You have made enough money to move the NA/EU servers

Required reading for anyone who wants to have an actual intelligent debate about this topic, rather than speaking out of your own butthole: 10 Places You Don't Want a Data Center

From this article, it's very clear that California (huge earthquake hotzone, stilling waiting on a long over "big one") and New York City (the densest metropolitan area in the country) are terrible locations for a major data center. Montreal is actually a surprisingly good choice based on its location (it's deceptively close to New York City, Boston, and Chicago), relatively infrequent natural disasters, and an unusually "high-tech" city given its size and population. It also helps that it's roughly equidistant to both California and Europe. Given that they're adding a new EU dedicated data center in Europe, I would highly recommend either Seattle or Vancouver for a "west coast" data center.

Love the tag on this thread about the Dunning-Kruger effect, though it really should apply to 90% of threads in this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingOfAbyss

Before putting the servers in Montreal, I am pretty sure they looked into all possibilities where to maintain them.

Seems US didn't cut it.

---

Because they needed to consider EU, the cut /may/ be different now that EU will get its own data center.

your post ignores the most important things to do: provide good connections

the servers in montreal don't do this. when I look at my ping it spikes as soon as hit hits level 3. it's an undeniable fact that having the servers in montreal is giving players more lag than they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jars

your post ignores the most important things to do: provide good connections

the servers in montreal don't do this. when I look at my ping it spikes as soon as hit hits level 3. it's an undeniable fact that having the servers in montreal is giving players more lag than they should.

---

Wrong. YOUR ISP doesn't provide a good connection to the servers. I have 0 routing issues from Europe to Canada.

Since this game came out people constantly blame servers before checking their own connection. I bet if you used a vpn to change your route to the servers, your problems would be gone. Should you have to? No. But, this shows that its not the servers, its your ISP and how they are routing you to the servers.

Stop blaming the servers.

These posts baffle me, They have said NUMEROUS times that Eu is getting servers, and soon. Relax and be patient. Sheesh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ephier

Wrong.

---

So you continue to not understand that SE has their own Provider(s) that is directly connected to Level 3. You still fail to understand that SE also has that responsibility through the Provider they use.

You can't just toss up a DataCenter that has Millions of connections and data in and out of their networks and have T1 Providers give you unlimited throughput for free. They will cap your throughput if it exceeds or burdens their ports or exceeds your contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ephier

I have 0 routing issues from Europe to Canada.

---

^ It's called dumb luck, your route is likely coming from different T1 Providers and multiple T2s through Canada. Your Route's throughput most likely has less traffic and burden.

Why do you think all residential ISPs that advertise speeds in fine print state within their networks. Because they don't control routing and throughput outside of them.

I don't care where the server is located nor do I want it moved. SE should be working with their Providers period.

Basically they need to have more then one data center. The US and Canada is pretty big, there are a lot of people that do not get a good connection to Montreal due to the routing to that specific data center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zumi

Basically they need to have more then one data center. The US and Canada is pretty big, there are a lot of people that do not get a good connection to Montreal due to the routing to that specific data center.

---

I agree. There should be a East Coast (Montreal) and West Coast (Seattle).

Wow ...ok im from canada i understand that south United state are far and it's not fair to them...but we didn't decide it "NOT OUR FAULT"... But to act like an *hate canada and Don't care of canadian* and only say to put the data center in middle of USA without caring of canada . Sorry but im glad now its in montreal.
Cos you (USA) Could have been little kind of saying why they didnt put the data center in middle of NA ....but no you guys only think of yourself. THANK YOU i'll do the same now a day

But like some sujested ...2 NA server location wouldn't be bad either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReplicaX

snip

---

Man as I stated before these problems can easily be fixed with a VPN, 4 bucks for pingzapper, people can skip out on a happy meal or 2 once a month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ephier

Man as I stated before these problems can easily be fixed with a VPN, 4 bucks for pingzapper, people can skip out on a happy meal or 2 once a month.

