >.>

Can someone explain about xmas dungeon for example?

[Kryz]

What does this means? can anyone explain please?

[Campitor]

What does this means? can anyone explain please?

Were moving maps from processes and hardware that have a ton of players connected to ones that are either new or had very little players connected. This is to load balance player population and reduce over all lag,

[4042140120123858710]

Wow, sounds gr8! Ty!

[ButWhyy]

Just out of curiosity and for our own knowledge..  Is it not possible to increase the overall number and or capacity of the current map servers?  If my understanding is correct you're essentially trying to divide the player-base as evenly as possible among the current map servers.  So one map server might have Prontera, while another has 5 or 6 less popular maps.  I applaud your effort of trying to most evenly distribute the players but doesn't it seem like there's just too many to be accommodated by the current total map server capacity?  

 

Even if you divide the playerbase perfectly it seems there's just too many players (judging the fact that as our playerbase continues to grow redistributing maps doesn't seem to fix it anymore like it first did).  Why are more or larger map servers not an option? 

[hoshhosh0]

You've been doing this for the past 3 weeks and it hasn't worked out. Can you please explain what makes you so sure this attempt will succeed unlike the previous?

[Vienna]

What does this means? can anyone explain please?

 

 

Let's say for example we have 5 servers.

 

Server A, B, C, D, and E

Each server is responsible for a set collection of maps, we'll randomly pick some things for the sake of example

Server A: Payon + GH
Server B: Pront + Geffen
Server C: Juno + Aldebaran
Server D: Izlude + Alberta
Server E: Morroc + Comodo

 

Now. Let's say out of the entire server load, it's looking like this.

 

Server A: 30% of the population
Server B: 30% pop
Server C: 20% pop
Server D: 10% pop
Server E: 10% pop

 

This would mean Servers A and B are extremely overloaded where as D and E are not under as much load. The maps on A and B would partly be moved onto D and E to "redistribute" the strain of the population being too dense on some areas.
 

Edit to add:

Alternatively, if we ADD servers F, G, and H we could further split load by taking to down to something more like
 

Server A: 15% of the population
Server B: 15% pop
Server C: 10% pop
Server D: 10% pop
Server E: 10% pop

Server F: 15% pop (half of server A's load)

Server G: 15% (half of server B's load)
Server H: 10% (half of server C's load)

Edited by Vienna, 21 July 2017 - 12:43 PM.

[Campitor]

Just out of curiosity and for our own knowledge..  Is it not possible to increase the overall number and or capacity of the current map servers?  If my understanding is correct you're essentially trying to divide the player-base as evenly as possible among the current map servers.  So one map server might have Prontera, while another has 5 or 6 less popular maps.  I applaud your effort of trying to most evenly distribute the players but doesn't it seem like there's just too many to be accommodated by the current total map server capacity?  

 

Even if you divide the playerbase perfectly it seems there's just too many players (judging the fact that as our playerbase continues to grow redistributing maps doesn't seem to fix it anymore like it first did).  Why are more or larger map servers not an option? 

I am adding another 4 map servers today. But there is a limit to the total number that can be created.

[Allori]

If we have the same software as pRO, so why they don't have lag with 20k real players on? I'm honestly tired.

[Campitor]

You've been doing this for the past 3 weeks and it hasn't worked out. Can you please explain what makes you so sure this attempt will succeed unlike the previous?

It has been working. But player population shifts over time as players level up and more register. Were balancing based on those changes in population over time.

[Campitor]

If we have the same software as pRO, so why they don't have lag with 20k real players on? I'm honestly tired.

The idea that they don't have lag is a myth. Were following much the same practice every version of RO has to do when dealing with load balancing.

[ButWhyy]

Let's say for example we have 5 servers.

 

Server A, B, C, D, and E

Each server is responsible for a set collection of maps, we'll randomly pick some things for the sake of example

Server A: Payon + GH
Server B: Pront + Geffen
Server C: Juno + Aldebaran
Server D: Izlude + Alberta
Server E: Morroc + Comodo

 

Now. Let's say out of the entire server load, it's looking like this.

Server A: 30% of the population
Server B: 30% pop
Server C: 20% pop
Server D: 10% pop
Server E: 10% pop

 

This would mean Servers A and B are extremely overloaded where as D and E are not under as much load. The maps on A and B would partly be moved onto D and E to "redistribute" the strain of the population being too dense on some areas.
 

