Lag Issues Resolved. (No, seriously!)

[Ataris]

mountain dew is shit

 

[salamando-hybrid]

Yeah, CUB is my baby. Don't diss it, it's flawless.

 

[hmoob]

Great Job!

I just want to give and thanks to all of you and your team Ryan. great job! well done. VERY PROFESSIONAL!

 

[Green Serpent]

Great job guys. Couldn't have been handled better imo.

Mtn dew is good, I don't care for the grape kind though. Have you guys tried the "lime" kind? You can only get it at Taco Bell. Its light blue. That one's not very good either imo. I only like the original, orange, and code red.

 

[Kethinov]

I will never understand why it was decided to base RunUO on the MS platform. EA may be crappy at game balance, but they've got wise programmers. All of the OSI UO servers run on a unix based OS (Solaris) and as we all know, handle incredible loads. I doubt on the same hardware RunUO could handle anywhere near that. Not a fault of RunUO, but a fault of Microsoft. It's just a plain bad idea to develop server daemons with Windows servers.

You guys are a wonderfully talented bunch of people but I wish you weren't such huge Windows fans.

 

[Sir Elton John]

all soda is garbage

the only time soda should be involved is when u mix it with alcohol

otherwise water!

 

[Ryan]

I will never understand why it was decided to base RunUO on the MS platform. EA may be crappy at game balance, but they've got wise programmers. All of the OSI UO servers run on a unix based OS (Solaris) and as we all know, handle incredible loads. I doubt on the same hardware RunUO could handle anywhere near that. Not a fault of RunUO, but a fault of Microsoft. It's just a plain bad idea to develop server daemons with Windows servers.

You guys are a wonderfully talented bunch of people but I wish you weren't such huge Windows fans.

Ok you obviously dont know what you are talking about.

First of all the OSI servers couldnt handle the load UO Gamers handles on the same hardware. We handle our load on ONE SERVER.

We could easily mult-server if we wanted. It is not a bad idea at all to develop server daemons on Windows... only an uneducated person would say something like that (or a Linux biggot, who knows what is worse).

I develop mission critical telphony servers for a living and they run on you guessed it windows. So back to OSI..

OSI's servers handle only about 2x the load that we handle. We have shown to have handled 1497 users online. Lets keep in mind that OSI has 8 'sectors' that the world is broken into. This translates into 8 servers per facet, per shard. (I am not including malas/ilsh becuase I have never heard factual stats from EA). I will promise you that EA doesnt run 3000+ on ONE FACET (aka 8 servers). We run 1400+ on ONE FACET on ONE SERVER.

That, in short is fucking amazing.

Oh yah, the RunUO core devs have run RunUO on Linux and it worked we just didnt like how long it took to startup Speaking of which, I have been a *nix admin since I graduated high school. I run Linux on my laptop and my desktop. I dont need to hear you tell me how much *better* it is, because thats just plain not true. Linux does have some uses but it is not better than windows. It would be much more accepted than it is.

 

[Shock Therapy]

Ok you obviously dont know what you are talking about.

First of all the OSI servers couldnt handle the load UO Gamers handles on the same hardware. We handle our load on ONE SERVER.

We could easily mult-server if we wanted. It is not a bad idea at all to develop server daemons on Windows... only an uneducated person would say something like that (or a Linux biggot, who knows what is worse).

I develop mission critical telphony servers for a living and they run on you guessed it windows. So back to OSI..

OSI's servers handle only about 2x the load that we handle. We have shown to have handled 1497 users online. Lets keep in mind that OSI has 8 'sectors' that the world is broken into. This translates into 8 servers per facet, per shard. (I am not including malas/ilsh becuase I have never heard factual stats from EA). I will promise you that EA doesnt run 3000+ on ONE FACET (aka 8 servers). We run 1400+ on ONE FACET on ONE SERVER.

That, in short is fucking amazing.