---

I don't need to know this when I have used chained VPNs since the late 90s and early 2000s for Japanese Arcade Machine Networks dealing with Sega.

You are also talking to a Player that is less than 300 Miles (483Km) to the DC. 200 Miles (386Km) of my Route being inside my fiber network of 15ms avg (My ISP is actually a T1 Provider). Then hitting Level 3 and SE's Ormuco the rest at 100ms with spikes upto 500ms at Destination. I chain through Quebec City to hit Montreal from the North East side to bypass Level 3 getting an avg of 25ms and 0 spikes. Likely the route you use coming from the UK by default.

Level 3 owns all the main backbones in Montreal coming in from New York and Chicago's main routing. That is basically most of the US East Coast and Middle States of this Country unless you have a odd ball route. Cogent covering a good portion of the West.

Yet you are in the UK over 3,000 Miles (4828Km) away and think your ISP is why you have a great connection. This is your pure luck being distance + # of literal hops with your ISP not controlling your routing outside its network.

I have 7 hops to the DC, 4 of which are inside Montreal without chaining VPNs. You likely have over 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReplicaX

I don't need to know this when I have used chained VPNs since the late 90s and early 2000s for Japanese Arcade Machine Networks dealing with Sega.

You are also talking to a Player that is less than 300 Miles (483Km) to the DC. 200 Miles (386Km) of my Route being inside my fiber network of 15ms avg (My ISP is actually a T1 Provider). Then hitting Level 3 and SE's Ormuco the rest at 100ms with spikes upto 500ms at Destination. I chain through Quebec City to hit Montreal from the North East side to bypass Level 3 getting an avg of 25ms and 0 spikes. Likely the route you use coming from the UK by default.

Level 3 owns all the main backbones in Montreal coming in from New York and Chicago's main routing. That is basically most of the US East Coast and Middle States of this Country unless you have a odd ball route. Cogent covering a good portion of the West.

Yet you are in the UK over 3,000 Miles (4828Km) away and think your ISP is why you have a great connection. This is your pure luck being distance + # of literal hops with your ISP not controlling your routing outside its network.

I have 7 hops to the DC, 4 of which are inside Montreal without chaining VPNs. You likely have over 20.

---

I did not know that Germany was in the UK.

And I have 10 hops thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by axemtitanium

Required reading for anyone who wants to have an actual intelligent debate about this topic, rather than speaking out of your own butthole: 10 Places You Don't Want a Data Center

From this article, it's very clear that California (huge earthquake hotzone, stilling waiting on a long over "big one") and New York City (the densest metropolitan area in the country) are terrible locations for a major data center. Montreal is actually a surprisingly good choice based on its location (it's deceptively close to New York City, Boston, and Chicago), relatively infrequent natural disasters, and an unusually "high-tech" city given its size and population. It also helps that it's roughly equidistant to both California and Europe. Given that they're adding a new EU dedicated data center in Europe, I would highly recommend either Seattle or Vancouver for a "west coast" data center.

Love the tag on this thread about the Dunning-Kruger effect, though it really should apply to 90% of threads in this forum.

---

Except that Vancouver has even more restricted routing options than Montreal.

Level3

Tata

Cogent
http://www.cogentco.com/files/images...obal_large.png

SE likely initially looked at Montreal because of the EIDOS aquisition, and then found out on paper it was actually a pretty wise choice for what they were looking to do. Europe has undersea access that drops practically right outside their doorstep. Otherwise, they might have been able to tap into their footprints elsewhere in the states, but the ones that likely had anything remotely like the inrastructure in place that they needed would have been Southern Cali or New York---their Texas footprint was more along the lines of a warehouse for product fulfillment than something you would convert to a massive server farm.

Something that seems to be getting missed here also. This isn't just a room of simple servers. It is racks and racks of servers and various storage arrays and network devices. There is a tiered topology of frontend/backend flow that must be maintained, monitored, and continually tweaked. Years ago I found an article that had an overview of their internal messaging system and it was massive. Wish I could find it again just to have the visual for you guys. These things are not the kind of thing you just load on a U-Haul and carry it across the country.

