Undo what has been done - split servers up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altena

I also don't think people understand my point...

Whether the issue lies in the servers, the code, the congestion in those problematic areas - the servers/code cannot handle the current stress which is worsened by a congested area.

The only solution I can see to this which would increase playability would be reduce that congestion. Ie. Fix the "problematic" area BEFORE making an area more popular with a merge.

---

The servers are handling fine really, but the code isn't allowing the processes to work efficiently enough which is making them bog down and crash, yeah the servers are going down but its only because of the poor coding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wirritosama

Once again reading comprehension 101

---

The longer post seems to say I was correct in my interpretation. When i read "We already have high-spec servers prepared for version 2.0" That tells me that we are NOT currently on the 2.0 servers. I would think differently if they said something other than "prepared".

Selbina was not merged with another server, so splitting up our server will not alleviate the issue for us. Selbina, now Ridill, has always had this high population issue.

We are running on the 2.0 server hardware. That was the whole point of 2 worlds (in most cases) merging to a new server, instead of world 2 being merged directly into world 1's existing server.

2.0 server hardware is not the same as 2.0 client, so you can run FFXIV 1.xx game code on the 2.0 server hardware, however it's the 1.xx coding that is not properly utilizing the current 2.0 hardware.

On topic~ I've had some d/c issues since the patch, but only really when I'm in the Uldah region. It'll clear up, it always does, just avoid Uldah for a few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altena

I also don't think people understand my point...

Whether the issue lies in the servers, the code, the congestion in those problematic areas - the servers/code cannot handle the current stress which is worsened by a congested area.

The only solution I can see to this which would increase playability would be reduce that congestion. Ie. Fix the "problematic" area BEFORE making an area more popular with a merge.

---

Indeed, what the problem is and why it's there isn't our job to fix nor diagnose, the point was the problem shouldn't exist at all, whatever it may be. I do understand where some people are coming from, mostly those from servers without the problems, saying that it shouldn't matter, and can be tolerated until v2.0 as that's the reason for it launching, ffxiv is broken. Has been since launch. All these patches prior to the release of v2.0 are just band aids, and extras to keep peoples interest. The actual fix is v2.0.

Just very frustrating, for anyone that is unlucky enough to experience these problems, to ever have to to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

The longer post seems to say I was correct in my interpretation. When i read "We already have high-spec servers prepared for version 2.0" That tells me that we are NOT currently on the 2.0 servers. I would think differently if they said something other than "prepared".

---

That's exactly what it means that " we " as in the developers are currently on 2.0 servers and running fine. Not telhe players hence why they said at e3 they will show off the new servers and graphics system. But some people are slow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wirritosama

That's exactly what it means that " we " as in the developers are currently on 2.0 servers and running fine. Not telhe players hence why they said at e3 they will show off the new servers and graphics system. But some people are slow.

---

I agree.

As a software tester, this makes the most sense to me from a software lifecycle standpoint. The 2.0 servers should be up in a test/dev environment now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

The longer post seems to say I was correct in my interpretation. When i read "We already have high-spec servers prepared for version 2.0" That tells me that we are NOT currently on the 2.0 servers. I would think differently if they said something other than "prepared".

---

I also agree with this.

"Prepared" to me means ready to use. Not currently using. If they were using them now, it would be a much clearer statement.

I was also reading the official timeline / forecast / patch notes etc while the game was down yesterday and read in there somewhere along the lines of them "already using the new servers for development in SE" (don't quote me on that one) but the way I read it was they are using them for test purposes / development - not in the current live game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altena

I also agree with this.

"Prepared" to me means ready to use. Not currently using. If they were using them now, it would be a much clearer statement.

I was also reading the official timeline / forecast / patch notes etc while the game was down yesterday and read in there somewhere along the lines of them "already using the new servers for development in SE" (don't quote me on that one) but the way I read it was they are using them for test purposes / development - not in the current live game.

---

I read a post as well about a week or so ago that seemed to validate that.