Oh yah, the RunUO core devs have run RunUO on Linux and it worked we just didnt like how long it took to startup Speaking of which, I have been a *nix admin since I graduated high school. I run Linux on my laptop and my desktop. I dont need to hear you tell me how much *better* it is, because thats just plain not true. Linux does have some uses but it is not better than windows. It would be much more accepted than it is.

Thanks for answering some questions I had. I noticed from day one, there were no server lines. That was cool. Also, I don't care what anyone says, but there is MUCH MORE LAG on OSI servers than RunUO and as you stated RunUO only has 1. What I didn't know, was on average how many users were connected to an OSI shard on a daily basis. The ONLY thing I really dislike about RunUO is World Save. Its quite annoying, but a great way to keep up with time spent in the game . Is World Save something that has be built into RunUO for it to emulate, or is there a possiblitly that in the future it may be able to be scripted out? I'm no tech guru, I'm just nosy. How does OSI backup the servers without disruption in game play, or do they do it only once a day?

 

[Phantom-hybrid]

We could only save once a day if that was wanted. However, due to the fact we would not have players after a crash whats the point.

OSI does have problems from time to time, and they have to warp back to the last save. They do not replace items, they cannot do anything when that happens.

However, since we save the world more often we can restore a save and you lose less time.

So do you want crashes and lose your 8-12 hours everytime it crashes? Or do you want 1 hour saves ( whatever it is currently ) and not lose as much if something weird happens?

We cannot have both, so I am sure most people would pick not losing more stuff then they already do when something weird happens.

There is lag during the final hours of a OSI day, however due to how their code works it might be a small percent less. Unlike OSI we don't use a database to save the world, which has its good points and bad points.

I don't even know why I am replying to this thread, mainly because the user doesn't know much about how the server works nor how OSI's servers work.

So its like talking to a brick wall...

 

[fierywater-hybrid]

*shrug* The World Save feature's fine, or at least acceptable. They're ever half hour now, I think, which is sorta annoying, but it's much better than the memory clear/world save setup before the new server.

 

[Shock Therapy]

We could only save once a day if that was wanted. However, due to the fact we would not have players after a crash whats the point.

OSI does have problems from time to time, and they have to warp back to the last save. They do not replace items, they cannot do anything when that happens.

However, since we save the world more often we can restore a save and you lose less time.

So do you want crashes and lose your 8-12 hours everytime it crashes? Or do you want 1 hour saves ( whatever it is currently ) and not lose as much if something weird happens?

We cannot have both, so I am sure most people would pick not losing more stuff then they already do when something weird happens.

There is lag during the final hours of a OSI day, however due to how their code works it might be a small percent less. Unlike OSI we don't use a database to save the world, which has its good points and bad points.

I don't even know why I am replying to this thread, mainly because the user doesn't know much about how the server works nor how OSI's servers work.

So its like talking to a brick wall...

Man you guys sometimes just act "nerved" that we ask questions. Thank you for replying as I now understand BETTER how a server works. But I was NOT complaining. I was asking to be taught. You did answer my question, as you explained that OSI saves once a day. I wasn't asking for the same, I merely wanted to know "Why?". Don't be so defensive. +90% of the shard is behind you guys 100%, but please don't act like we are all mindless morons just here for our free trammie gear.......geez. And by the way........everytime I've ever learned anything, was usually started off by asking a question.

 

[Kethinov]

Man you guys sometimes just act "nerved" that we ask questions.

Whoa, chill out there bud. I think it's safe to say they're getting "nerved" at me, not you, because I critisize their Windows / .NET basis.

It is not a bad idea at all to develop server daemons on Windows... only an uneducated person would say something like that (or a Linux biggot, who knows what is worse).

