From reading various papers on the subject most systems keep the bandwidth and response (lag) of the session members and will assign the primary and secondary according to those factors.
Lag, if done properly, should be minimal.
ED Server / Servers Down problems discussion thread
- Status
From reading various papers on the subject most systems keep the bandwidth and response (lag) of the session members and will assign the primary and secondary according to those factors.
Lag, if done properly, should be minimal.
How would that help if you were playing against someone on an EU server though. Unless they are planning on having some kind of EU/US choice of server at the login screen for online play, these two servers would need to talk to each other and still lead to latency issues.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
If we're talking about the 'universe server' then it wouldn't matter so much. I guess you could have a mirrored one in the US for shorter routes, but the universe server is only going to be storing meta data on the game state, not helping out in instancing.
Having one client host all the others would be unacceptable, both for the performance reason you give and because it would be hopelessly fragile (single point of failure).
So, I reckon each client will run its own independent simulation of the local environment, with periodic P2P updates to communicate player actions. The environments on different peers will diverge when player actions occur between update "clock ticks" -- which meshes with FD's explanation of the speed limit; it keeps the divergence to manageable levels.
For those concerned at the lack of a local server, as long as the matchmaking system groups people who have low pings relative to one another, then a P2P architecture should mean you're fine. A downside is that you might not be able to fly with friends around the globe, but a system based on central servers would suffer from that too.
Thank you for your explanations. Frontier must probably have a team of network engineers, to manage it all
And if we are NOT talking about the 'universe server', what happened to the lady of questionable moral standards in your sig?
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
If you are finished with her, can I borrow her for a couple of days?She fell victim to my incessant desire to rework things in Photoshop.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
OK they still need a load balancing server. Since we are not as dependent on geographical IP, they would use a ping time balancing system to get the databank servers to properly allocate to the correct P2P instance at that time. Now this is where a remote server mirror would come in. It would also need a ping balancing server for that geographical system. This server would be a mirror of the main server . This server would serve the local P2P clients. This would allow each P2P group faster communications with other geographical clients in another area. There would be a small increase in ping between data servers, but the load balancing servers would allow the packet information between clients for each P2P instance. Sorry I'm not very good at explaining things.
No, a mirror service would not be needed. FD have a choice: Take your sign up details and location to use that to group you or dynamically look up your geographical location from your IP.
Hmm OK. I replied to Graham about 15 hours ago. Where is my reply?
Communication with the server (which everyone is calling the meta-server) would be periodic and not based around lag. Getting a good connection to localised group is a higher priority.
@Doctor: post your response again.
@Doctor: post your response again.
OK I will try to make this short this time instead of a long explanation. A local mirror would make P2P connections in that geographical location faster. This is a irrefutable fact. The data would be mirrored on the local servers so the static info such as NPC's, planets, stations, etc which don't require the P2P would make whatever minor changes are required. Of course I'm assuming they already use a load balancing logon system to allocate data servers according to the geographical location the client is coming from to begin with. (I honestly don't know of any game company that has global clients that doesn't use a load balancing logon server.) The real time data would travel via P2P. Using the mirror to the meta-server would therefore make the game play have better ping times and less packet loss. They would have "faster" play time. ED is not the first game to use this system and not the only one doing so now. A few well placed mirrors would be all that is necessary. Of course the servers could be brought online as funds allowed. 2 or 3 of them should be sufficient. Are they necessary? No, but they would make the game better for the clients. Not only would it work, it does work.
OK I will try to make this short this time instead of a long explanation. A local mirror would make P2P connections in that geographical location faster. This is a irrefutable fact. The data would be mirrored on the local servers so the static info such as NPC's, planets, stations, etc which don't require the P2P would make whatever minor changes are required. Of course I'm assuming they already use a load balancing logon system to allocate data servers according to the geographical location the client is coming from to begin with. (I honestly don't know of any game company that has global clients that doesn't use a load balancing logon server.) The real time data would travel via P2P. Using the mirror to the meta-server would therefore make the game play have better ping times and less packet loss. They would have "faster" play time. ED is not the first game to use this system and not the only one doing so now. A few well placed mirrors would be all that is necessary. Of course the servers could be brought online as funds allowed. 2 or 3 of them should be sufficient. Are they necessary? No, but they would make the game better for the clients. Not only would it work, it does work.
It's is not irrefutable fact. Why would something you contact very very rarely (session masters once or twice per minute and players on a lot higher interval) make something faster?
Ok I'll use standard text color. I never do but will because you asked. As yes it is a irrefutable fact because some games use it now. And it is not a huge increase in speed. But it not only helps a slight amount in keeping the P2P connections faster but keeps the meta data more accurate in case of packet loss on a per user basis. In gaming every little bit helps. In gaming a half second is a huge difference. I've stated what is in use and why. Not going to get into a argument like they do on so many forums. Not worth it to me. With a oxygen hose up my nose and a half dozen heart meds, really not worth the stress. You are of course welcome to your opinion. Everyone is. Please don't take me as flaming or being rude. It is the last thing I want, because I'm really not. But I've been in computers for 42 yrs and have a degree in computer science. 3 certs in programming. Owned a ISP for 8 yrs. (setup and maintained all routers, dslams, etc) Built over 5000 systems in my life, including NASA and the Atomic energy commission. Been a microsoft dev since 95. A retired/disabled network engineer. I built the servers and helped setup the first ISP in Moscow. I've built hundreds of servers for corporations worldwide. I've worked with several game companies on tech problems. I have been gaming online since 95 and have had thousands of tech convo's with game devs and tech ppl. Just trying to make you understand why I say what I do. It really does work because it is already in use elsewhere. Thanks and take care.
I thought about my last post and I don't want people to think I'm trying to be arrogant. I'm not, I swear. This is so complicated. Sigh, ok. You HAVE to use a load balancing system when using P2P for client connections. There is no choice, no exception. There are many ways to do it. You can use tree groups, cluster formations, K-D groups, arrays, etc. You cannot run a single server system. They just flat don't work. You can use a cluster system but then some of the clients are going to become bottle necks and slow down everyone else. Its a inheirent problem of P2P. Remote servers work best because they reduce the load on the meta server. Using well placed mirrors for the load-balancing system server would probably be the best solution. This is not the meta server mirror in this setup. It is a mirror for the load balancing server group. (whichever style of group you choose) I can provide you with a number of links if you like. But here is one.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1354648&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1354648
OK I'm done. God this stuff makes my brain explode. Sigh, I hate getting old. I hope this helps you understand. Bottom line is, ED is going to do what they want because it's their company and not mine. I'm sure my opinion means doodle to em, lol. I never intended to get this deep in this thread, was just throwing out some info. Oh well ya know what Shakespeare said, "the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray". grin Take care and goodnight :smilie:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1354648&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1354648
OK I'm done. God this stuff makes my brain explode. Sigh, I hate getting old. I hope this helps you understand. Bottom line is, ED is going to do what they want because it's their company and not mine. I'm sure my opinion means doodle to em, lol. I never intended to get this deep in this thread, was just throwing out some info. Oh well ya know what Shakespeare said, "the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray". grin Take care and goodnight :smilie:
- Status