Well good luck in any case.
Hopefully Storm will be what you need some other time.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM, joe roberts
wrote:
> Thanks Ted.
>
> My apologies for the inconsistency on my statements - I will confess that
> I am new to the world of game development, so I am learning as q
Thanks Ted.
My apologies for the inconsistency on my statements - I will confess
that I am new to the world of game development, so I am learning as
quickly as I can by reading a lot and asking questions and every person
like you who is willing to take time from their busy day to help me with
So it looks like what you are trying to do is build a reliable shared state
server? Possibly with installable business rules in front of that?
That seems to conflict with your previous statements, but typically the way
that this is done is to use a quorum update scheme (if you want
consistency) o
On 6/9/2014 12:34 AM, joe roberts wrote:
Sure.
Here is some of the logic for the game server (reformatted for better
reading):
Entity Movement ( players, AI, etc)
* Unreliable (UDP)
* Update occur within milliseconds
* Server Retains last message
* Server side validation against cheati
Sure.
Here is some of the logic for the game server:
*
o
ChatEntity Movement ( players, AI, etc)
+
Unreliable
+
Update occur within milliseconds
+
Server Retains last message
+
Server side valid
Hi Ted,
I don't really want to use Python myself, but I plan to support it if
someone wants to use it. Mainly, I plan on supporting C/C++ code, and
perhaps C# and some scripting languages like LUA to add the ability to
add plug-ins to the game server once it is released. The idea is that
o
Joe,
Can you define a bit more about what you are trying to do? Terracotta is a
fine thing, but it doesn't usually give you want you have been asking for
so far.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:13 PM, joe roberts
wrote:
> Thanks Michael - this is a great and helpful explanation! When you
> menti
Ben's advice about stateless servers is sound. For lots of apps like this,
you can simple round-robin through the available servers until you find a
nice one, then stick with it until it goes down.
If you want serious speed, you need to be be defining what kind of speed
you want start making meas
Thanks Michael - this is a great and helpful explanation! When you
mention "stateless set of servers", do you mean something like
Terracota? If not, is there another solution that you would recommend?
I actually started reading about Terracota and I also run into this:
http://www.smartfoxse
If you read the replies on the SO question, you will find lots of people
refuting the "UDP is faster" mantra.
If you haven't already benchmarked Storm to determine the latency and if
you are thinking that you might want to use Python for message handling,
then you have already given up far more th
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Ben.
Best Regards,
Joe
On 6/8/2014 9:43 PM, Benjamin Black wrote:
you are talking about the relatively small latency introduced by one
transport vs another at the same time you indicate wanting to write
parts in arbitrary languages, including
And thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Ted...it is much
appreciated.
Regards,
Joe
On 6/8/2014 11:14 PM, joe roberts wrote:
Based on this articles, it is.
http://gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/udp-vs-tcp/
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/47903/udp-vs-tcp-ho
You could make Storm do what you want, but it's not going to work well for
you. A normal client/server is vastly more suited to the type of workload
you want.
UDP may have less overhead, but overall a stall in processing is much more
costly. In a datacenter, TCP is the way to go for reliable commu
Based on this articles, it is.
http://gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/udp-vs-tcp/
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/47903/udp-vs-tcp-how-much-faster-is-it
http://www.diffen.com/difference/TCP_vs_UDP
http://www.skullbox.net/tcpudp.php.
The real-time game server that I am wri
Why do you think that UDP is faster?
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:27 PM, joe roberts
wrote:
> To make it faster!
>
>
> On 6/8/2014 8:27 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM, joe roberts <
> carl.roberts.zap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, it seems Storm uses TCP via ZeroM
you are talking about the relatively small latency introduced by one
transport vs another at the same time you indicate wanting to write parts
in arbitrary languages, including python, and intending to run it all on a
single machine. this is not a good way to computer.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:38
the answer is no.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:25 PM, joe roberts
wrote:
> Thanks for your response - it is much appreciated. I looked at
> Ordasity, but I am not sure it handles writing code / rules in different
> languages like Storm does, which is one of the primary reasons that I
> wanted to
To make it faster!
On 6/8/2014 8:27 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM, joe roberts
mailto:carl.roberts.zap...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Also, it seems Storm uses TCP via ZeroMQ by default -Is that
right? And if so, can it be switched to use UDP or UDT instead,
per
Thanks for your response - it is much appreciated. I looked at
Ordasity, but I am not sure it handles writing code / rules in different
languages like Storm does, which is one of the primary reasons that I
wanted to use Storm. Also, regarding scalability, yes, my plans are to
code for it an
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM, joe roberts
wrote:
> Also, it seems Storm uses TCP via ZeroMQ by default -Is that right? And
> if so, can it be switched to use UDP or UDT instead, perhaps by replacing
> ZeroMQ with Netty?
>
Why would you want that?
I've not used it, but you might look at:
https://github.com/buildlackey/cep/tree/master/esper%2Bstorm%2Bkafka
-Dan
From: l.p.pe...@newcastle.ac.uk
To: user@storm.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Time Partitioning of Tuples
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 21:40:37 +
Hi,
Is there anybody who has a
Hi,
Is there anybody who has already embedded Esper into Storm?
-Lesego
From: Dan [dcies...@hotmail.com]
Sent: 07 June 2014 02:04
To: user@storm.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Time Partitioning of Tuples
You might look at Esper. I believe someone has even embed
tl;dr - no.
the aspect you left out of your list is latency. storm, like most stream
processing systems, is throughput oriented, not latency oriented. think
hundreds to thousands of milliseconds rather than tens. what you've
described so far is not a good candidate for any stream processing system
Hi,
I am starting to look at Storm as a possible candidate for a writing the
business logic for a real time game server and I am interested in your
opinion and if you think this would be a good use case for Storm.
Basically here is a rough view / flow of the architecture that I want to
use:
24 matches
Mail list logo
