Second Life Forums Archive - Give LSL a got

Laukosargas Svarog

Angel ?

Join date: 18 Aug 2004

Posts: 1,304

05-15-2005 15:26

From: someone

- content creators in SL are way overloading the system with these email checks, so we need to redesign for a better approach

The above quote from Phillip, which I don't think is taken out of context, appears to be laying the blame at least partly on us the content creators for using an LSL function as provided. I don't think this is fair at all, especially as I take great pains when using llGetNextEmail to keep it well within an acceptable 2 or 3 times per minute.

to quote the WIKI
"If you want to check for email at regular intervals, use a timer."

and the official LSL help is even worse
"Get the next waiting email with appropriate address and/or subject. If the parameters are blank, they are not used for filtering."

use a timer !

Nothing about the length of time that might be acceptable. This lack of documentation is typical and is now biting us, as many LSL coders seem to check email on 1 second timers.

Why do we even need to poll to check for email ??
Seems dumb to me.

Surely a good solution would be to give LSL a got_email() event ?

----------
PS: And to quote Kelly ...

From: someone

"In 1.6.5 the back end of llGetNextEmail has been optimized to only query the database when there actually is mail waiting. The information about pending mail has been moved to the simulator so that when a script asks for email the simulator knows whether there is mail waiting or not. This means that in 1.6.5 (due next week hopefully) it will not matter how often email is checked, from a database load standpoint."

So it's not our fault it's basically a failure on LL's side to predict a server load.
-----------

Laukosargas Svarog

Angel ?

Join date: 18 Aug 2004

Posts: 1,304

05-15-2005 15:37

This was'nt meant to go to technical issues, probably a good idea to have this thread moved to scripting tips or somewhere. I'm not going to double post there though.

Jon Marlin

Builder, Coder, RL & SL

Join date: 10 Mar 2005

Posts: 297

05-15-2005 15:38

From: Laukosargas Svarog

Nothing about the length of time that might be acceptable. This lack of documentation is typical and is now biting us, as many LSL coders seem to check email on 1 second timers.

I think Philip was very clear in stating that he thought the blame was on LL's head, for not anticipating the level of usage this function gets.

From: Laukosargas Svarog

Surely a good solution would be to give LSL a got_email() event ?

Kelly's response to my post makes clear that the fix they are providing should solve the problem (well, its clear if you know anything about performance tuning of code

I see stuff like this happening all the time with application developers. They use a function that is provided without understanding the implications, and things go to hell. In this case, there is no way that the developers (scripters) would understand the implications, since LL has never provided this level of in-depth explanation of how things work to us.

- Jon

Laukosargas Svarog

Angel ?

Join date: 18 Aug 2004

Posts: 1,304

05-15-2005 15:42

From: someone

Kelly's response to my post makes clear that the fix they are providing should solve the problem (well, its clear if you know anything about performance tuning of code

It fixes it so much as we won't need to change our scripts, but it's not really a fix imho.

My real question is "why do we need to poll for incoming email ?".

surely a more efficient solution is to have the server/sim send an event to a script ONLY when email is waiting.

Cimone Byrne

Registered User

Join date: 8 Jul 2004

Posts: 15

Inventory

05-15-2005 15:43

I'm not sure if it will help...but per P. Linden's email, he mentioned inventory amounts.

First of all, with all this overload...you would think that they'd put a temporary freeze on new memberships until they met the basic expectations of the customers they already have...but we all know how that works.

Anyway...inventory. As a SL resident, I'd be glad to clean up and delete a lot of garbage out of my inventory. I really do try but the inventory system is extremely hard and inefficient, in my opinion. The 1 item drop and drag is crazy.

I will make more of an effort to clean my individual inventory....get rid of notecards, landmarks, calling cards, items I don't use, etc. but it would be absolutely wonderful if LL would spend a little time making the system a little easier to use.

If anyone knows of any ways to use the inventory system better, could you post a reply? I bought those inventory boxes from the THINC store which was a great idea but I find things so difficult to retrieve quickly from them. Does anyone have any other suggestions? I'm assuming everyone cleaning up their inventory (at least us chronic shopaholics) would help.

