Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Voluntary Server Transfers are more than just a polite recommendation:

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
Voluntary Server Transfers are more than just a polite recommendation:

JunkyardWolf's Avatar


JunkyardWolf
07.13.2012 , 10:42 AM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by Clayburn View Post
I really regret investing so much in this game. Not so much the money, but the time. So, I logged in after a bit of an absence. My server is a ghost town because everyone left. I decided to move too. Now, I have to rename all my character, and the new server is over-populated.

Really upsetting.
I agree,this "you only get 1 server option" is lousy, first off i have over 8 toons they say can transfer so kiss the rest off? so i loose 9 charactors,because i have 17 that get the free server transfer and only 1 server to go too. at least give as a couple choices dang it.
proud to be a Cranky ole fart!

Datku's Avatar


Datku
07.13.2012 , 11:15 AM | #12
Quote: Originally Posted by AelixVII View Post
You have to take into account that this is a company currently paying to keep running more servers than they need to, servers that told 1000+ players with 20 people max on them. What else are they supposed to do?

Not necessarily. Technology is different now. I seriously doubt that Bioware has a physical server for each game server. There is technology out now called VM Ware or even Hyper-V that is used to create virtual servers. You get a blade server or two, load it out with but load of memory per blade, a pair of decent high powered 6-8core server class CPU's per blade, good network backbone, block of public addresses and bandwidth and voila you have a gaming server farm. As they "close" servers all you do is release resources not physical hardware per say (although depending on per VM resource requirements might take multiple blade servers to host as many servers as they had since start). Figure 6 to 12 blades per blade server (there are even larger chassis as well), roughly 12 to 24 memory slots per blade holding 4G to128G sticks. Now costs for such servers can range from a low end of around 40k per to over 100k+ depending on how beastly your blade servers are not counting software costs (while Microsofts Hyper-V is licensed via 2008 servers, VM Ware is 20k-80k on their own depending on how many VM hosts and VMemory is used). Not cheap but gone are the days of warehouses of physical hardware for a single game :P
~~~
Krayt Dragon

Lilura 50 Sorc, Kilva 40 Sniper, Datku 40 Power Tech, Ciedoc 50 Marauder

GalacticKegger's Avatar


GalacticKegger
07.13.2012 , 11:24 AM | #13
Console games better suit your expectations me thinks.

potatman's Avatar


potatman
07.13.2012 , 11:42 AM | #14
I really wish they wouldn't have catered to the whiners and just would have done a forced merge to begin with. The way that FFXIV merged is a perfect example. They merged two or three servers into one, and whoever rolled their toon first and had logged in within the past 60 days kept their name, others had to rename. And rather than letting people know origin and destination servers, the destination had a new server name.

Also, to solve their current name "problems", they should just get stricter about retiring names and say if you have been unsubbed for 90 or more days you may lose your name if someone else tries to roll with that name. A name change service would be nice too.

Also, I truely hope that they are not using VMWare servers or some cloud computing solution here. In my experience, the performance for high demand applications are terrible on those things to this very day.

Datku's Avatar


Datku
07.13.2012 , 12:15 PM | #15
Quote: Originally Posted by potatman View Post
Also, I truely hope that they are not using VMWare servers or some cloud computing solution here. In my experience, the performance for high demand applications are terrible on those things to this very day.

All depends on how you allocate the resources. If they are under allocating yea VM/Cloud can lag, but if you watch the health of your VM's and adjust resources to maximize performance they work great. It all comes down to how many resources you have to dedicate per host. We have viirtualized all our servers and 90 % of our desktops and have seen huge performance increases. Now our engineering and GIS departments still run workstations because AutoCad and ArcGIS are to big of monsters graphically to go thin client but VM Ware keeps insisting they are getting close to the magical VGraphic allocation issues.
~~~
Krayt Dragon

Lilura 50 Sorc, Kilva 40 Sniper, Datku 40 Power Tech, Ciedoc 50 Marauder

potatman's Avatar


potatman
07.13.2012 , 12:36 PM | #16
Quote: Originally Posted by Datku View Post
All depends on how you allocate the resources. If they are under allocating yea VM/Cloud can lag, but if you watch the health of your VM's and adjust resources to maximize performance they work great. It all comes down to how many resources you have to dedicate per host. We have viirtualized all our servers and 90 % of our desktops and have seen huge performance increases. Now our engineering and GIS departments still run workstations because AutoCad and ArcGIS are to big of monsters graphically to go thin client but VM Ware keeps insisting they are getting close to the magical VGraphic allocation issues.
Getting myself way off topic here, but all I know is, even with the latest version of VMWare ESXi and an insane amount of tunning, we(my company) can not get the IO throughput out of it that we need. It is typically 15~20% less performing on writes for us than bare metal is. As an benchmark once not that long ago, we setup a dedicated host with only one VM, fully tuned, and it still didn't perform well enough.

Datku's Avatar


Datku
07.13.2012 , 12:45 PM | #17
Quote: Originally Posted by potatman View Post
Getting myself way off topic here, but all I know is, even with the latest version of VMWare ESXi and an insane amount of tunning, we(my company) can not get the IO throughput out of it that we need. It is typically 15~20% less performing on writes for us than bare metal is. As an benchmark once not that long ago, we setup a dedicated host with only one VM, fully tuned, and it still didn't perform well enough.
Hmm what blade servers are you using? HP, Dell, or IBM? Maybe more of an issue with the backplane or the fiber channel to your SAN's. Or do you have a large amount of VM's/users?

Ok sorry enough geek talk...back to the server transfer discussion :P
~~~
Krayt Dragon

Lilura 50 Sorc, Kilva 40 Sniper, Datku 40 Power Tech, Ciedoc 50 Marauder