ATTN Devs: Simple quick fix; Raise Linkshell Cap.

[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.

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.

[Weiss_R]

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.

[REDace0]

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.