Hardware Information
We currently have 3 classes of servers online. They are:
Class 2: 2.8Ghz P4
Class 3: 1.6Ghz Opteron 242
Class 4: 2.0Ghz Opteron 270
Your estate will be on the class of server it was assigned to at the time of purchase. For example, currently all new estates are assigned to class 4 server CPUs. If for some reason your estate is moved to a different server CPU, it will still be within the same class. The Opteron servers have multiple CPUs, and therefore there may be multiple estates sharing a server, but with their own CPU. Each CPU on one of these machines has more processing power than the single CPU servers, 1/2 gig of dedicated memory, their own bridge and bandwidth so they work independently and without interference from the other CPUs on the server.
We currently have 3 classes of servers online. They are:
Class 2: 2.8Ghz P4
Class 3: 1.6Ghz Opteron 242
Class 4: 2.0Ghz Opteron 270
Your estate will be on the class of server it was assigned to at the time of purchase. For example, currently all new estates are assigned to class 4 server CPUs. If for some reason your estate is moved to a different server CPU, it will still be within the same class. The Opteron servers have multiple CPUs, and therefore there may be multiple estates sharing a server, but with their own CPU. Each CPU on one of these machines has more processing power than the single CPU servers, 1/2 gig of dedicated memory, their own bridge and bandwidth so they work independently and without interference from the other CPUs on the server.
As stated each CPU in current (class 4) machines has 512mb of RAM (2gb shared between four processors). Now, while I realise that class 5 machines may still be a while away, what I am wondering is why current servers (especially class 3 if the memory modules are the same as for class 4) are not having their RAM upgraded? My home machine has 2gb of RAM it made a HUGE difference, considering how little I actually do with it! With the amount of information going through a simulator, I don't see why they have as little as 512mb, which is really the bare minimum these days?
It would be nice to see RAM being upgraded, as I expect it could make a big positive difference, more scripts being held in RAM meaning faster execution there, more data can be held ready and so-on.
Are there any plans for this? As RAM is very cheap, has lifetime guarantees and is a one-off cost for potentially quite nice performance gains, as hard-drives are a huge bottleneck for most computers.
[edit]
I should note also, I have an old machine with 512mb RAM. I use it as a web-server, but out of interest I installed the UT2k4 dedicated server application onto it and attempted to run it on a local network. It filled up its RAM very quickly just handling player information and the state of the game, scripting etc. While it only crashed once or twice, it would perform just fine (300mhz of pure power) for a little while, then when the RAM filled *bam* it died. While I realise that sims can have quite a high demand on them anyway, I do wonder if more RAM would make quite a marked improvement. If we assume a lot of avatars aren't moving, then the processing requirements shouldn't be THAT high for a network server.
This also got me thinking though, why wouldn't they have more RAM? And with the recent asset server problem, I'm wondering if someone can clarify how the current asset system works?
As far as I can tell, it seems that there is a central server holding assets, so when I rez something from inventory it must come via that server. However, by all appearances (I may be wrong of course) it seems that the same is true of textures and sounds used by objects already in a simulator. Judging by how long it can take before a texture even begins loading even after every object in the vicinity has appeared.
This has given me to believe that textures used by objects in the simulator, may in fact be coming from the asset server anyway. Really a simulator should hold a local copy of every asset used by its objects and worn by any avatars present. Hard-drive space isn't costly either and since changed texture/sound/animation assets get new UUIDs, changing content isn't a consideration so long as the caching of assets locally is sensible (ie most recently sent asset moves to the top of the cache, things at the bottom get removed when full).
Which kind of system is currently in place, and if it is the much less parallel method of having the asset server bear the brunt of it then is this planned to change also? Really the asset server should only have to send assets to simulators that have received a request for something they don't yet have their own copy of.