Sony's massive PS3 server

[Thanir]

Looks like Sony is gearing up for Warhawk by implementing a huge ps3 server consisting of somewhere between 75-150 ps3's (it depends on if the racks are double sided or not.) Click on the link for the pic...it's a lot of ps3's.

http://gaming.engadget.com/2007/08/1...arhawk-mayhem/

[4 High]

Is this what MS Does as well? They just mass up consoles?

[Dire]

While that's very cool, I don't really understand why they'd do this with standard PS3s. There's so much [extremely expensive] hardware in the PS3 that'd be completely useless and waste tons of energy here - like the blu-ray drives, graphics cards, IO peripherals, etc.. On the other hand, this is a use where the PS3's architecture could really shine.

[Hume]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this what MS Does as well? They just mass up consoles?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't have dedicated servers for any 360 games so far.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this what MS Does as well? They just mass up consoles?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't have dedicated servers for any 360 games so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Phantasy Star Universe / Final Fantasy XI have dedicated servers in the completely classic sense. Every single other game makes use of the server facilities of Live in a nonclassic sense. Just because matchmaking for many games is client/server between peers does not mean there's no dedicated servers for said games, as the peers are always initially connected through the Live servers. For a simple analog, think of Unreal Tournament 2k4 or even CounterStrike/Steam.

[4 High]

Can someone explain in laymans terms the difference between different Server types for Video Games?

[Dire]

There's only two server types. Client/server and peer to peer. In practical terms, there's only client/server for video games. In client/server, there are only connections between the clients and one 'central' server/host. In peer to peer, everybody has a direct connection to everybody else. That causes alot of problems. It scales horribly: n players = n*(n-1) connections where as client/server is only n connections. It is very low security as data validation is extremely challenging when nobody can be completely trusted. Whose active version of the game state is 'correct'? The only real benefits to peer to peer are that the system is stable since it doesn't matter if any single machine goes offline, and it's cheap since there's no need for a dedicated server.

In client/server nobody has a direct connection to any other client. The only data ever sent is from a client to the server, or from the server to a client. This makes validation very easy as the server is 'trusted'. It's also extremely fast as a gamestate change requires only a change on the server, while its up to the clients to synch up on the server's [correct] version of the game state.

Dedicated vs nondedicated server just refers to whether or not a given machine is always available as a server for a given game. So MMO's, for example, absolutely must have dedicated servers since there is persistent game state that is constantly changing and must always be stored. But for a regular FPS, you could have a nondedicated server. For example, if your friend says he's hosting a Quake match and wants you to connect to his IP to play with him then his computer is acting as a nondedicated server.

I believe this is why Hume was claiming there are no dedicated servers on Live. Because in many games, like Gears of War, one player takes on 'host' and other people join his game to play. But in reality, this 'host' is still just a 'client' to the XBox Live servers who validate/authorize his request to be listed as a server for said game. And though I don't have technical knowledge of this, I'd expect there is some degree of validation/authentication constantly going on between XBox live and the temporary 'host' while he is hosting the games. His machine in turn would be constantly validating/authenticating the 'clients' connected to him. Its similar to the sort of system you have with UT2K4 or Steam.

In games like Halo 3, this is taken to a new level. Where the entire concept of 'host' is completely hidden from the player, with players being seemingly seamlessly matched with other players with XBox live acting as the only server. This is not true, however, as somebody is still assigned host and the players in the game connect to him - but that's getting tangental. Gist of it all being that XBox Live basically works as a dedicated server for all XBox 360 games, with some players acting as temporary/nondedicated hosts for the rest of the players.

[Dudd]

There is a big difference between a true dedicated server and a client acting as the server. For starters, usually a dedicated server is hosted on an extremely fast connection, much better than your local DSL or cable connection. This allows much higher amounts of players to connect to a server, which is why Halo on Xbox live is usually played with only 8 players and a maximum of 16 while games like TFC and Counterstrike have 32 man battles. Since you're not connecting to a user, you also have less lag issues on dedicated servers. Since dedicated servers run 24/7, you also don't get the annoying pauses in battle if the host quits, you can have people joining and exiting at will without restarting a game, you can have dedicated stat tracking at a particular server, you can choose to play at servers with special modified rules, etc. Finally, the host enjoys a tremendous advantage over the rest of the players since his ping time is 0, although as broadband gets better this is less of an issue. But, to state that XBox Live serves as a dedicated server is completely false.

[Dire]

I agree with all of that Dudd. I think I made it clear that XBox live is not directly hosting the games (besides Phantasy Star Universe / Final Fantasy XI), but other players are? In the same sense that Steam doesn't host your Counterstrike games. If not, I meant to.

[Dudd]

XBox Live is acting as a matchmaker, not as a dedicated server. Steam also acts as a matchmaker, but it matches you with dedicated servers, not a host client like Live. Live does not act like a dedicated server because it provides none of the benefits of a true dedicated server.