Edit:
Crud.. found the thread in the XI forums with the link to SE's message system layout, but the link is dead--the only PDF still up is financial data. I did however find a pic in that same thread for another data center that might help make the point (granted, SE is likely using blade servers... but still, the point is it is a lot of hardware involved):
http://www.montaraventures.com/pix/datacenter.jpg

And here's a diagram from Cisco:
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/...ons/143311.jpg
(Blade Centers in the Data Center--Overview)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReplicaX

So you continue to not understand that SE has their own Provider(s) that is directly connected to Level 3. You still fail to understand that SE also has that responsibility through the Provider they use.

---

Level3 is not the ONLY peering/transit provider available. Ormuco (SE's ISP) actually has a very robust peering agreement with not only the PSInet affiliate of Cogent, but also TATA.
http://chart.googleapis.com/chart?ch...er&chco=346090
(http://bgp.he.net/AS20324)

Here's the breakdown of those ASN's:
AS6453 TATA COMMUNICATIONS (AMERICA) INC
AS3356 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
AS3257 Tinet SpA
AS174 Cogent Communications

Perhaps if you were following these issues more closely, you would know more about these other peers available for them. Level3, TATA, and Cogent are continually brought up over and over in nearly all these ongoing threads. And it has been shown time and time again that there are big issues at the exchange points to these third-party networks. Here's the path I take, and atm there are no Level3 hops, and everytime TWC switches me to them I quickly get taken off of them:

Code:

---

  0  G75VXLAP [10.10.100.10]
  1  LPTSRV [10.10.100.1]
  2  cpe-075-176-160-001.sc.res.rr.com [75.176.160.1]
  3  cpe-024-031-198-009.sc.res.rr.com [24.31.198.9]
  4  24.31.196.212
  5  be33.chrcnctr01r.southeast.rr.com [24.93.64.182]
  6  bu-ether14.atlngamq46w-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.82]
  7  107.14.19.99
  8  te0-0-0-10.ccr21.atl02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.12.109]
  9  be2050.ccr41.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.0.165]
 10  be2168.ccr21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.31.94]
 11  be2148.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.31.118]
 12  be2106.ccr21.alb02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.3.50]
 13  be2088.ccr21.ymq02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.43.17]
 14  38.122.42.34
 15  192.34.76.10
 16  199.91.189.242
 17  199.91.189.30

---

And no... so long as TWC is staying on top of my route like they have been since I started working with them months ago on the issues, I don't have all the lag and disconnects everyone else experiences. And I'm coming from South Carolina.

Kansas might be a nice location if not chicago, for NA servers since Google has their gigabit net service available there, clearly there is enough internet backbone infrastructure there for servers. I imagine Saint Louis is the mid point between kansas city and chicago as well, so that may be an option worth looking into, too. :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by axemtitanium

Required reading for anyone who wants to have an actual intelligent debate about this topic, rather than speaking out of your own butthole: 10 Places You Don't Want a Data Center

From this article, it's very clear that California (huge earthquake hotzone, stilling waiting on a long over "big one") and New York City (the densest metropolitan area in the country) are terrible locations for a major data center. Montreal is actually a surprisingly good choice based on its location (it's deceptively close to New York City, Boston, and Chicago), relatively infrequent natural disasters, and an unusually "high-tech" city given its size and population. It also helps that it's roughly equidistant to both California and Europe. Given that they're adding a new EU dedicated data center in Europe, I would highly recommend either Seattle or Vancouver for a "west coast" data center.

Love the tag on this thread about the Dunning-Kruger effect, though it really should apply to 90% of threads in this forum.

