Ladle 44 Server's Discussion

[Spook]

Well sine said we needed a server discussion thread for this ladle cause last ladle was late getting put up and we just went with the servers that we had from Ladle 42. I know we need better stable servers then some of the ones that we have anybody have any suggestions?

[Olive]

ctusa and R kansas are widely regarded as crap servers, no pun intended.

I kinda feel everyone suffers the server's limitation.
The US/EU issue is solved by randomizing.

We can off course filter out the worse servers, and put them as secondary servers, as long as the EU/US server ratio stays even. But stating one loses because of a server is complete crap, its simply a matter of luck.

Kinda have a hard time writing anything coherent atm, hope u understand me.

[INW]

The problem is not many servers are owned to begin with. Those that are owned are not high class dedicated servers that can handle 12 players from 2000 miles away.

But why can't they? Isn't this game simple enough?

Anyway, my ladle server after being testes didn't seem to hold up being used through the semi finals. The traffic and memory usage was maxed. But hey, I am only a 16 year old kid whose parent don't give me much extra; I am paying for a VPS for as good as I can afford.

How about we make a "Power Ranking" for the servers?

[syllabear]

Is there any way we can measure how well a server is performing using statistical measurements? Perhaps stress testing the servers using some kind of program would be able to rank them as you say spin.

However, at the end of the day, you all have to remember, almost everyone who complains about servers doesn't own one themselves. They don't pay out-of-pocket for the enjoyment of others. I'm pretty happy no matter what server I get. If it lags, so be it, I've dealt with lag before, and I know its not unfair because everyone experiences lag. If you really need, recruit more EU/US members to compensate.

[Titanoboa]

On a good day, CT's USA works nearly as fine as a EU server except for the occasional major slide, whereas INW's and _~R~_ servers have always been mediocre or terrible for me. Best has been the NY-hosted Tx server, no doubt.

I think most euros should agree with CT's USA being the #1 option from the US servers.
I think some US people should rank the EU ones. I have no clue whether Z-man's, G5's or CT's LIV or STO is best, as the differences are quite small for a EU in general.

If we can set up a good way for voting on servers (not anonymously obviously) and then get a ranking, it should be easy enough for the bracket randomizers to fill in the brackets.

[kyle]

My idea is to have team leaders post their top 4 US and Euro servers. From those results they can be ordered and place. I should be able to adjust .randomteam to handle servers and generate the full wiki template for instance .randomteam <seeds> <teams> FSERVERS <servers from 1 to 4> USERVERS <servers from 1 to 4>

FSERVERS = the server that is forced in the finals aka US or Euro
USERVERS = the server that is secondary in the finals aka opposite of FSERVERS

[dariv]

I like the idea of an objective test, if anyone knows how to write a script that can ping a server, say, 100 times and rank the servers based on the variance ? (I think varying ping is the cause of slides, not actual ping?)

That way we can have a measure of server stability which doesn't depend on people's subjective opinions? I know a lot of players always say Empha's sumo bar is laggy, but on my connection I never slide so it can't be the server. Thus it's very hard for people to form an accurate opinion on server stability when they themselves have an unstable connection to their local exchange.

[Desolate]

Best has been the NJ-hosted Tx server, no doubt.

I don't really see that huge of a difference in servers. I lag about the same in all of them, and the only real difference is the ping rubber I get.

[Mkay1]

Pru's server is worst for me. G5's is pretty bad as well. Most US aren't great. Btw inw, it's more like 8,000 miles. 2,000 is roughly the length of two time zones. (could be three, depending how you refer the last line)

[INW]

One thing we can do for my server as well as others is get a large group of people, say 6v6 plus spectators to a server on a given day to test. On my online control panel, data and stats are there for me to see ram usage and traffic. We can do this for the servers if the server owners are present. I would like to do this on my server atleast.

[sinewav]

After hearing some minor complaints (from winners and losers) about the AoT server used last Ladle I had luke-jr look into it. According to him, the server was barely running at 1% capacity. And after checking the input/output of a few players he determined the instability issues were outside the server and it's connection. I'm inclined to offer that server again for Ladles, based on this information.

Still, I think having an objective test would be best. But in the absence of such a thing, voting on servers could still be effective -- using kyle's method (it's very well thought out).

EDIT: I moved all the Ladle server to the commented section while we decide what to do. Admins should be confirming these every month anyway. I did a lot of guessing when I filled the brackets last month and I didn't enjoy that at all.

[Hoax]

What are we trying to achieve exactly? Ranking servers in order or just earmarking ones that have had problems?
I'm not sure about the idea of having team leaders rank their top 4. How often will this be? Surely every month which seems tedious. It would also mean that the servers available for use would have to be known early so that there is time to vote.
Therefore I think a selection process based on previous performance would be best. Either by a rating system or recording of issues (major & minor), or both, to provide some kind of feedback for each server to help determine selection.
It seems like we're looking to rate every server just because there are a couple of bad ones but no one knows which is baddest
How are servers even chosen? I thought it had a random element to it at least but I'm not sure

In any case I propose that there should be a new page dedicated to a list of ladle servers where their rating can be recorded too (whatever is implemented can be added later)

It should contain
- A list of servers avalable for use for the ladle, grouped as they are now (Europe & US & Others)
- Only up to date & ready servers should have the LadleServer prefix thus showing which ones are maintained & with the correct config (This effectively replaces owners adding their server to the challenge board page)

[sinewav]

Good ideas so far.

How are servers even chosen? I thought it had a random element to it at least but I'm not sure

I've filled the brackets many times over the past year. There is no determined way to select servers, other than alternating between US/EU. I usually use the most reliable ones for the finals, then work backward to the opening round. But that's just it, there is no way to know which are the most reliable. I've defined "reliable" as

• 1. how long we've been successfully using the server in question
  2. how generally available the server admin is in case there is a problem
  3. how often I hear about problems with the server in question

Then I rely on the people in IRC that day to look over my work and say "hey, that server sucks, can we swap it out with that other one?"

So, it's really a matter of me trying to listen for complaints from the previous Ladle and whatever I hear over the following month. It would be nice if there were a more objective way to pick them. However, regardless of what method we choose, our hands are a bit tied due to a shortage of servers. We have to take what we can get.

[Hoax]

Since the server list isn't overflowing I think implementing some kind of rating system would be overkill then
If there is a separate page for servers made what you could do is just tally the amount of issues there has been with a particular server based on one continuous forum thread, where team leaders detail any problems they've had. Having server issues all in one place means owners can't miss them either

If we are in fact using the same servers & will be doing so for some time then titan makes a couple of good points and it might be worth having team leaders do a quick preference vote..