# To solve the issue of too many in one system for the server **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Created:** [January 3, 2021, 3:44pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289 "2021-01-03T15:44:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Makshima\_Shogo](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/makshima_shogo/32/247769_2.png) [@Makshima\_Shogo](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Makshima_Shogo)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 9:22am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/21 "2021-01-04T09:22:39Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > Jumping straight onto the Keepstar was a tactical error, and possibly bought on by being behind in preparation. Sure jumping straight into the battle was silly, but not jumping at all would have been just as silly. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 9:26am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/22 "2021-01-04T09:26:04Z")
> [@Makshima\_Shogo](#): > > Sure jumping straight into the battle was silly, but not jumping at all would have been just as silly. Yeah totally. Not jumping at all wouldn’t have achieved anything. There were a series of mistakes, like all major losses involve. Not having move ops finished. Not staging in their Fortizar progressively in the days prior. Jumping straight into fighter bombers. Then, jumping into a system that was already at 5000 people. It seems a number of the older heads successfully used the logout/login trick to get themself back out before they even got in, which would have also added to server load. Lot’s of things could have been different and I’m sure if this could be done over, PAPI would approach it differently. ---
**Author:** ![Geo\_Eclipse\_Oksaras](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/geo_eclipse_oksaras/32/500781_2.png) [@Geo\_Eclipse\_Oksaras](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 10:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/23 "2021-01-04T10:46:00Z")
In the cases of these large battles, CCP could limit the use of cans, fighters, drones etc. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 10:52am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/24 "2021-01-04T10:52:15Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > The long term solution for CCP is to continue to do what they’ve been doing, to reorganise the backend into a microservices architecture that can scale horizontally across physical blades, and anything that isn’t directly gameplay, get’s moved off to other servers all together. The issue is destiny can’t be scaled. Also the locks from DB have an exponential delay (synchronization CPU usage is in square of access rate) but maybe that’s an addressed issue. HW changes can make the server handle more activity, but since the activity is more than linear with the amount of players (exponential but for high number?) then the only solution is to make HW upgrades and program changes in order for Eve to be handled on a SINGLE server. When the Eve physics engine can handle the whole number of connected users( 30k ?), then the game can allow people to make as big of a fight as they want. However this requires a lot of changes, including possibly a second level of time dilation to reduce the ticks of the server to 1/10th, and/or the disable of AOE effects(in a non deterministic way, so as to not allow this to be abused), and/or the simplification of some mechanisms to reduce the server load. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > which hypervisor CCP are using hypervisor assumes virtual machine, which is bad for CPU intensive calls and especially on hardwares specifically made for high performances. > [@Neo\_Bladedrifter](#): > > We need some neutral to tackle the issue. You have to prove there is an issue. The only issue I can see is that the current state allows people to prevent a fight by amassing enough defenders, therefore making structures perfectly safe if the defender can prepare before the attacker comes in. It’s something that’s mandatory as long as the servers can’t handle the full number of connected players in one single grid. > [@Geo\_Eclipse\_Oksaras](#): > > In the cases of these large battles, CCP could limit the use of cans, fighters, drones etc. “should”. nope. There is no reason to arbitrary remove the strength of a side at an arbitrary limit. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 10:58am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/25 "2021-01-04T10:58:37Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > hypervisor assumes virtual machine, which is bad for CPU intensive calls and especially on hardwares specifically made for high performances. Well it specifies virtualisation (not just VMs) and isn’t so much an assumption. Once a hypervisor is in use, virtualization is being used. With current generation hypervisors, CPU intensive operations are not negatively impacted in a significant way. I will happily post public papers tomorrow if you want. And there is no need to assume CCP use virtualisation, the devblog for TQ Tech III clearly shows ESXi hosts: > **[Tranquility Tech III | EVE Online](https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/tranquility-tech-3)** > > On behalf of the Operations Team, and with blog writing music blasting on full (Skálmöld), I am privileged to be telling you about a huge project called  Tranquility Tech III, which we plan to complete by early 2016.  