I won't deny my anti windows pro linux zealotry. But you shouldn't deny your opposite stance. Saying things like "I develop mission critical telphony servers for a living and they run on you guessed it windows" is clear evidence that you're taking this all a little too personally. Just because you develop for and use Windows at work doesn't make it the best tool for the job.

the RunUO core devs have run RunUO on Linux and it worked we just didnt like how long it took to startup

Out of sheer curiosity, how did you get it running in Linux if you've been using C# and .NET? By using Mono? Or some kind of recode/recompile? What specifically took so long to startup? RunUO or Linux itself? For the record, my experiences with Mono have been less than stellar. I don't think it's mature enough to use in production yet. And can you be more specific as to why you choose to run Windows Server 2003 over Linux which has had fantastic amd64 smp support far longer than Windows?

I dont need to hear you tell me how much *better* it is, because thats just plain not true. Linux does have some uses but it is not better than windows. It would be much more accepted than it is.

So if Windows is so much better at being a server, why does uogamers' website run Apache on Linux instead of IIS on Windows Server 2003? Because Linux is better at "some things"? Like being a server? So why not develop and run the RunUO server on Linux then? I'm just not seeing your reasoning here.

And thanks for continuing to discuss this with me, Ryan. I'm trying not to piss you guys off here and I'm not trying to insult you. You're obviously a talanted programmer and you're obviously doing a great service to the UO community. This is merely a bit of constructive criticism. And you have to admit, my comments are not at the level of some whining trammie. I really do care about the free UO community which is why I am discussing this with you. If you choose to further this debate, I will do my best to keep it from being a flame war. I really do respect you guys

 

[Galgum]

Whoa, chill out there bud.

He was just stating that he seems like the staff gets a little peve'd when asked questions so it makes other's afraid to ask them themselves. You should try your own chill pill.

As for the fix, rock on, never expected less from the best.

 

[MarthaStewart]

Whoa, chill out there bud. I think it's safe to say they're getting "nerved" at me, not you, because I critisize their Windows / .NET basis.




I won't deny my anti windows pro linux zealotry. But you shouldn't deny your opposite stance. Saying things like "I develop mission critical telphony servers for a living and they run on you guessed it windows" is clear evidence that you're taking this all a little too personally. Just because you develop for and use Windows at work doesn't make it the best tool for the job.




Out of sheer curiosity, how did you get it running in Linux if you've been using C# and .NET? By using Mono? Or some kind of recode/recompile? What specifically took so long to startup? RunUO or Linux itself? For the record, my experiences with Mono have been less than stellar. I don't think it's mature enough to use in production yet. And can you be more specific as to why you choose to run Windows Server 2003 over Linux which has had fantastic amd64 smp support far longer than Windows?




So if Windows is so much better at being a server, why does uogamers' website run Apache on Linux instead of IIS on Windows Server 2003? Because Linux is better at "some things"? Like being a server? So why not develop and run the RunUO server on Linux then? I'm just not seeing your reasoning here.

And thanks for continuing to discuss this with me, Ryan. I'm trying not to piss you guys off here and I'm not trying to insult you. You're obviously a talanted programmer and you're obviously doing a great service to the UO community. This is merely a bit of constructive criticism. And you have to admit, my comments are not at the level of some whining trammie. I really do care about the free UO community which is why I am discussing this with you. If you choose to further this debate, I will do my best to keep it from being a flame war. I really do respect you guys

What if you had to log onto the game using the server with linux installed?
Yes, it would be a pain no?

My question is what kind of setup for the server do you have? I am a hardcore pc hardware nerd and I am just curious. I myself have the setup below only atm it is a 2500+

 

[Kethinov]

What if you had to log onto the game using the server with linux installed?
Yes, it would be a pain no?

I don't think you understand how a client/server relationship works. I can write a server for a game in Linux and you can login to the server with a client from Windows just fine. A number of games work this way, inlcuding EA's version of Ultima Online. Their servers run on a distributed unix system called Solaris.

The decision of what operating system to use for the server has no effect on the decision for what operating system to use for the client.

