having one "master state" will be hard to scale. Make different states for different "zones" (either physical as on a map, or having to do with aspects of the game), and then you can delegate zones (or subzones) to other machines. Do this also for object-classes (player attribute state may be separate from object state, separate from location states, etc.) so that different subsystems can be independently optimized. A cluster of master META routers can glue these parallel states together to provide a single entry point and consistency. Round robin DNS would be sufficient in most cases (esp if using UDP or persistent (stateful) TCP).
Obviously, until things ramp up, you should be able to do all this with one server, but making these parallel states will make scaling much easier when the need arises.
It's called a market. The market sets the unit price (assuming all units are equal), and you can "migically" multiply the unit price set by the market times your total units to determine your total alue, but in reality this won't really work since each buy or sell will change the price slightly. If everyone sells the market drops very quickly, so becoming liquid is a big challenge for lots of these dot-commers with millions of shares.
Creating "wealth" or value is NOT the same as creating cash. Look at real estate. You buy land, people want it, it "goes up" in value, but you are none the richer in your bank. They announce your next door neighbors will be a strip club, an oil refinery, a hazmat depot, or a methadone clinic, and your "wealth" will disappear in a moment.
It is all supply and demand, but I still like the term voodoo economics...
I try not to use the lead branch. In other words, 2.4 is not safe until 2.5 is out and all experimentation is done in THAT sandbox. 2.5 came out several weeks ago, so I agree that there was a LONG time w/o a good 2.4 (since there was no 2.5).
Designing the same VM for a microwave oven, gaming PC, database server, and massively parallel cluster will make nobody happy. I think that the choice in VMs will give Linux very good flexibility to run well in different environments.
A fully abstracted VM that wrote to fully abstracted IO would allow for "snap ins" that would be optimized for the task at hand. I think forcing 2 VM trees to compete and coexist is good.
Then again, how much is RAM? I just bought 512MB for less than $40. I NEVER swap (running ~800MB RAM / server) and never want to. I ran my first e-commerce web site w/ SSL and mSQL on a 486SLC-20MHz with 5MB of 110ns DRAM. Yeah, it swapped. But these days, most machines are way overkill for serving web pages, files, and queries.
Well, I give you credit for being technically correct. However, LDAP is most comonly viewed as a logical representation of structured data, with published specs for reads, writes, updates, searches, replication, authentication, authorization, etc. It is as much a data warehouse as SQL is (in the sense that the data may be in DBM / ISAM, NFS, RAMFS,..., and not in the RDMS proper).
The point is that these types of data modelling functions do not compete with web services, and the majority of web services require such low-level tools to be in place. I bet my bottom dollar that Passpart uses LDAP in its infrastructure.
Web services, dumb ass, are ways of PRESENTING information. They provide no actual data storage. It is entirely possilbe to run a SOAP interface on top of LDAP (as many people have done), just like you can run web services on top of SQL or legacy data.
I'll go so far as to say that is one of the most retarded statements I have ever seen on a somewhat intelligent board. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SOFTWARE COMPANY IS HEAVILY INVESTED IN LDAP. That goes for Microsoft (Active Directory), Sun (iPlanet LDAP is now the backend for all Solaris services), Red Hat (PAM/LDAP, nss, etc.), Novell (NDS), IBM (Websphere and the whole Lotus/Domino stuff is natively LDAP), Java (JNDI services), AOL / ASPs (all customer accounts are in LDAP), Yahoo, etc. etc.
You should really know at least SOMETHING the fuck about what you are talking about before puking out any more words.
The DVI is a HUGE difference
on
New iMac Announced
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Noting that you can pick up a 15" flatscreen is very misleading. The difference between DVI (http://www.ddwg.org/) and Analog (SVGA) is amazing.
Matching a digital screen w/ an analog input is a bastardization that best belongs on the Island of Doctor Moreau. Having end-to-end digital costs a couple hundred bucks (generally) but makes all the difference in the world.
I think this uses TCP multicast, so after transport issues/dlays have been resolved, there should be a listening thread that receives the update request into memory, and makes the change once any locks are freed, which may take a while (in computational terms) on long transactions.
there are several async processes, so each request will be unique, but the point they are trying to make is that notifications are sent out immediately.
i am more interested in their robustness model their ability to deal with network faults.
Ok, I give him points for pragmatism. I don't think anybody in their right mind will criticize Microsoft for failing to capture market share.
However, I feel slimy for just reading that stuff. Here is what I got:
1. Bugs are fine if they get your product delivered.
2. Load in useless features to drive sales, knowing that your code will suck.
3. Once you have gobs of crap code and a large user base, there will never exist the possibility of re-designing things (eg, WinXP) since it doesn't matter that code sucks (see point 1) and all that counts is revenue.
4. Being efficient is a waste of time. Let the hardware catch up with the crap code.
5. The customer never has valid input anyway.
6. Do it fast and furious, even if January 1900 is broken. Consumers are idiots anyway.
These may be great for sales, but ultimately you will build crap. Garbage in, garbage out. I would rather design good software that was well designed and efficient than vomit up mounds of bloat that will ultimately topple under its own weight.
Software built poorly will never hold up over time. If you look at how little UNIX has had to change over the past 30 years to keep up with "The Internet Age" versus the amount of work done to get XP "working", the future looks bleak for Microsoft. In 20 years, their OS need 25GB of RAM simply to boot up. Of course, this seems not to concern them.
If any company wanted to hire contractors or special consultants to do all this work (which seems like couple hundred man hours), the bill would run about 5 times that here in the US. That amount, though seeingly large, is like paying a half-assed programmer for 2 months work, once you consider all the associates business expenses (taxes, facilities, benefits, etc.).