---

Wow, you sure are smart. I wish I could be as smart as you. I bet you're an IT manager who's in charge of datacenter operations for a large Internet company, or at least have extensive experience in MMO datacenter operations. You're so smart that you know about the Dunning-Kruger effect, you're like a genius or something. I mean, your informative link suggests a small town in Virginia as the ideal datacenter location, so I bet lots of big MMOs locate their datacenters in super-remote areas like that.

For example, a little company called Blizzard you might have heard of operates an obscure MMO called World of Warcraft. Surely they would follow the precepts laid down by the blatant marketing document for a hosting company that you linked as the Gospel of Datacenters. Hmmm...it turns out their North American datacenters are located in Los Angeles, CA and Phoenix, AZ (West) and Chicago, IL and New York City, NY (East).

Well then. I think the person speaking out of their butthole is actually you. Are you Tom Deaderick or something? Because if you're trying to sell Squenix on your amazing Tier III datacenter operations, I suggest you contact them directly rather than post on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raist

Perhaps if you were following these issues more closely.

---

I'm aware of this and my Provider does this for me now. I had the level 3 issues in Feb like many others. Here is my current hops outside of my network for proof:

Code:

---

xe-9-0-0.mtl10.ip4.gtt.net [141.136.105.162]
ormuco-gw.ip4.gtt.net [216.221.156.110]
[192.34.76.2]
[199.91.189.234]
[199.91.189.38] Avg: 24ms Min: 23ms  Max: 25ms Cur: 24

---

I'm not familiar with Global Telecom & Technology however they have been good since my provider rerouted me through them. 20 to 40ms at destination with little to fluxuations besides the recent DDoS attacks to the servers.

In February all my issues were from the level 3 to Ormuco peer exchange. Why I used a VPN in Quebec City until my ISP changed my routing.

My question to you is simple though. Regardless of Ormuco's agreements do you not feel Ormuco has responsibility with that peer exchange between them and Level 3 and working with them to resolve it?

My point was rather simple. It's not one Company or ISP to blame, its those connected to them as well. My Provider and SE's Provider are responsible to resolve these issues with Level 3. After months my Provider got no where with them and used alternate routing in Montreal as a solution via another Company.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raist

AS3257 Tinet SpA

---

Seems they were bought out by Global Telecom & Technology last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReplicaX

I'm aware of this and my Provider does this for me now. I had the level 3 issues in Feb like many others. Here is my current hops outside of my network for proof:

Code:

---

xe-9-0-0.mtl10.ip4.gtt.net [141.136.105.162]
ormuco-gw.ip4.gtt.net [216.221.156.110]
[192.34.76.2]
[199.91.189.234]
[199.91.189.38] Avg: 24ms Min: 23ms  Max: 25ms Cur: 24

---

I'm not familiar with Global Telecom & Technology however they have been good since my provider rerouted me through them. 20 to 40ms at destination with little to fluxuations besides the recent DDoS attacks to the servers.

In February all my issues were from the level 3 to Ormuco peer exchange. Why I used a VPN in Quebec City until my ISP changed my routing.

My question to you is simple though. Regardless of Ormuco's agreements do you not feel Ormuco has responsibility with that peer exchange between them and Level 3 and working with them to resolve it?

My point was rather simple. It's not one Company or ISP to blame, its those connected to them as well. My Provider and SE's Provider are responsible to resolve these issues with Level 3. After months my Provider got no where with them and used alternate routing in Montreal as a solution via another Company.

---

You were making the case that it is only level3 in play, which clearly is not the case and needed to be corrected.

As for Ormuco working with Level3, if it is found to be an issue with their peering agreement, then yes... they may need to revisit that agreement. However, in the majority of the cases I've seen in play there are actually tell-tale signs of congestion causing problems before it gets to the Ormuco handoff. The one time we spotted anything on their end (we being a TWC T3 tech and myself while looking at my route), it looked like an issue with their VLAN that was spiking +200 over the norm and we messaged their admin about it. It was fixed a couple days later. Otherwise, both when looking at mine and other people's routes we've been more consistently seeing too much jitter prior to exiting Level3, Cogent, or TATA on the Ormuco side.