 

[MarthaStewart]

that is not what i mean
what i mean is the game itself is made for windows
if you wanted to wanted to play the game using a linux kernal you would have to use a linux version of the game and as far as i know that doesnt exsist

I don't think you understand how a client/server relationship works. I can write a server for a game in Linux and you can login to the server with a client from Windows just fine. A number of games work this way, inlcuding EA's version of Ultima Online. Their servers run on a distributed unix system called Solaris.

The decision of what operating system to use for the server has no effect on the decision for what operating system to use for the client.

 

[Kethinov]

No one's talking about playing the game w/Linux, only using Linux as a game server. Huge difference. And FYI, it is possible to play UO in Linux using WINE. But AFAIK it's impossible to get Razor / UOGateway working with WINE.

 

[MarthaStewart]

No one's talking about playing the game w/Linux, only using Linux as a game server. Huge difference. And FYI, it is possible to play UO in Linux using WINE. But AFAIK it's impossible to get Razor / UOGateway working with WINE.

You should re-read my post. I was pointing out that could be a good reason to run the shard on a windows machine.

 

[blue_drac]

You should re-read my post. I was pointing out that could be a good reason to run the shard on a windows machine.

And I think you both are missing each other's point.

Martha: The OS for the server makes no difference to the OS of the connecting client. Do you play CouterStrike? What OS does the Half-Life client run on? (Windows). What does the Half-Life dedicated server run on? (Linux or Windows) Is there a linux port to play the game on? (not that I know of) Why don't you try sorting the game host list by OS? It's possible via the Half-Life server list. Next, take your Windows OS and connect to a Linux server. Notice any difference in game play? No? Thought so. Same idea with the web. How many linux servers, apple servers, solaris servers and windows servers do you connect to on a daily basis? Notice any difference in the text?

To tell you the honest truth, your prior posts make no sense. It's like arguing with the uninformed who are shouting to fill a void in need of a good troll.

Windows with .NET was chosen by the RunUO gods as "good." And it was done. And it works. I'm no Windows zealot, but neither am I a *nix guru. One's as good as the other IMO, and personally, I'd love to learn linux (Debian or Geko ... can't decide which.) I can code 10 Print "You're an idiot" 20 goto 10....but that's about it.

If you feel linux is superior, by all means, make your own emulator and prove them wrong if it does work better!

 

[MarthaStewart]

And I think you both are missing each other's point.

Martha: The OS for the server makes no difference to the OS of the connecting client. Do you play CouterStrike? What OS does the Half-Life client run on? (Windows). What does the Half-Life dedicated server run on? (Linux or Windows) Is there a linux port to play the game on? (not that I know of) Why don't you try sorting the game host list by OS? It's possible via the Half-Life server list. Next, take your Windows OS and connect to a Linux server. Notice any difference in game play? No? Thought so. Same idea with the web. How many linux servers, apple servers, solaris servers and windows servers do you connect to on a daily basis? Notice any difference in the text?

To tell you the honest truth, your prior posts make no sense. It's like arguing with the uninformed who are shouting to fill a void in need of a good troll.

Windows with .NET was chosen by the RunUO gods as "good." And it was done. And it works. I'm no Windows zealot, but neither am I a *nix guru. One's as good as the other IMO, and personally, I'd love to learn linux (Debian or Geko ... can't decide which.) I can code 10 Print "You're an idiot" 20 goto 10....but that's about it.

If you feel linux is superior, by all means, make your own emulator and prove them wrong if it does work better!

OMG WHICH PART ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING?!
I AM SAYING THAT IF YOU WERE ON THE GAME SERVER YOU KNOW THE ONE RUNUO IS RUNNING ON AND SAY YOU NEEDED TO LOG INTO THE GAME WITH THE UO CLIENT YOU WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS DOING THAT WIT LINUX AND IT WOULD BE EASIER WITH WINDOWS. I cannot think of any easier way to explain this more simple than I already have.