For god sakes people, what the hell do you think Yoshi's post ment when he said "We are using the current 2.0 Hardware BUT ITS USING CURRENT 1.0 CODE"

That would be impossible to use both 1.xx and 2.xx code on the same server, WE are using the 2.0 servers right now but with 1.xx code and client, they did this to try and help the crashes since these servers are more powerful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fear

For god sakes people, what the hell do you think Yoshi's post ment when he said "We are using the current 2.0 Hardware BUT ITS USING CURRENT 1.0 CODE"

That would be impossible to use both 1.xx and 2.xx code on the same server, WE are using the 2.0 servers right now but with 1.xx code and client, they did this to try and help the crashes since these servers are more powerful

---

Look again. Nowhere in this statement does it say the 2.0 servers are live.

Quote:

---

We already have high-spec servers prepared for version 2.0 and we are measuring the stability, but the current server process code is still the current FFXIV version, so it reaches the maximum quicker than the version 2.0 server code (more than the capability, the thread works much more efficiently).

---

From the dev post it is impossible to determine whether they mean they are live or in a test environment, but the word "prepared" gives us a clue that it's probably only in a test environment.

...reading comprehension. The fact of the matter is, the statement is unclear. Until a dev says either "yes the 2.0 servers are live" or "no, the 2.0 servers are only in a dev environment" it could be interpreted either way.

Did not read through all pages, but to the OP:

Can't agree with you here. Yes sometimes overcrowding can be annoying, but I'd much rather have that problem than a severely underpopulated server.

Honestly, even after the merge our worlds don't get the traffic of even FFXI. As recently as ~ 2 months ago on Bahamut, I saw JP peak times with > 3k people online.

Instead of wanting less population, what we should be wanting is stable servers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wincy

Instead of wanting less population, what we should be wanting is stable servers...

---

That is the entire point. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

Look again. Nowhere in this statement does it say the 2.0 servers are live.

From the dev post it is impossible to determine whether they mean they are live or in a test environment, but the word "prepared" gives us a clue that it's probably only in a test environment.

...reading comprehension. The fact of the matter is, the statement is unclear. Until a dev says either "yes the 2.0 servers are live" or "no, the 2.0 servers are only in a dev environment" it could be interpreted either way.

---

Keep quoting and trying to push it, i mean the devs are always 100% on their translations right, its not like they make mistakes like you think rein did.

Why would they be concerned about the stability of 1.0 code on new servers if the new servers are never going to run 1.0 code, its pointless.

I believe you're reading it wrong and trying to defend that because a few words are different. (I know im doing same thing in your eyes, thats just how it is XD)

Nope. The only reason ul'dah is crowded is because main story leads you to there. Finished the main story? GO TO THE OTHER TWO CITIES.

The merge is the BEST thing that happened to this game. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wincy

Did not read through all pages, but to the OP:

Can't agree with you here. Yes sometimes overcrowding can be annoying, but I'd much rather have that problem than a severely underpopulated server.

Honestly, even after the merge our worlds don't get the traffic of even FFXI. As recently as ~ 2 months ago on Bahamut, I saw JP peak times with > 3k people online.

Instead of wanting less population, what we should be wanting is stable servers...

---

Well yes game code is the grounds for this "lag" - which is in the "seemlessness" of the zones (from what I have read previously from some source that I don't have anymore). Walking out of Uldah into a vast open zone, and not coming to an actual loading screen is what I have read is causing the most server lag / performance issues. Which I know is unavoidable til 2.0 is released - however this congestion definitely does not help.

So comparing XI population and XIV (yes I still play XI also) isn't a very good comparison as the zones are much smaller and the strain on the servers I am sure is a lot less.

Hell, even if this is the issue - would it be an easy thing to implement actual "zoning" (example - running outside of Uldah into Thanalan) coming to a black loading screen ? If so, could that be some focus for the next patch? I would rather see a dramatic decrease in ping/latency rather then random end-game content.

Well I am done with this thread - too many stubborn, ignorant people in here that fail to see the side of the fence of the people that are experiencing these issues - and yes it is on an "account to account" basis. Half of the Ridill server were still happily playing during the recent crash. It is a minority by any means but without this "minority" you wouldn't have the "population" you all seem to lord over.

On a final / positive note, I am a returning player after the release fiasco. (on and off at least) and have to say that I consider the game reasonably fixed in regards to gameplay, fun, and things to do - it's just this latency / lag / crashes that is killing it for me.

The game is headed in the right direction - if only it could be there nowww.