GTT was bought up along with another groups lines if I remember right. Seem to recall seeing that a while back. Someone originally based out of Europe I think...some weird passing around where it was absorbed into another company, then that company was sold to them or some odd thing. The lines are currently owned by Tinet (German company? Their WhoIs is a mess), who peers with Ormuco directly.

ATM we are wrestling with our more local nodes here in the Carolinas. They were running me on Hilton Head's gateway for a while, then they switched me to Conway. It's a bit better then the mess that was starting at Hilton Head, but it's still not good... about 1/20 times we see a spike break 100ms within my first few hops while still in TWC territory. When it gets more frequent, I start to see the jitter on screen--but it's still not enough for rubberbanding or any timeouts.... yet. Just wish they would finally get Florence's head-end straightened out so I don't have to ping-pong all over the place like we're doing right now.

I think this issue will be solved automatically in 2-3 years when the world's internet speed improve generally, like 1TB/s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evangela

I think this issue will be solved automatically in 2-3 years when the world's internet speed improve generally, like 1TB/s.

---

You mean everyone but the United States cause god forbid that the ISPs stop overcharging customers and only offer fast internet to people outside of cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evangela

I think this issue will be solved automatically in 2-3 years when the world's internet speed improve generally, like 1TB/s.

---

They can roll all the dark fiber they want.. but it won't mean a hill of beans if they don't update the exchanges to handle all that great new bandwidth. Have a read at the blog posts from level3 that I linked to in this post a couple weeks back. This isn't opinion, it's data collected by those in the industry--people that have been going before Congress and the FTC lobbying to get our ISP's and CDN's to play fair:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2567884

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illya

snip.

---

Wow, just wow. I cant even fathom how off canter your post is.

1. a majority of datacenters (talking all datacenters, not just low risk ones like MMO's) ARE located in remote areas (Mohave desert houses about 40% of them)

2. Blizzard has TONS of issues with their datacenters. Its the entire reason why they need TWO datacenters to do ONE job. blizzard datacenters go down at least 3 times a week due to interference issues, and have automatic failover to the other center. I'm pretty sure SE doesn't have the resources to create two $500 million dollar datacenters, just for SE. Different scale.

SE, why cant you create a dislike button! I want to take this person, and shove their character into T5 on their fisher class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raist

ATM we are wrestling with our more local nodes here in the Carolinas. They were running me on Hilton Head's gateway for a while, then they switched me to Conway. It's a bit better then the mess that was starting at Hilton Head, but it's still not good... about 1/20 times we see a spike break 100ms within my first few hops while still in TWC territory. When it gets more frequent, I start to see the jitter on screen--but it's still not enough for rubberbanding or any timeouts.... yet. Just wish they would finally get Florence's head-end straightened out so I don't have to ping-pong all over the place like we're doing right now.

---

Verizon had the same issue with alternet nodes when they first took over in 2008 here. My local node just got an overhaul, new generators, and climate control besides newer GPON upgrades. They have been doing it statewide this year. No idea what they are running from there to the CO though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesSaintboroguh

You mean everyone but the United States cause god forbid that the ISPs stop overcharging customers and only offer fast internet to people outside of cities.

---

I get 100/100 and I'm more rural for my area. Verizon even ran 850ft of Fiber to my house and ditchwitched it. Comcast wanted $5k to run RG6. Think that was a no brainer.

I would love to have 1G $30/month like some other Countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tocsin

Wow, just wow. I cant even fathom how off canter your post is.

1. a majority of datacenters ARE located in remote areas (Mohave desert houses about 40% of them)

2. Blizzard has TONS of issues with their datacenters. Its the entire reason why they need TWO datacenters to do ONE job. blizzard datacenters go down at least 3 times a week due to interference issues, and have automatic failover to the other center. I'm pretty sure SE doesn't have the resources to create two $500 million dollar datacenters, just for SE. Different scale.