Jon Marlin

Builder, Coder, RL & SL

Join date: 10 Mar 2005

Posts: 297

05-15-2005 16:55

From: Laukosargas Svarog

It fixes it so much as we won't need to change our scripts, but it's not really a fix imho.

My real question is "why do we need to poll for incoming email ?".

surely a more efficient solution is to have the server/sim send an event to a script ONLY when email is waiting.

Well, I'm sure that's the eventual goal, but they can't just make wholesale changes to the public API without a lot of notice and thought, and given the situation, they have to solve it RIGHT NOW.

- Jon

Laukosargas Svarog

Angel ?

Join date: 18 Aug 2004

Posts: 1,304

05-15-2005 17:15

From: someone

Well, I'm sure that's the eventual goal, but they can't just make wholesale changes to the public API without a lot of notice and thought, and given the situation, they have to solve it RIGHT NOW.

Exactly what they're doing. Why decry my suggestion ? I'm not calling for it to be done now.

Jon Marlin

Builder, Coder, RL & SL

Join date: 10 Mar 2005

Posts: 297

05-15-2005 20:20

From: Laukosargas Svarog

Exactly what they're doing. Why decry my suggestion ? I'm not calling for it to be done now.

Okay, sorry, I wasn't thinking about it in those terms. Of course what you are suggesting is the right thing to do (in the long run). I assumed, given the general tone of the forums in the last day or two, with people offering up suggestions left right and center, and you highlighting Philip's message, that you were talking about this as the solution to this current problem.

Clearly it is the eventual solution, but I think we both agree the solution they are implementing is the right one for now.

- Jon

Kelly Linden

Linden Developer

Join date: 29 Mar 2004

Posts: 896

05-16-2005 10:11

The solution in 1.6.5 is sort of a poll-less system wrapped in a polling system. This was done so that existing scripts would not break.

The act of polling for email in 1.6.5 will cause very little more load than a poll free system would, and none of that load is on the database. A poll less solution should be possible and will be re-addressed after 1.7 in light of object communication changes and other back-end changes going into 1.7.

_____________________

- Kelly Linden

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

Give LSL a got_email() event !

