ATTN Devs: Simple quick fix; Raise Linkshell Cap.

Honestly, it seems like such a simple addition to a pretty broken problem. Is there a way we can get an emergency patch, or if 1.23b is close get that in the update?

Believe me, depending on how it's done and how much of a strain this might put on the servers, this might not be nowhere near a "quick fix"

Not a quick fix at all. It isn't just a value change, there's actual memory management that needs to be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zyph

Not a quick fix at all. It isn't just a value change, there's actual memory management that needs to be considered.

---

I see; i was under the impression it was as simple as a value change ><

Its not as easy as just changing a number and releasing a patch, they have to make sure nothing will break, make sure the servers are ok, and people have been asking for this since release, we will not see it before ARR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaalAzura

I see; i was under the impression it was as simple as a value change ><

---

Hi, how do i get the signature like you have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hycinthus

Hi, how do i get the signature like you have?

---

www.xivpads.com

The biggest reason for making this difficult probably isn't worrying about storing all the linkshells people make.

Yes, this involves a change to the maximum size of a shell, which means the column in whatever table contains a list of all shells on a server has to change, which means the entire table probably has to be dumped and reloaded. It uses a few more bits after, nbd.

The real problem is that not long after the cap is raised, say, to 256, shells will grow to that size. Suddenly, LS chat has to be broadcast to twice as many people as before on a world. Keep in mind that there isn't a server, or probably even a server rack, that's simply labeled "MASAMUNE" or "BALMUNG" etc. on which our particular copy of Eorzea lives. It's likely a cluster. Could you write LS chat so that the servers could handle it fine? Sure! But how efficiently is it currently implemented? Probably not very well.

Anywho, I work with databases, so this is just my educated guess on what is probably the issue.

The game is due to shutdown within a month and a half or so. I doubt they're going to revise a major system in the current game when the new version is set to launch soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDace0

The biggest reason for making this difficult probably isn't worrying about storing all the linkshells people make.

Yes, this involves a change to the maximum size of a shell, which means the column in whatever table contains a list of all shells on a server has to change, which means the entire table probably has to be dumped and reloaded. It uses a few more bits after, nbd.

---

Why would it need to be dumped? you can add columns without reloading, i would say the problem would be with memory management as most of what happens in the game is kept in memory and then dumped periodically to the DBs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weiss_R

Why would it need to be dumped? you can add columns without reloading, i would say the problem would be with memory management as most of what happens in the game is kept in memory and then dumped periodically to the DBs.

---

We can't. Our system (at my job) is special. (-_-) I was probably generalizing incorrectly, but who's to say this doesn't have the same limitations as the database setup I work with?

Oh now I see what you mean by memory management. Are you concerned about the size of the LS member list? With the lag we get sometimes maybe it does actually keep what's on disk current by writing all the time. :P

I should also say that I am not a DBA proper, I just work with databases with only limited input as to their structure and configuration.