Massive R0 happened at the entrance of primal Garuda fight in Masamune. -10:27pm, GMT+8

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...rn/FFXIVDC.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cairn

Massive R0 happened at the entrance of primal Garuda fight in Masamune. -10:27pm, GMT+8

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...rn/FFXIVDC.jpg

---

Wow. That's one epic DC party. :>

Quote:

---

We already have high-spec servers prepared for version 2.0 and we are measuring the stability, but the current server process code is still the current FFXIV version, so it reaches the maximum quicker than the version 2.0 server codeWe already have high-spec servers prepared for version 2.0 and we are measuring the stability, but the current server process code is still the current FFXIV version, so it reaches the maximum quicker than the version 2.0 server code

---

If ppl do not understand the meaning of what i *bold* then you need to take your time to understand the meaning of it.

Is real simple. just that this translator use bigger words <_<.

So in the end, what the dev trying to says is that we are on the servers that the 2.0 will be using. Just that currently they are stress testing the servers with the 1.0 Server Codes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seirra_Lanzce

If ppl do not understand the meaning of what i *bold* then you need to take your time to understand the meaning of it.

Is real simple. just that this translator use bigger words <_<.

So in the end, what the dev trying to says is that we are on the servers that the 2.0 will be using. Just that currently they are stress testing the servers with the 1.0 Server Codes.

---

me thinks seirra doesnt know what she is talking about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheVedis

me thinks seirra doesnt know what she is talking about

---

Yeah I was kind of wondering..lol. The only thing current is the current XIV code (ported), basically stating that at present time 2.0 is 1.x on better servers, now that we're using 2.0's servers.

Dealwithit.gif

Pretty sure Final Fantasy XI has plenty of room for you... You might feel at home being lonely and all.

Quote:

---

We already have high-spec servers prepared for version 2.0 and we are measuring the stability, but the current server process code is still the current FFXIV version, so it reaches the maximum quicker than the version 2.0 server code

---

Even if you take this, lets look at it, how can they test stability? Do you know what "Open Beta" is? Do you know what "Stress Test" is? Do you know why we have them? Because companies cannot stress test themselves, they need us, and in this case, we are kind of doing that now.

They have prepared them yes, and now they are measuring stability, we're the conditions for that measurement.

We are running on the 2.0 servers, with 1.0 Code, that is why he immediately after states "but the current server process code is still the current ffxiv version", the response is also about the current issue of restrictions for character creation world selection.

That may explain it better using this quote that is still vague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viion

Because companies cannot stress test themselves

---

Yes they can. Ever heard of Load Runner? It's an industry standard stress testing platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

Yes they can. Ever heard of Load Runner?

---

Not the same thing when testing the practical game.

Otherwise, why would anyone do a stress test?
Why would games still fall short on releases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altena

Ok guys, let's be reasonable here. A server merge was possibly the worst idea so far. Due to this merge we are experiencing bottlenecks in high traffic areas that everyone (including SE) are aware of - that is Ul'dah, Gridania Garuda/Ifrit/Moogle quest NPC, and now (for obvious reasons) the Garuda fight entrance by Camp Dragonhead.

I won't be the first one to say this but let's face it - the servers aren't handling this. I know it would be nearly impossible to "split" a server as such but can we possibly have an extra 2-3 servers created with the option to move to them for free? That is just one solution of many but I mean this is getting beyond ridiculous.

I would rather a slightly less populated server then a laggy, buggy, crashy server any day.

What brought this up? Well I, like others have been experiencing crashes for the previous 2-3 hours since the emergency maintanence, with the inability to log back on. I continually get the error message "An error has occured on the game server" when I attempt to - if that error doesn't come up then I recieve the "High traffic error" and that my login has been placed in a que. 10 minutes later that message goes away with the original "game server" error once more.

This is extremely frustrating. Please "split" the merged servers up.....

---

What the hell are you bitching about? Selbina didn't merge with any server so anything you are experiencing has nothing to do with the merge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viion

Not the same thing when testing the practical game.

---

But it is close enough when you're trying to test server load.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viion

Why would games still fall short on releases?

---

maybe because we're not on the same server hardware?