 

The problem with this is that it seems that 20% of the population is still too much for one of the current map servers to handle and stresses the server creating lag.  They've been trying to redistribute pretty consistently for the past week and the problem is clearly not going away.  It seems to me like what we need is to have an extra map server or two, so that each one could have say 15% of the population when the players are perfectly distributed instead of 20%.

[taesijr123]

20k *Real players*... heh...
[was pretty sure most of them were machines]

joking aside this will probably not completely fix the lag and only improve it temporarily     

I just wish there was more channels for us to enter on busy maps to keep everyone from kill stealing each other...

[ShekelShark]

Just out of curiosity and for our own knowledge..  Is it not possible to increase the overall number and or capacity of the current map servers?  If my understanding is correct you're essentially trying to divide the player-base as evenly as possible among the current map servers.  So one map server might have Prontera, while another has 5 or 6 less popular maps.  I applaud your effort of trying to most evenly distribute the players but doesn't it seem like there's just too many to be accommodated by the current total map server capacity?  

 

Even if you divide the playerbase perfectly it seems there's just too many players (judging the fact that as our playerbase continues to grow redistributing maps doesn't seem to fix it anymore like it first did).  Why are more or larger map servers not an option? 

 

they would need to stop using toasters for servers and buy brand new ones, but im sure the person running the show is like me, so that is not going to happen.

 

[Vienna]

The problem with this is that it seems that 20% of the population is still too much for one of the current map servers to handle and stresses the server creating lag.  They've been trying to redistribute pretty consistently for the past week and the problem is clearly not going away.  It seems to me like what we need is to have an extra map server or two, so that each one could have say 15% of the population when the players are perfectly distributed instead of 20%.

 

 

You actually caught me mid edit where I was bringing up the additional sever scenario!

The issue also lies in the fact (I'm not an AEGIS expert here) I'm pretty sure there's a central server handling the switch overs between map servers and such. At some point, it's gonna get stressed trying to handle people moving between different servers and begin a whole different can of worms. Back in the day, iRO had a large distribution of server and it drove players nuts constantly having to redo buffs and party share every time they changed maps because it was a new server and the exchange didn't carry over all buffs/party settings.

[ButWhyy]

I am adding another 4 map servers today. But there is a limit to the total number that can be created.

 

That is excellent to hear thank you very much!!  I find the general server stuff pretty interesting.  Would you mind saying what the total max number of map servers that are permitted by the software is?  It seems odd to me that from the software side they would put a low limiting value on it when they are designing a game that I'm sure they at least hoped would have tens of thousands of players playing at once if not many more.

[redspyder]

Any down time estimate?

[ShekelShark]

Any down time estimate?

 

if you were in game goy he said about 20mins after the server goes down in 10mins.

[7554150117124819123]

Maybe consider upgrading the server alone for SEA players? Gosh. This is just making it from bad to worse.

Or maybe consider upgrading the server alone for non-sea players, so all sea players will be banned? luls, what a joke. Nice suggestion btw, for 0 iq

[redspyder]

if you were in game goy he said about 20mins after the server goes down in 10mins.

 

Pretty sure I wasn't in game, 'boy', because if I was I wouldn't be asking this question.

[ButWhyy]

 Back in the day, iRO had a large distribution of server and it drove players nuts constantly having to redo buffs and party share every time they changed maps because it was a new server and the exchange didn't carry over all buffs/party settings.

 

 

To be fair I think most players would find having to rebuff/fix party settings when they start leveling infinitely more appealing to dealing with a consistently laggy experience on most of the popular leveling maps haha

 

That's a good point on the central server still having to handle the stress of shuffling players between multiple map servers when they move around though, and explains why they try to group maps that are adjacent to each other together on the same map server when possible.  Unless we're adding a lot more map servers thought this wouldnt provide that much additional stress.

 

Like let's say there's currently 4 map servers and everything is evenly distributed for ease of explanation.  By adding say 2 more map servers the number of players on a map server would decrease from 25% to 16.66% ( 100/4 vs 100/6).  By adding these two servers, the load on a particular one is decreased by a third and we'd still have pretty large groups of maps and many local collections of maps could be preserved.