leak
-
Posts
189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Donations
0.00 GBP
Content Type
Profiles
Bug Tracker
Wiki
Release Notes
Forums
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by leak
-
-
So applying 3 tiny hunks by hand is already too much? You beat me on a whole new level of lazy.
Well, whatever..
-
-
Waiting for the stupid speech that mangos servers shall not be public and hence there should be no cheater on them. (who are we kidding..)
Been patching that into the core for ages...
-
Always good that one guy can make all the others to dance around him..
-
Added v4 - LogGuid should start from 0 and not 1
-
Nope, umbra's solution is the way to go if you only want the 0.12 branch and not the whole "overhead" of the master branch. Been using that for a while now, working fine.
-
This discussion is about using feign death and freezing trap by macro.
So if you can test on retail do the following:
- Enter a duel
- Hit the opponent ( you should get in combat with him)
- Cast Feign Death and right after place a Freezing trap (make a macro for the best effect )
Tell us wether the trap froze the target instantly or if it took the normal 2sec trap charging time.
-
Retail confirmation, anyone?
-
actually i'm reading it
and i would like to automate it too (you see how often i post crashlogs in here... just too lazy to copy it out of the crashlog files)... waza, do you have the script for me?
What's the point of spamming the same issue serveral times. It's not like somebody suddenly starts caring about them anyways..
-
A retail confirmation on this would be nice (maybe even a video). Personally i believe feign death shouldn't get you out of combat in pvp (5sec timer).
-
Well the recommended -j argument value is (n*2)+1 where 'n' is the number of CPUs/cores.
I rather think it is n+1.
(source: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=5)
-
please, not post crash dumps withFreezeDetectorRunnable::run
it makes no sense
Besides that, personally i wouldn't expect anyone reading this thread anymore. Waza123 pretty much burried it with that automated spam containing either long known bugs (GetInstance) or plain useless (FreezeDetectorRunnable) backtraces... :rolleyes:
-
Yep, confirmed.
-
acctid is already indexed because it is part of the primary key.
-
I try to make my point more clear with a simple example:
LogGuid are our 5 logslots per guild, timestamp in this case very simplyfied and also the issue i described above where multiple events have the same timestamp. I also "abused" NewRank to show the order in which they have been inserted.
So assuming the server starts up now, we need to get LogGuid 3 because it was the last log entry being inserterted, then we can decrease that by 1 and get our next log slog in the rotation (i use 4 -> 0 rotation in this example)
guildid [b]LogGuid[/b] EventType PlayerGuid1 PlayerGuid2 [b]NewRank[/b] TimeStamp 1 [b]0[/b] 5 1026267 1245903 [b]2[/b] [b]16[/b] 1 [b]1[/b] 5 1183380 1081428 [b]1[/b] [b]16[/b] 1 [b]2[/b] 5 1026267 1100058 [b]0[/b] [b]15[/b] 1 [b]3[/b] 5 1026267 1166813 [b]4[/b] [b]16[/b] 1 [b]4[/b] 5 234234 234234 [b]3[/b] [b]16[/b]Server starting, trying to get the next log slot for guild, executing:
SELECT * FROM guild_eventlog ORDER BY TIMESTAMP DESC;
guildid LogGuid EventType PlayerGuid1 PlayerGuid2 NewRank TimeStamp 1 0 5 1026267 1245903 2 16 1 1 5 1183380 1081428 1 16 1 3 5 1026267 1166813 4 16 1 4 5 234234 234234 3 16 1 2 5 1026267 1100058 0 15As you can see MySQL uses for sorting equal values (TimeStamp) the primary key as helper, but no matter how we sort the LogGuid in addition to the time stamp we always get the wrong value. In this case we either get 4 or 0 with is both wrong since we need LogGuid 3 because this was the last log entry being inserterted.
-
True, this fixed slot log storage screams after some LIFO system to keep it clean and avoid those renumbering queries.
The problem here is that you can't order by timestamp cause they are "just" seconds and stuff can happen in the same second. So if you if have lets say 3 log events at the same time and you happen to have that log slot overflow, you have no chance of getting the _real_ next log slot number (logguid in our case) back. MySQL for example seems to help itself by looking into the primary keys to sort equal values (the timestamp in that explicit case) and since the logguid is part of the primary it would use that number (which is almost meaningless for the order in this overflow case) for sorting.
The only way i see atm to avoid this problem is to store the "next sequence number" outside of that table (maybe a new field in guild) but that would lead to additional queries which would totally not help with performance.