Give LSL a got_email() event !
Laukosargas Svarog Angel ? Join date: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 1,304	05-15-2005 15:26 From: someone - content creators in SL are way overloading the system with these email checks, so we need to redesign for a better approach The above quote from Phillip, which I don't think is taken out of context, appears to be laying the blame at least partly on us the content creators for using an LSL function as provided. I don't think this is fair at all, especially as I take great pains when using llGetNextEmail to keep it well within an acceptable 2 or 3 times per minute. to quote the WIKI "If you want to check for email at regular intervals, use a timer." and the official LSL help is even worse "Get the next waiting email with appropriate address and/or subject. If the parameters are blank, they are not used for filtering." use a timer ! Nothing about the length of time that might be acceptable. This lack of documentation is typical and is now biting us, as many LSL coders seem to check email on 1 second timers. Why do we even need to poll to check for email ?? Seems dumb to me. Surely a good solution would be to give LSL a got_email() event ? ---------- PS: And to quote Kelly ... From: someone "In 1.6.5 the back end of llGetNextEmail has been optimized to only query the database when there actually is mail waiting. The information about pending mail has been moved to the simulator so that when a script asks for email the simulator knows whether there is mail waiting or not. This means that in 1.6.5 (due next week hopefully) it will not matter how often email is checked, from a database load standpoint." So it's not our fault it's basically a failure on LL's side to predict a server load. -----------
Laukosargas Svarog Angel ? Join date: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 1,304	05-15-2005 15:37 This was'nt meant to go to technical issues, probably a good idea to have this thread moved to scripting tips or somewhere. I'm not going to double post there though.
Jon Marlin Builder, Coder, RL & SL Join date: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 297	05-15-2005 15:38 From: Laukosargas Svarog Nothing about the length of time that might be acceptable. This lack of documentation is typical and is now biting us, as many LSL coders seem to check email on 1 second timers. I think Philip was very clear in stating that he thought the blame was on LL's head, for not anticipating the level of usage this function gets. From: Laukosargas Svarog Surely a good solution would be to give LSL a got_email() event ? Kelly's response to my post makes clear that the fix they are providing should solve the problem (well, its clear if you know anything about performance tuning of code I see stuff like this happening all the time with application developers. They use a function that is provided without understanding the implications, and things go to hell. In this case, there is no way that the developers (scripters) would understand the implications, since LL has never provided this level of in-depth explanation of how things work to us. - Jon
Laukosargas Svarog Angel ? Join date: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 1,304	05-15-2005 15:42 From: someone Kelly's response to my post makes clear that the fix they are providing should solve the problem (well, its clear if you know anything about performance tuning of code It fixes it so much as we won't need to change our scripts, but it's not really a fix imho. My real question is "why do we need to poll for incoming email ?". surely a more efficient solution is to have the server/sim send an event to a script ONLY when email is waiting.
Cimone Byrne Registered User Join date: 8 Jul 2004 Posts: 15	Inventory 05-15-2005 15:43 I'm not sure if it will help...but per P. Linden's email, he mentioned inventory amounts. First of all, with all this overload...you would think that they'd put a temporary freeze on new memberships until they met the basic expectations of the customers they already have...but we all know how that works. Anyway...inventory. As a SL resident, I'd be glad to clean up and delete a lot of garbage out of my inventory. I really do try but the inventory system is extremely hard and inefficient, in my opinion. The 1 item drop and drag is crazy. I will make more of an effort to clean my individual inventory....get rid of notecards, landmarks, calling cards, items I don't use, etc. but it would be absolutely wonderful if LL would spend a little time making the system a little easier to use. If anyone knows of any ways to use the inventory system better, could you post a reply? I bought those inventory boxes from the THINC store which was a great idea but I find things so difficult to retrieve quickly from them. Does anyone have any other suggestions? I'm assuming everyone cleaning up their inventory (at least us chronic shopaholics) would help.
Jon Marlin Builder, Coder, RL & SL Join date: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 297	05-15-2005 16:55 From: Laukosargas Svarog It fixes it so much as we won't need to change our scripts, but it's not really a fix imho. My real question is "why do we need to poll for incoming email ?". surely a more efficient solution is to have the server/sim send an event to a script ONLY when email is waiting. Well, I'm sure that's the eventual goal, but they can't just make wholesale changes to the public API without a lot of notice and thought, and given the situation, they have to solve it RIGHT NOW. - Jon
Laukosargas Svarog Angel ? Join date: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 1,304	05-15-2005 17:15 From: someone Well, I'm sure that's the eventual goal, but they can't just make wholesale changes to the public API without a lot of notice and thought, and given the situation, they have to solve it RIGHT NOW. Exactly what they're doing. Why decry my suggestion ? I'm not calling for it to be done now.
Jon Marlin Builder, Coder, RL & SL Join date: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 297	05-15-2005 20:20 From: Laukosargas Svarog Exactly what they're doing. Why decry my suggestion ? I'm not calling for it to be done now. Okay, sorry, I wasn't thinking about it in those terms. Of course what you are suggesting is the right thing to do (in the long run). I assumed, given the general tone of the forums in the last day or two, with people offering up suggestions left right and center, and you highlighting Philip's message, that you were talking about this as the solution to this current problem. Clearly it is the eventual solution, but I think we both agree the solution they are implementing is the right one for now. - Jon
Kelly Linden Linden Developer Join date: 29 Mar 2004 Posts: 896	05-16-2005 10:11 The solution in 1.6.5 is sort of a poll-less system wrapped in a polling system. This was done so that existing scripts would not break. The act of polling for email in 1.6.5 will cause very little more load than a poll free system would, and none of that load is on the database. A poll less solution should be possible and will be re-addressed after 1.7 in light of object communication changes and other back-end changes going into 1.7. _____________________ - Kelly Linden