The project is called... > [@](#): > > Our plan is to create a 4 node ESXi cluster farm with the 4 monster nodes. On top of the hypervisor we’ll build both of our SQL Server clusters with one cluster node per ESXi server - as if they were physical. No real change there! > … > The real benefit comes into play when (or _if_, but more likely _when_) one of these physical hosts needs hardware maintenance or needs to be taken offline for some reason. At this point, in a typical two-node physical cluster we would be forced to run on only one cluster node and have fingers crossed that our now-single-point-of-failure does not fail. Lots of soulful Amarrian prayers would be required. > > With our virtual direction, we could simply vMotion the passive cluster node from its dedicated ESXi host to another ESXi host (the one hosting the 2nd cluster’s passive node)…and Bob’s yer uncle! > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > then the only solution is to make HW upgrades and program changes in order for Eve to be handled on a SINGLE server. Yes, although it’s not handled on a single server now. It’s single sharded (ie. the database is a single shard), but it runs on multiple servers. But yes totally. Continued hardware developments and changes in the code base is the long term solution. It’ll never truly be a solution as such, because there will always be a physical limit to how big a fight can get, but the ceiling will continue to increase while CCP continues to maintain and develop the game. ---
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 11:29am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/27 "2021-01-04T11:29:47Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > There is no virtualization without VM VM is a compute requirement. Network and storage virtualisation don’t rely on VMs. Containers running directly on a hypervisor don’t require a VM. What you are writing isn’t correct. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > There is no indication that CCP uses virtualization for the physics engine, Sure.If you can’t read. This is why getting into any discussion with you is stupid. You don’t know what you are talking about but carry on anyway. I’m an idiot for even writing this follow up post, but you won. You got me to waste some more time. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 11:37am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/28 "2021-01-04T11:37:07Z")
> [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > Containers running directly on a hypervisor don’t require a VM. > **[Hypervisor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor)** > > A hypervisor (also known as a virtual machine monitor, VMM, or virtualizer) is a type of computer software, firmware or hardware that creates and runs virtual machines. A computer on which a hypervisor runs one or more virtual machines is called a host machine, and each virtual machine is called a guest machine. The hypervisor presents the guest operating systems with a virtual operating platform and manages the execution of the guest operating systems. Unlike an emulator, the guest executes mo... > A **hypervisor** (or **virtual machine monitor** , **VMM** , **virtualizer** ) is computer [software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software), [firmware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware) or [hardware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware) that creates and runs [virtual machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine). > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > Network and storage virtualisation don’t rely on VMs. and we are not talking about network or storage virtualization, but about “hosting the physics engine” which is where the issues arise. Also network and storage virtualization is not virtualization in the sense of hypervisor. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > Sure.If you can’t read. Nice personal attack that you made here, showing that you know you are wrong but can’t admit it. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > I’m an idiot I know. Nothing more idiot than making personal attacks when you are wrong instead of trying to present your position in a civil way. Wait … maybe moving the topic on something else, like “virtual network” instead of virtualization is actually more idiot ? duno, but you definitely made more efforts to look like an idiot than you needed. ---
**Author:** ![Inxentas\_Ultramar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/inxentas_ultramar/32/385922_2.png) [@Inxentas\_Ultramar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Inxentas_Ultramar)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2021, 1:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/29 "2021-01-04T13:59:24Z")
> [@Felonia\_Despare](#): > > everytime theres a server improvement made, theres a server breaking fight. > [@Felonia\_Despare](#): > > Everytime CCP gives us a setup that can handle the amount of players in system we want, we add more. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > all this encourages is for sides to get bigger and bigger so that they can defend multiple timers by progressively staging in time Yup. Sad. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/4/1/41ec4921cbaca7a6f9ea556e7cc20018461eae5e.png) [@system](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2021, 1:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289/30 "2021-04-04T13:59:32Z")
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/to-solve-the-issue-of-too-many-in-one-system-for-the-server/288289.md?page=1)