-
Those are four
#1 yes
#2 for me it raises the lag border from 700 to 1100 players like pretty much every mtmaps patch does
#3 i had some weird crashes, trying to figure out if they are really related to that patch atm
#4 Well the theory is awesome just try and find out if it boosts your servers performance as much as advertised
-
Can anyone give some feedback if there was any problem caused by that patch? (Duplicate key errors, etc.)
I had none since v3.
-
GridUnload is already 0 and i will test the other setting.
-
No it isn't. That is the master thread which spawns all the other threads later. It's cpu consumption time always ends with ~ 0:21.60.
The thread that does all the work on the server is what i call the main thread, if there is a better term for that feel free to share.
**edit
Another crash i never had before: http://paste2.org/p/307520
Either this patch is responsible or there is some really serious stuff wrong with all the commits from 8026 0.12 till 8128.
-
Well i never had this one before, could be from 0.12 branch too ofc.
Here load with ~960 players:
6664 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 0.0 38.3 0:21.60 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd 6681 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S [b]19.0[/b] 38.3 20:13.38 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd <- net 6680 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S [b]20.0[/b] 38.3 20:04.87 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd <- net 6679 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 1.0 38.3 2:29.36 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd 6678 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 0.0 38.3 0:00.02 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd 6677 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 0.0 38.3 0:05.56 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd 6676 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S [b]25.0[/b] 38.3 25:53.56 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd <-- map? 6675 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S [b]29.0[/b] 38.3 25:57.04 4 | `- ./mangos-worldd <-- map? 6674 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 2.0 38.3 2:25.08 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd 6673 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S [b]29.0[/b] 38.3 25:58.11 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd <-- map? 6672 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 R [b]72.0[/b] 38.3 1h03:01 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd <-- main 6668 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 0.0 38.3 0:03.95 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd 6667 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 0.0 38.3 0:42.00 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd 6666 mangos 20 0 3314M 3046M 9920 S 0.0 38.3 0:12.10 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd
This patch behaves pretty much like raczman's original open mp patch. It doesn't really take that much load off the main thread (at least not more than derex patch does) and there is also this "one thread missing" issue. I switched to 4 map threads on this htop output.
It don't know if my partial vmaps are reponsible for this kind of behavior, yet somehow i'm far away from this nice balanced stuff in Infinity's first post.
-
Unfortunately no good hint, i added the last few lines of the server.log to my post above though.
I searched all my crashlogs, i never had this one before and yes i was using derex mtmaps patch all the time.
I'd give that GetMap patch a shot too but that needs backporting to 0.12 and i haven't seen someone doing that so far.
As much as i can understand with google translate that relocation patch has some big troubles with stealth can someone tell a little more about that patch/issue?
This is my htop output with the 5.1 open mp patch and ~750 players online (gonna post again when there is more action):
2999 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 0.0 29.8 0:21.10 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3018 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 R 12.0 29.8 2:52.65 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3017 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 13.0 29.8 2:54.72 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3016 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 2.0 29.8 0:23.62 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3015 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 11.0 29.8 1:59.29 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3014 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 12.0 29.8 2:00.23 4 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3013 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 7.0 29.8 1:59.21 4 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3012 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 7.0 29.8 1:58.65 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3011 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 0.0 29.8 0:00.00 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3010 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 7.0 29.8 1:58.71 3 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3009 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 9.0 29.8 1:59.75 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3008 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 11.0 29.8 2:00.26 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3007 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 0.0 29.8 0:00.92 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3006 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 1.0 29.8 0:26.46 2 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3005 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 R [b]35.0[/b] 29.8 7:02.41 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd <-- main 3003 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 R 0.0 29.8 0:00.75 4 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3002 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 0.0 29.8 0:07.83 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd 3001 mangos 20 0 2627M 2376M 9856 S 0.0 29.8 0:01.83 1 | `- ./mangos-worldd
It didn't really change that much, there is still much load on the main thread. That being with using vmaps in instances only (everything else is not playable imo).
Another thing: Is it really recommended to use 8 map threads? I was using 4 so far and i guess with 1100 players even that is still overkill. With 8 threads the server load goes to 3 (3 threads got no cpu time during the last schedule). I think that 1 thread per cpu rule of thumb still applies here - tell me if i'm wrong.
-
Your patch can't work though, you forgot:
m_configs[CONFIG_NUMTHREADS] = sConfig.GetIntDefault("MapUpdate.Threads",1);in world.cpp
**edit
Also a crash we didn't have for ages.
coresponding server.log output
-
Ah, my bad .. i thought that changelog is going downwards as usual.
Contact Us
You can also email us at [email protected]
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
[patch] Distract & Stealth
in ... under reviewOld
Posted
Indeed, so does Earthbind Totem which is just like Mass Dispell not supposed to remove stealth anymore since patch 2.2.0