Heap Problems are back with 50 Claimed Rooms
No, that's the very wrong direction. Memory should not be another limiting factor. We are not writing code in C++ here where we have full control of the memory. If it's just limited because of limitations of the node servers then that's pity for you but that's not a reason to make memory a limiting factor for all the other players!
Btw. intersharding is more complex than staying in one shard, it also adds more overhead for each shard. The extra memory can be seen as an incentive for intersharding. Maybe you take the challenge? What about this idea: Every player gets
20+GCL*10cpu without a cap, but can only assign max. 300 cpu to one shard. Would that be incentive enough to go intershard? Then players wouldn't hit the memory limit as they strive for intersharding empires to receive full cpu.
One last thing I would like to know from you Totalschaden: How much code can be executed per tick? Is the first line of your
main.jsexecuted? Is the first line in your
loopexecuted? How much memory is used before you initialize any modules at the very first lines of your
main.jsand what's the memory consumption there? That first line should just be executed once per vm reset and the memory consumption there, before you initialize anything shows how much the engine really takes.
wtfrank last edited by
@totalschaden If there were a slider to allocate heap between shards, it would presumably cap out at the current heap limit for obvious reasons
TuN9aN0 last edited by TuN9aN0
@xenofix I think you miss the point that memory already is a limiting factor such that when you keep claiming rooms with your 300 cpu eventually a significant portion of it gets eaten by garbage collection. It's just the Game objects graphs the game throws up that does not fit in the heap anymore, or it stuffs it so much that the garbage collectors enters a more aggressive schedule making it very costly. Partially migrating to another shard creates more heap slack and restores the garbage collector to an easier more CPU friendly schedule.
A user on 3 shards gets 1800MB of RAM for his code. I only get 600mb cause I stay on one. This is where I agree with Totalschaden, this is not entirely fair. What I also don't understand is why someone with say 16 rooms gets the same 608mb where in this case it's a massive over allocation.
A cleaner alternative is perhaps a hard cap on claims, perhaps with a slider per shard. Scale heap according to what is chosen there.
Either way let's wait and see what they come up with, I understand they are changing some things around in the architecture.
Totalschaden last edited by
@xenofix When its in the State where i took the Screenshot, no code is executed at all, its complete stuck.
The memory limit is there because of physical restrictions. That has nothing to do with fairness. Everyone can go intershard to prevent memory problems. That is fair. While I agree that it would be optimal to just have enough cheap memory, after all nowadays 8 GB is nothing...., I assume that we won't get it because of economic reasons.
A new architecture can also solve these problems. But I am still and again very much against a stricter memory cap. The original topic was that memory is not enough for 50+ rooms, it was not that other people's memory is too much.
Totalschaden last edited by
Much easier to go Intershard then dealing with the current heap situation. I already hate the fact that there are multiple worlds/shards now, when I started the game it was 1 Shard only game and thats what i loved in the first place and got me into the game.
My current state of codebase should deal with intersharding no problem and if not, not much adjustment would be required. I would greatly prefer to imagine there is only the shard im currently in and ignore the rest of it. I am pretty sure by the time im forced into intersharding, that i would quite the game shortly after.
@xenofix That's pretty much a "it doesn't effect me, so I am against it" argument which is not really contributing anything to this thread, sorry. There is nothing economic about it apart from maybe giving me 100mb would mean giving 300mb to some of those that are already multi-sharding. There is also nothing anywhere that states you should at some point go multishard if you want to scale out further. It's just an emergent constraint that was not directly intentional. We are looking to be enabled not to disable anyone else if that is your fear...
Additionally since the game does already limit CPU and
Memorywhy would it not also limit heap memory now that has become such an attractive asset with IVM? Of course currently my heap use is just a drop in the ocean compared to the Game objects graphs which is ultimately the issue, the game doesn't support it's own weight.
GimmeCookies last edited by
Additionally since the game does already limit CPU and Memory
FYI: Memory is the same as heap, per shard.
Memorydoesn't hit the limit from stuff the game puts in there automatically. I am fine with whatever, I just need more heap, core point of it all.
@tun9an0 You get me wrong. It will affect me, so I am supporting to get more memory but I'm also against restricting memory more than necessary.
Your argument seems to be: You hit the memory limit with many rooms, so everyone else should also hit the memory limit with less rooms.
I'm against that for obvious reasons.
@xenofix That not what I have said at all, but whatever...