CCP has been fragmenting individual services and functions (like chat, leaderboards, activity tracker, etc.) off from the TQ monolith for years now and slowly moving some of them to cloud platforms, but as @Steve_Ronuken said, it doesn’t make business sense to move certain components of TQ like the core services to the cloud. Not that it could not be done technically speaking, just that it would not provide a meaningful benefit to the players or the company.
3 Likes
No.
(Post must be 5 characters, so here are more characters…)
3 Likes
Probably never.
2 Likes
All production hardware is transferred to use for test servers for many years.
2 Likes
Did we ever get EVE started on that 28C Intel box?
1 Like
That would be a massive undertaking; migrating all tables, views, functions, and stored procedures from T-SQL to PL/pgSQL, along with all monitoring, metrics, and institutional knowledge; and would therefore have to entail massive benefits.
3 Likes
AMD’s approach of a high number of cores doesn’t fit well with Microsoft’s licensing of SQL Server per core. I would love for Microsoft to measure volume, throughput, usage for licensing purposes somehow differently than just counting the cores.
2 Likes
It could be worse. you could have been using Oracle 
2 Likes
Hmm, looking back at my notes I don’t think we actually managed a full start!
We knew we could (we thought we could) if we disabled ESI to allow for a softer startup but I don’t think we went forward with that test.
sept 28, 2020 - * TQ failover testing on Intel28 - no luck - still fails after manual soft numa
sept 23, 2020 - * TQ Failover to Intel 28 - failure
1 Like
It’s pretty obvious you don’t even understand what you are talking about because it certainly did require privilege escalation to overwrite boot.ini
1 Like
and no other SQL provider other than oracle and to a lesser degree MySQL are even remotely mature enough
1 Like
And affected Windows users were adminstrators then, no escelation required.
Seems pretty obvious to me, how can one explain then why it overwrote a protected escelation required file?
I can’t find the official CCP blog, it seems to be removed now.
It is conceivable it could happen in the next few editions as their various SQL as a service offerings and SQL server are coming closer and closer in features previously unique to the other.
MS has also adapted their licensing in the past when new realities of memory quantities, cpu counts, socket counts etc started to change. I think for SQL it needs to happen even with more modest procs. when they reworked it last time it did not even require the biggest processors available to saturate the fastest storage fabric available short of maybe going to 100Gbps iscsi but at the time I don’t remember any storage appliances that had 100Gbps ethernet available and very few that had 40 Gbps - which is worse than 12 Gbs SAS. Hopefully they don’t mess up whatever their next license change is after making it so simple (relatively) in the current iteration
1 Like
Microsoft licensing be changing into vampire subscription sucking mode, Azure outtage prevention protection costs extra. They can call that one, geographic redundancy for selling the same subscriptions multiple times to one victim.
Boot to cloud cometh. X-Terminals / thin clients with a new name. “Cloud PC Offline Sync!”
There are some other fringe features like software defined networking which could come in play here, storage spaces direct which I doubt do and possibly nano server for some application servers but they have messed with the rapid servicing channel licensing so many times my head hurts
Copying Linux has worked out well for Microsoft since Ballmer left. Looking at the monthly log scale MSFT price chart, you can map the Ballmer years to the long stagnent “cup” and the price rise to the year after he went to the exit door.
I don’t even know what nosql could be used for. would be good for saved fittings, eve mail, contacts. in evemail and contacts it seems like a solution looking for a problem, for how simple both those are and unlikely to ever become significantly more complicated, it is creating a lot of work to add in some nosql for what could be very elegantly implemented as a single denormalized table. It could be a boon for ship fittings, but doesn’t make sense to add complexity for something so limited in scope
1 Like
Great writeup! I appreciate you all sharing your journey. Always good to see what others have done. Does CCP offer server room tours?
1 Like
Tour? Does that go the scenic route via the pub?
Bear in mind that the servers are in a data centre near London. Not one that’s CCP specific. so that’ll be a no then.
(data centre access is generally a bit of an effort to arrange.)