Planned downtime: OS upgrade

[borka]

-snip- What if the update changed a setting of the server code -snip-

The updating process itself won't change the server program code and i don't think Loftar did restrict the amount connections possible...

@Dill

the link you gave points to a forum about dedicated servers ...

And Loftar prolly uses the Linux distribution that he knows (likes) best ...

[Dill]

-snip- What if the update changed a setting of the server code -snip-

The updating process itself won't change the server program code and i don't think Loftar did restrict the amount connections possible...

@Dill

the link you gave points to a forum about dedicated servers ...

And Loftar prolly uses the Linux distribution that he knows (likes) best ...

Well lofter needs to learn (like) something better! lol.

I wish haven and hearth's server was dedicated..

[jordancoles]

ctrl + h will remove some clipping lags for you but in general this is terrible, I restock curios and that's about it atm. I've even given up while doing that lol

[Raghtur]

Not sure if anyone else has seen this, but in the last half hour, got hit by another of those long lag spikes while I was near a group of aurocs in an open area. Now I'm pretty sure all of us know that in the past typically when the server response lags our relative map position and any animals relative position remains the same from the begining to the end of the response lag. This time however while my location did not change, the position of two of the aurocs radically change between the begining and end of the lag spike with no animation of them moving from point a to point b. This got me thinking.

I know I've already posted about possible insufficient available RAM, but what if this is not actually the case. What if the update changed a setting of the server code that limited the number of connections it actively 'talked' to, to keep this simple we'll call this limit 'X'. Now assuming that there is an 'X' amt of connections that the server will process, but does not limit the actually amt of connections at any one time, we'll call the number of people connected to the server as 'Y'. Assuming that these is what is the problem, it would explain why when the number of people online is low, no one experiences any real lag aside from occassional normal server response/processing lag. But when the number of connections 'Y' exceeds the limit of 'X', the server will only talk to 'X' amt of conenctions at any one time and the ones the server are not talking to are put on hold until the server does talk to them again which is why we are experiencing so many seconds of no lag, followed by so many seconds of no response at all.

I would like to point out that while I have a lot of experience with computers in general (programing, setup, troubleshooting), I have little experience in troubleshooting communication protocols for computers aside from making sure that they match expected settings provided to me from a third party. So what I've written in the paragraph above may or may not have any relevance on the problems we're having with H&H right now. If it does and gives you an idea on how to fix I'm glad. If it doesn't, I heartily apologize for any waste of your time it may cause.

Idk if i read this right but what your saying is pretty much theres too many people so it causes the lag?

If so in world 4 (i think it was 4) there was 1k-1.5k people on regularly. I dont think its the people connecting. I think its the os not being read fast enough to process at the speed it need. So i (and others) think that he needs an ssd harddrive to run the os on the server.

/e does anyone know the server specs?

I'm not saying that there's too many people for the server to physically handle. I'm saying that the update to the OS MIGHT have caused a programed value change limiting the number of connections or people online that the server will process at the same time. To put it simply think of the server as a call center. Now this mythical call center has 100 phone lines with 100 people to answer them, or in otherwords no waiting provided you have gotten through. Now if the server OS update has limited the number of connections the server will process it's equivalent to the mythical call center firing say 50 of the people that answer the phone lines. There's still 100 phone lines to call in to, but only 50 people to answer them, so 50 of those calls coming in need to wait.

I only came up with this idea because I and a few others have noticed from the restarts after the update that at some point between 100-200 people online seems to be the turning point for when we all start experiencing significant lag. Don't believe me, take a look back through this topic as others have posted noticing this as well after the restarts.

[Foetuses]

I'm not saying that there's too many people for the server to physically handle. I'm saying that the update to the OS MIGHT have caused a programed value change limiting the number of connections or people online that the server will process at the same time. To put it simply think of the server as a call center. Now this mythical call center has 100 phone lines with 100 people to answer them, or in otherwords no waiting provided you have gotten through. Now if the server OS update has limited the number of connections the server will process it's equivalent to the mythical call center firing say 50 of the people that answer the phone lines. There's still 100 phone lines to call in to, but only 50 people to answer them, so 50 of those calls coming in need to wait.

I only came up with this idea because I and a few others have noticed from the restarts after the update that at some point between 100-200 people online seems to be the turning point for when we all start experiencing significant lag. Don't believe me, take a look back through this topic as others have posted noticing this as well after the restarts.

To summarise what he said without all the bloat: OS change could've reset a value within the OS's settings that limits the maximum amount of connections that can go through the server at once. If the value is smaller than the amount of players trying to connect (or rather, send packet requests), then some of the players or other programmed entities will have to 'wait for their turn', causing lag spikes when several hundred players are online at once and can't all be served at once.
Though, limiting the amount of incoming connections a server can take is common practice, especially in defense against DDoS attacks. I'm still convinced that the problem lies mostly in the server-side coding, and not so much in the actual server specs. Though of course, a SSD with a single backup HDD for redundancy would speed up the I/O, as others have said.

[Dill]

To summarise what he said without all the bloat: OS change could've reset a value within the OS's settings that limits the maximum amount of connections that can go through the server at once. If the value is smaller than the amount of players trying to connect (or rather, send packet requests), then some of the players or other programmed entities will have to 'wait for their turn', causing lag spikes when several hundred players are online at once and can't all be served at once.
Though, limiting the amount of incoming connections a server can take is common practice, especially in defense against DDoS attacks. I'm still convinced that the problem lies mostly in the server-side coding, and not so much in the actual server specs. Though of course, a SSD with a single backup HDD for redundancy would speed up the I/O, as others have said.

That is so much easier to understand. xD

That would explain why it wasnt lagging at all when i first joined (there was like 18 people on) then lagged more later when there was more on.

Lofter! Check this!

[REWB]

Heh that's interesting.. since a bunch of the better/further along players are lagging too much to play, I'm able to work on catching up.. muahaha!

Well my toon has been around since the first week but he is not developed, I stoped playing as I didnt like being a hermit. The forums are lagging a bunch as well.

[loftar]

I love all the absolutely clueless thoughts and suggestions about the lag in this thread, even in spite of me having stated the actual reasons multiple times. :)

Either way, it's not as if I completely lack any entry into trying to solve the problem. For instance, I will be looking into LatencyTOP and/or see if anything can be seen using SystemTap. However, there's no way I can know for sure beforehand that either way will actually lead to any further insights.

[Dill]

I love all the absolutely clueless thoughts and suggestions about the lag in this thread, even in spite of me having stated the actual reasons multiple times.

Either way, it's not as if I completely lack any entry into trying to solve the problem. For instance, I will be looking into LatencyTOP and/or see if anything can be seen using SystemTap. However, there's no way I can know for sure beforehand that either way will actually lead to any further insights.

Then try stuff! Id rather have downtime then this mass lag!

[Apsilon]

I love all the absolutely clueless thoughts and suggestions about the lag in this thread, even in spite of me having stated the actual reasons multiple times.

Either way, it's not as if I completely lack any entry into trying to solve the problem. For instance, I will be looking into LatencyTOP and/or see if anything can be seen using SystemTap. However, there's no way I can know for sure beforehand that either way will actually lead to any further insights.

well at least you guys are doing something :p