In my estimation, this company is getting the deal of a lifetime. I currently work for a company that is considering buying an enterprise LDAP server (like iPlanet) to the tune of hundreds of thousands (up to millions) of dollars. I am sure if we set up a similar "bounty" to cover extensions to OpenLDAP our ROI would be about 20-to-1. This is basic business to me, and a great step forward. This is a perfect example of open source being a win-win.
The biggest flaw of ext2 is the minisiclue 2GB file size limit, which is fixed in ReiserFS and XFS.
Does ext3 still have this 1991-ish limitation? It really caused trouble for large databases and full bacukups of live systems onto the filesystem.
I never reboot my machines, so journaling is not nearly as important as speed and file size.
Slashdot Mirror
having one "master state" will be hard to scale. Make different states for different "zones" (either physical as on a map, or having to do with aspects of the game), and then you can delegate zones (or subzones) to other machines. Do this also for object-classes (player attribute state may be separate from object state, separate from location states, etc.) so that different subsystems can be independently optimized. A cluster of master META routers can glue these parallel states together to provide a single entry point and consistency. Round robin DNS would be sufficient in most cases (esp if using UDP or persistent (stateful) TCP).
Obviously, until things ramp up, you should be able to do all this with one server, but making these parallel states will make scaling much easier when the need arises.
It's called a market. The market sets the unit price (assuming all units are equal), and you can "migically" multiply the unit price set by the market times your total units to determine your total alue, but in reality this won't really work since each buy or sell will change the price slightly. If everyone sells the market drops very quickly, so becoming liquid is a big challenge for lots of these dot-commers with millions of shares.
Creating "wealth" or value is NOT the same as creating cash. Look at real estate. You buy land, people want it, it "goes up" in value, but you are none the richer in your bank. They announce your next door neighbors will be a strip club, an oil refinery, a hazmat depot, or a methadone clinic, and your "wealth" will disappear in a moment.
It is all supply and demand, but I still like the term voodoo economics...
kevin
Don't go to 2.5 until 2.6 is out. :)
Kevin
Then again, how much is RAM? I just bought 512MB for less than $40. I NEVER swap (running ~800MB RAM / server) and never want to. I ran my first e-commerce web site w/ SSL and mSQL on a 486SLC-20MHz with 5MB of 110ns DRAM. Yeah, it swapped. But these days, most machines are way overkill for serving web pages, files, and queries.
The point is that these types of data modelling functions do not compete with web services, and the majority of web services require such low-level tools to be in place. I bet my bottom dollar that Passpart uses LDAP in its infrastructure.
I'll go so far as to say that is one of the most retarded statements I have ever seen on a somewhat intelligent board. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SOFTWARE COMPANY IS HEAVILY INVESTED IN LDAP. That goes for Microsoft (Active Directory), Sun (iPlanet LDAP is now the backend for all Solaris services), Red Hat (PAM/LDAP, nss, etc.), Novell (NDS), IBM (Websphere and the whole Lotus/Domino stuff is natively LDAP), Java (JNDI services), AOL / ASPs (all customer accounts are in LDAP), Yahoo, etc. etc.
You should really know at least SOMETHING the fuck about what you are talking about before puking out any more words.
Matching a digital screen w/ an analog input is a bastardization that best belongs on the Island of Doctor Moreau. Having end-to-end digital costs a couple hundred bucks (generally) but makes all the difference in the world.
I think this uses TCP multicast, so after transport issues/dlays have been resolved, there should be a listening thread that receives the update request into memory, and makes the change once any locks are freed, which may take a while (in computational terms) on long transactions.
there are several async processes, so each request will be unique, but the point they are trying to make is that notifications are sent out immediately.
i am more interested in their robustness model their ability to deal with network faults.
kevin
However, I feel slimy for just reading that stuff. Here is what I got:
1. Bugs are fine if they get your product delivered.
2. Load in useless features to drive sales, knowing that your code will suck.
3. Once you have gobs of crap code and a large user base, there will never exist the possibility of re-designing things (eg, WinXP) since it doesn't matter that code sucks (see point 1) and all that counts is revenue.
4. Being efficient is a waste of time. Let the hardware catch up with the crap code.
5. The customer never has valid input anyway.
6. Do it fast and furious, even if January 1900 is broken. Consumers are idiots anyway.
These may be great for sales, but ultimately you will build crap. Garbage in, garbage out. I would rather design good software that was well designed and efficient than vomit up mounds of bloat that will ultimately topple under its own weight.
Software built poorly will never hold up over time. If you look at how little UNIX has had to change over the past 30 years to keep up with "The Internet Age" versus the amount of work done to get XP "working", the future looks bleak for Microsoft. In 20 years, their OS need 25GB of RAM simply to boot up. Of course, this seems not to concern them.
If any company wanted to hire contractors or special consultants to do all this work (which seems like couple hundred man hours), the bill would run about 5 times that here in the US. That amount, though seeingly large, is like paying a half-assed programmer for 2 months work, once you consider all the associates business expenses (taxes, facilities, benefits, etc.).
In my estimation, this company is getting the deal of a lifetime. I currently work for a company that is considering buying an enterprise LDAP server (like iPlanet) to the tune of hundreds of thousands (up to millions) of dollars. I am sure if we set up a similar "bounty" to cover extensions to OpenLDAP our ROI would be about 20-to-1. This is basic business to me, and a great step forward. This is a perfect example of open source being a win-win.
The biggest flaw of ext2 is the minisiclue 2GB file size limit, which is fixed in ReiserFS and XFS. Does ext3 still have this 1991-ish limitation? It really caused trouble for large databases and full bacukups of live systems onto the filesystem. I never reboot my machines, so journaling is not nearly as important as speed and file size.