SE, why cant you create a dislike button! I want to take this person, and shove their character into T5 on their fisher class.

---

Blizzard operates an MMO with a population of over 7.5 million people, let's see you design a datacenter that never fails with that kind of capacity and demand. You're obviously an expert, just like that other guy. So you should have no issues calling Blizzard and offering your services to fix their datacenters, right?

But sure, let's just pretend that you're right and all datacenters that host MMOs are in remote locations. Oh wait. You're wrong. Completely and absolutely wrong, to literally no one's surprise.

World of Warcraft
Los Angeles, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Chicago, IL
New York City, NY

NCSoft titles (Guild Wars 2, Wildstar, Aion)
Dallas, TX

Star Wars: The Old Republic
San Francisco, CA
unknown location - possibly Virginia (East coast cluster)

The Lord of the Rings Online
Westwood, MA or Somerville, MA (near Boston, MA)

Tera
Chicago, IL

Rift
Dallas, TX

Star Trek Online
Boston, MA

EVE Online
London, UK

I could go on but you get the idea. A majority of the datacenters which host MMOs are in major cities. Maybe SE should create a dislike button just so people can dislike you instead. Also I haven't been in T5 since February, or whenever the patch that introduced SCoB was released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tocsin

Wow, just wow. I cant even fathom how off canter your post is.

1. a majority of datacenters ARE located in remote areas (Mohave desert houses about 40% of them)

2. Blizzard has TONS of issues with their datacenters. Its the entire reason why they need TWO datacenters to do ONE job. blizzard datacenters go down at least 3 times a week due to interference issues, and have automatic failover to the other center. I'm pretty sure SE doesn't have the resources to create two $500 million dollar datacenters, just for SE. Different scale.

SE, why cant you create a dislike button! I want to take this person, and shove their character into T5 on their fisher class.

---

{Wrist Flick} {Stone Throw}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tocsin

2. Blizzard has TONS of issues with their datacenters. Its the entire reason why they need TWO datacenters to do ONE job. blizzard datacenters go down at least 3 times a week

---

lel

10 popotoes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illya

Petulant snip.

---

So, since you seem to have such an attitude, then you must also be an expert. You still havent answered my question. What do you think the cost is for a company to move a data center for a game that is already on life support bad enough to need a cash shop to a new location?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LlenCoram

{Wrist Flick} {Stone Throw}

---

lol, I'll take that stone, if only because I dont like seeing people bullied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tocsin

lol, I'll take that stone, if only because I dont like seeing people bullied.

---

Haha, I meant it as the attack one could use in T5. Back in 1.0, Wrist Flick and Stone Throw were gatherer skills. Wrist Flick gave a guaranteed Stun buff on your stone throw. Lots of fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illya

World of Warcraft
Los Angeles, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Chicago, IL
New York City, NY

NCSoft titles (Guild Wars 2, Wildstar, Aion)
Dallas, TX

Star Wars: The Old Republic
San Francisco, CA
unknown location - possibly Virginia (East coast cluster)

The Lord of the Rings Online
Westwood, MA or Somerville, MA (near Boston, MA)

Tera
Chicago, IL

Rift
Dallas, TX

Star Trek Online
Boston, MA

EVE Online
London, UK

---

All these locations are programmed into the Soviet Union's version of WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) Code named: Mikhail. To counter the Global threat of the US, Code named: Joshua.

Therefore all these locations are prone to Global Thermonuclear War.

This thread lacked poor dry humor in general. It now has poor dry humor with 80s references.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReplicaX

All these locations are programmed into the Soviet Union's version of WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) Code named: Mikhail. To counter the Global threat of the US, Code named: Joshua.

Therefore all these locations are prone to Global Thermonuclear War.

This thread lacked poor dry humor in general. It now has poor dry humor with 80s references.

---

It wasn't funny to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReplicaX

All these locations are programmed into the Soviet Union's version of WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) Code named: Mikhail. To counter the Global threat of the US, Code named: Joshua.