We can go at this as long as you like, but I'm not convinced we're playing on the 2.0 hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fear

Some people probably think Computer hardware is a magical force which takes hours to work, when infact its usually just plugging something in and switching it on :D

---

has obviously never worked in a datacenter utilizing the latest technology, Clustering, Database replication, Migrations, High Availability, etc.. and has only turned on his Gateway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

We can go at this as long as you like, but I'm not convinced we're playing on the 2.0 hardware.

---

Fair enough, we will get clarification eventually from above, or it wont matter soon, when 2.0 is released.

if they went and unmerged i'd quit while the servers were down.

the merge isn't the issue. it's all the lies about all the work they have been doing to improve the stability of the servers hasn't been happening. want proof? on release the game had 500k people on 18 servers and the servers worked fine. the game did crash alot with the cannot find direct x error, but that is not server related. the game now has 20-30k people and it's on 9 servers. the numbers don't add up and you only need basics in math to realize that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forbin

has obviously never worked in a datacenter utilizing the latest technology, Clustering, Database replication, Migrations, High Availability, etc.. and has only turned on his Gateway.

---

indeed. We recently underwent a server migration at work to an Oracle Exadata/Exalogic setup, and I can assure you it was vastly more difficult than wheeling in new servers and plugging them in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkstarpoet1

if they went and unmerged i'd quit while the servers were down.

the merge isn't the issue. it's all the lies about all the work they have been doing to improve the stability of the servers hasn't been happening. want proof? on release the game had 500k people on 18 servers and the servers worked fine.

---

No it didn't lol. With up to 4k people per world the interface was STRUGGLING to process commands and stamina above all was being fed to us incorrectly, when you think you had enough stamina for an action you actually didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

indeed. We recently underwent a server migration at work to an Oracle Exadata/Exalogic setup, and I can assure you it was vastly more difficult than wheeling in new servers and plugging them in.

---

He probably stayed at a Holiday Inn Express then.. That's the only answer remaining.

either ridill is totally full or its full of QQers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elexia

No it didn't lol. With up to 4k people per world the interface was STRUGGLING to process commands and stamina above all was being fed to us incorrectly, when you think you had enough stamina for an action you actually didn't.

---

I think his point was, it didnt crash. Which is true, the servers during launch months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viion

I think his point was, it didnt crash. Which is true, the servers during launch months.

---

I remember them crashing all the time. You guys don't remember getting the horrible 130001 errors and then getting stuck in the queue of 1 just like what is happening now? I sure do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viion

I think his point was, it didnt crash. Which is true, the servers during launch months.

---

yes, my point was it was laggy as hell which i will agree with is the servers and the coding with them, but they did not crash. if you lose the vast majority of your population and then cut the servers in half(which is still way below what we had originally per server) and the servers are now crashing it wasn't the original coding and servers it is whatever has been done since then.

18 servers handle 500k people and we had 4000+ on at a time when you could see how many people were on originally and it didn't crash on the old servers with the old coding.

9 servers can't handle 30k people with only 1000 or so on at a time with the player search feature in game now with the "updated servers and server work they have done".

something doesn't add up. if it could have supported 4000 people originally and cannot support 1000 people now then that adds up to the "work" they did to improve things made it worse and not better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wynn

I remember them crashing all the time. You guys don't remember getting the horrible 130001 errors and then getting stuck in the queue of 1 just like what is happening now? I sure do.

---

the vast majority of the crashes i seen on a daily basis was the "cannot find direct x device" error because se did not originally have the game optimized to run nvidia cards. nvidia actually had an update so their cards would work properly with the game.

very rarely did i ever see a login que with 4000 on and playing at a time, but with 1000 now we do have them. does that not seem a little odd to you?

This thread made me lol. 10/10

A couple of weeks after 1.22b, some ppl might stop playing until 1.23. The problem will fix itself :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkstarpoet1

the vast majority of the crashes i seen on a daily basis was the "cannot find direct x device" error because se did not originally have the game optimized to run nvidia cards. nvidia actually had an update so their cards would work properly with the game.

very rarely did i ever see a login que with 4000 on and playing at a time, but with 1000 now we do have them. does that not seem a little odd to you?

---

I remember the issues at launch because I experienced them personally. Though I don't claim to know what was causing them because I don't. :P They just cleared up one day. *poof*

Oddly enough, I'm not experiencing any issues this go around other than having to log out when they bring down the servers.