64-bit Server Client = Less Servers?

[Number Six]

21 hours ago, Abraxus said:

I was wondering 'twixt myself about the benefits of the 64-bit client down the road.  As we know, it gives the client access to hardware resources beyond those restrictions dictated by the 32-bit version.  So, I wondered if, perhaps, a 64-bit server client makes it possible to consolidate servers to host more players, with less resources necessary?  There is much I don't know about the back-end operations, so it could just be ignorance on my part, and much more would have to be done for this old code to take full advantage of modern hardware.  But, follow me here.

The 64-bit client won't impact server load any -- as far as the server is concerned it is no different than the 32-bit client.

 

The 64-bit mapserver (also being tested on the beta server) has a much bigger possibility of impacting server utilization. The most obvious effect is there should be fewer instances where a long-lived map reaches the danger level (1.8GB private memory usage for 32-bit) and goes into drain mode -- forcing everybody to for example Atlas Park 2.

 

However, consolidating shards doesn't really make any sense due to how the COH server architecture works. All of the shards in a region share a pool of mapserver hosts, and the map instances on each physical server use shared memory so they only need to load the static assets once. For example, Atlas Park on Torchbearer could be running on the same server as Port Oakes on Excelsior, an Incarnate trial on Indomitable, and a mission that somebody on Everlasting is running.

 

Shards themselves are fairly lightweight as a result -- the only piece unique to the shard is the dbserver, and that can be virtualized. The only shard that has dedicated mapserver resources is Reunion, because it's in a different datacenter on the other side of the planet. Shards exist because the dbserver, which has always been 64-bit, tends to get unstable around 2,000 concurrent players.

 

This is the same reason that server merges were never going to happen on live and would not have been a cost savings. There's a ton of downside and support nightmare dealing with name conflicts, and little to no benefit from doing it.

[jubakumbi]

The bigest issue with updating the client to 64bit is security.

The foudation that runs this game is trvial to hack in terms of encryption, etc.

Any 32bit system is far more vulnerable to attack vectors.

 

Without 64bit support, there is no good chance of a secure password store, for example.

If I were NCSoft, for example, I would not enter contractual agreements for anything that cannot provide good consumer security, so I imagine this might also be a reason for addressing this at this time, just speculating.

 

Most platforms these days are also 64bit native and running the 32bit code requires an extra layer of code, so the 64bit versions _should_ run a bit better on lots of HW, making the experience for enveryone better..

[Abraxus]

And there ya have it!  This was an interrogative thought experiment, which now has some definitive answers/information.  Thanks to "Number 6" for taking the time to share some information with us, which makes us all a little more informed when it comes to the back-end architecture. 😎

[Lunchmoney]

3 hours ago, Lunchmoney said:

Already a thing. In the Team tab select the red, Not Accepting Invites, option. 

I'll take a screenshot later.

Tick the red button. 

I do it so often I forget I've done it. Which causes confusion when I try to join a team..... 🤣

[WumpusRat]

On 8/18/2019 at 11:37 AM, PaxArcana said:

Plus if they are actually rewriting all the code to handle a 64-bit approach - and "straightening the spaghetti" while they are at it - they might actually be able to make names unique per account rather than per server.

 

Maybe, something like Champions Online did, where your Global Name is appended to any Character Name, in order to identify that exact character in the database.  So, I could continue to play Kid_Shock@PaxArcana, right alongside (say) both Kid_Shock@Abraxas and Kid_Shock@Eva_Destruction.

 

For myself, I can't stand that system. Not only does it clutter up chat with tons of extra text, but then you run into characters who have the max character limit names, AND max character limit account name. So you'd end up with chat being like:

Savior of the Eternal Gerbil@ihaveareallylongname: <tells a bad joke>

Lord Darkity Darkness of Death@lorddarkitydarknessofdeath: lol

 

Not only that, but I LIKE names being unique. I don't need to see fifty different characters with the same name running around. It makes character names more or less meaningless, and only the global matters.