Therefore all these locations are prone to Global Thermonuclear War.

This thread lacked poor dry humor in general. It now has poor dry humor with 80s references.

---

War Games awesome movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illya

But sure, let's just pretend that you're right and all datacenters that host MMOs are in remote locations. Oh wait. You're wrong. Completely and absolutely wrong, to literally no one's surprise.

World of Warcraft
Los Angeles, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Chicago, IL
New York City, NY

NCSoft titles (Guild Wars 2, Wildstar, Aion)
Dallas, TX

Star Wars: The Old Republic
San Francisco, CA
unknown location - possibly Virginia (East coast cluster)

The Lord of the Rings Online
Westwood, MA or Somerville, MA (near Boston, MA)

Tera
Chicago, IL

Rift
Dallas, TX

Star Trek Online
Boston, MA

EVE Online
London, UK

---

WoW, that stunning bastion of uninterrupted connectivity. Most definitely a paragon to be emulated.

Also most of the cities you just named for other games (other than NYC and LA) qualify as fairly good places to hold your data center. Dallas and Chicago (there's a reason why they're spending millions of dollars planting fiber to go directly between Chicago and NYC) in particular are very good choices, as are Virginia and Boston. None of them are nearly as dense as New York and are of similar size and density as Montreal. Who said server farms need to be in remote locations, Mr. Straw Man? I merely said NYC is a particularly bad choice because of its incredibly high population density.

i thought they said at fanfest eu that they were in the process of building new EU data centers o.O or am i high...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illya

Blizzard operates an MMO with a population of over 7.5 million people, let's see you design a datacenter that never fails with that kind of capacity and demand. You're obviously an expert, just like that other guy. So you should have no issues calling Blizzard and offering your services to fix their datacenters, right?

But sure, let's just pretend that you're right and all datacenters that host MMOs are in remote locations. Oh wait. You're wrong. Completely and absolutely wrong, to literally no one's surprise.

World of Warcraft
Los Angeles, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Chicago, IL
New York City, NY

NCSoft titles (Guild Wars 2, Wildstar, Aion)
Dallas, TX

Star Wars: The Old Republic
San Francisco, CA
unknown location - possibly Virginia (East coast cluster)

The Lord of the Rings Online
Westwood, MA or Somerville, MA (near Boston, MA)

Tera
Chicago, IL

Rift
Dallas, TX

Star Trek Online
Boston, MA

EVE Online
London, UK

I could go on but you get the idea. A majority of the datacenters which host MMOs are in major cities. Maybe SE should create a dislike button just so people can dislike you instead. Also I haven't been in T5 since February, or whenever the patch that introduced SCoB was released.

---

Every one of those franchises has had players experience and complain over and over again about lag issues and disconnects. And you will frequently see the same names come up from those that have done their due diligence investigating the problems. TATA, Level3, and Cogent come up frequently from the states, and for other countries names like Telia, TiNet, B2/Orange... the bulk of them pointing to issues either around the exchanges or in between. Same problem, same scenario, same possible solutions were applied.

Also, nearly all of those cities listed routinely show up with problems when you look up various providers and statistics on the internet's health in general. So, in theory they all may seem like good ideas, but in practice (for the purpose of a centralized data center for this IP)... not necessarily such a good idea.

Here's a post I made a couple weeks back with links and images demonstrating the problems we are facing with our internet in general that is causing so much trouble with this and other services:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2567884

I strongly urge you guys to read the blog posts and some of the additional information linked both within the posts and the comments that follow them.... it may be quite an eye opener for some of you. Note that some of the images update periodically and show a psuedo-real-time snapshot of where problems are getting reported. Additional data/tools/maps have been posted in another fairly recent thread about connection issues, a large chunk in this post, but there's more discussion throughout the thread as well:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2577071

Pay close attention to the hot zones... note that the problems routinely get reported in the same areas, and a lot are either around or close to those same cities and thus would be impacting stability.