EFU as Two Servers

[Conan The Conqueror]

Given the rather large size of the EFUA module, I wanted to open up discussion for the possibility of it being split into two separate pieces. Essentially the server would be divided into areas of the surface or near surface and the areas devoted to the Underdark.

I know not all of the previous Underdark areas are still in the module, but definitely a good number of them are. These areas are rarely used and even when they are used, it is sporadic and for a limited amount of time.

I think some time ago, the talk of the functionality of portalling between servers was brought up in reference to huge server systems like ALFA. But this is intended for just 2 modules.

All of the Underdark areas and perhaps the entrance to the Way would be put on a second module, and if possible, be run on the same box/server as the main EFUA module. I know the hardware used for the server is much better than we have had in the past, which is awesome, and was curious if this was possible. There would also be a portal that allowed you to save data and login to the EFUA server once you had reached the entrance to the Way or some other alternative to traveling between surface and the Underdark. (and vice versa)

Given that the 2nd module would be sparsely populated, maybe the strain on the server would be very minimal. Also, is it possible to make a module only 'load' when someone actually logs in?

There are of course a number of issues related to this. Hardware efficiency, data transfer, server population, etc. The goal of this would be to allow for the creation of more surface areas and potentially limit the amount of lag during peak playtimes. I think dividing things up would allow for more space/resources and still give an opportunity for those who wish to reach the Underdark and the challenges that await.

So the core questions:
- Can the current Hardware being used run 2 modules and remain stable?

- How difficult is it to set up a portal system?

- What are the issues related to sharing a database between 2 modules/servers?

- Are there currently enough areas in the Underdark to make this a worthwhile effort?

[Thomas_Not_very_wise]

i woud totally be in support of this...if it was worth it

[Nihm]

This is a neat idea - unfortunately so few people go there it may not be worth it even if possible.

[Shotzie]

This sounds great! But...

It ain't the home that  you remember fondly...Having recently played a char who came up from the UD, I can tell you, nothing will survive down there very long, unless alot of tweeks are made.  I believe the UD is now the truly epically hostile place it was meant to be.  Level ten parties might be all right. Might...for a short time.  (IF we had not had DM help, our plot would of been lost in mere moments, and quite permanently.)

That said, if it were revamped for our lower level playerbase, and feasable, who does not love the UD??

[Paha]

Biggest problem: who pays? Howland pretty much pays it all from his own pocket already with rather minimal and definitely never enough to even pay monthly cost, donations.

I used to play in servers that used the system to change server in simple transition system years ago. It definitely was workable back then, should still be.

This is great idea, but where do we dig up the funding, even if the mighty workers of the server would get it working?

[Conan The Conqueror]

Paha, that is why I suggested it be run on the same machine/computer and not a separate server. That way there would be no additional cost incurred, if possible.

[Paha]

By simple logic, I think it might require more space than running it all together.

If you run them separately, you still need to have both running on the server client, instead of having just one server client and module.

Both servers would still require that basic module under them, so scripts and prints would have to be ported on both sides, meaning the size would pretty much, not double necessarily, but close enough. I can be wrong, but if it would require copying the basic content so the basic efu changes work on this other server as well, then it definitely is not good idea to try and fit them on the same space we have currently, as it would take much more of it.

[Howlando]

Biggest problem: who pays? Howland pretty much pays it all from his own pocket already with rather minimal and definitely never enough to even pay monthly cost, donations.

Allow me to hastily interject that although that was true for a long time, more recently donations from the playerbase at large and particularly a certain DM that resembles a gloopy water-bird mixture the server's finances have been covered without me needing to dip into my international playboy party fund.

As for the other issues -

1) What you're describing is "Sharding," this may theoretically happen at some point in the far distant future but is technically complex and is unlikely to happen due to how much work it would be

2) The Underdark has some bugginess to it, I am aware of this, and have plans to fix it as well as make it a better and more interesting place to visit. It just takes time though.... and as you guys may have noticed, we have been pretty busy recently adding tons of new surface content :-)

[Conan The Conqueror]

That is the reason for asking in the thread if it is feasible. In my experience with some rented servers and gaming in the past, often server companies will have a number of things running on a single server.

Like way back in the day we had a BF2 and a Quake Wars server on the same box. Then we found out that some other customer also had some server running off that box as well. We discussed lag issues with them, and they just moved us to another tower or whatever.

I do not know the specs of the server we are currently using or the details of what else, if anything, is also being run on the server. But again, this is why the core questions were highlighted about the feasibility and potential benefit of this.

[Paha]

That's fantastic to hear Howland. Though I am still curious about the sharding within same hardware.

Would it require copying same stuff twice, and resulting in larger use of space or not?

[ScottyB]

I know that the old server had multiple cores that were almost always idle because NWN runs as a single thread/process (it was also our own box, I think a player donated it and ExileStrife did some work on it before sending it to a colocation center). I don't know if the current server has multiple cores for our use, though.

We've given thought to running the server as shards before. Hard drive space is not a concern. I don't remember where our last discussions left off, but I can give it another look.

[DeputyCool]

From what I understand, as well, our current hardware is extremely good and the size of the EFUA Module is not really beyond it's capability as one server. Lag that is experienced isn't a result of the server being overtaxed, so sharding seems sort of unnecessary.

[prestonhunt]

If ever the server needs to be rehosted, let me know.  Running my own Datacenter now.

[Conan The Conqueror]

DC, what do you feel is the primary cause of lag that is experienced? It was my understanding that a large (or huge) module size created problems of its own.

[kanrath]

I think part of running as multiple servers for a number of the bigger servers is in fact not lag but placeable count. If I remember right a friend once told me every NWN is maxed out at a specific number of objects placed within the module so at a point you can no longer place things in the server. Though I could be wrong.