About the plans for 2 servers connected to each other...

[Agran Harper]

What about the database?

It would have to be shared between 2 or more servers.
What happens when both try to write to it at the same time?
If it is not implemented correctly, it could lead to very often server crashes.

What kind of database does the Freelancer use anyway?

Since the Discovery server runs a regular FL server, it should work exactly the same like any other one we would host on our own computers; each account gets a seperate folder in "my documents/My Games/Freelancer/Accounts/Multiplayer". In this folder (my local one is named 23-d8c8065c) are the characters of the respective account saved. Any new player to the server gets a new folder, that is corelated to the Account ID of Freelancer created along the installation process.

It is "easy" when several FLservers are running on the same machine. Even if you install different copies of Freelancer in different Folders, the database the characers and savegames are stored, remains the same. So regardless of which part you would get transferred to, it writes to one and the same file. It gets tricky when synchronizing the databases of two seperate computers. Both "multiplayer" folders would have to be shared/open to LAN traffic to copy the character from one folder to the relevant other folder on the other machine. Basically, a mirrored database, with the exception that you have to set the "active" character, linked with the server he currently is scheduled for.
So, as for the theory, there should not be much trouble with the files themselves. Hell, when there were the times of windows98 and the "windows scripting host" I learned how to have a folder mirrored on another computer whenever I save something in it. I did that with my textfiles and ideas for stories back then. If it was possible when win98 was around, I am very certain that it is no problem nowadays with even less hassle (( Yes, I have the Virtue "Conviction" on rank 5 ^^ ))

The files themselves are *.fl files, which you can find in the exe folder for the standardized "new player" character, i.e, what the player starts with and which bases are visited and whatnot.

If I get what you're saying here, it is that the dual servers won't be that efficient and that we should just run multiple servers on one machine. Well, FL Server operator isn't that stupid. Rather genius for its time, I would guess. It only generates NPCs when there are players in the system. As such, the server not responsible for a certain system will never have to populate that system with NPCs, and so processing power is not lost. An entire server can generate NPCs for half of Sirius, instead of the entirety.

Well, I would throw my arms up and cheer if I knew it WAS that way. I noticed at all the LANgames with friends, that FLS at least continues to run the systems that have been visited by a player since server-uptime. At least for a certain time. Example; we were in Leeds, arriving at the gate to New London. There were 3 mollys inbound and 3 police ships intercepting, starting to shoot at each other while we were on the way to dock. So when we came there (and decided to not go against the outlaws since we got perishable cargo on board), the fight just started. We jumped through, all of us. When the last one of us came out (that was me) in New London, I decided to return to check for something on LD-14. When I arrived back in Leeds, after the loading screen, there were 2 mollys and 3 police vehicles, and every of the 5 ships had at least a quarter of their hull gone. There is no way that they ALL could reduce themselves into hull within a few seconds (exit tunnel, loading view), so they must have been the same vessels we saw on our way through. Naturally, I would want to see testing done. So my question is; are you absolutely foolproof certain that the server does not load idle systems or systems that have not been visited during the uptime? (( please note; this is not to brag or sound superiour or snobby or whatever! No! My only intent is to clear out as many "ifs" and "whens" and any other probablities. If it comes to planning and logistics, I am known to get as many facts double-checked and verified as possible. I hope that does not offend anyone to be so nitpicking...)).

As for the localization and performance of the servers; It has to be tested out, ultimately. But I believe it would be better to rather use 2 servers on the same machine, having each server assigned to one core, than having two seperate computers with each having one server launched. The advantage; 2 servers on the same machine would share one and the same database, so you only need to heave the character on the other server if he crosses a border. On seperate machines, you need to transfer and update the files first before attempting to relocate the character.

Also, it would only be feasable to run one server per core, but that goes without words. Who would want to run 2 servers on 1 core anyway, if the single core that is currently used, is on "the edge of living" with 200 people. I just would use as many cores as possible, that is why I could see the performance gained in using a quadcore CPU, for running more instances on the same machine. Since the other posting of mine in the relevant thread is still unprocessed; a 64bit OS would boost the performance tremendously. Also, having 64bit Win2003 as the hosting OS is something I could figure to be more stable, less resource intensive and more network friendly, thus less latency. Memory allocation also works smoother.

Of course, I talk overkill. But mind you, I rather propose any single possibility and investigating an idea to the fullest extent, than leaving some thoughts blank and unspoken. It can always be trimmed down until it fits, building the block from the pieces that suit best. Its just I like to view at things to make them LAST and to see what comes. And the major thought that is transcending through all my suggestions is;
If we are able to significantly boost the player limit, naturally more player will be attracted and more of the current players will have the opportunity to be online. Nobody would have to think at peak times "hm... is it really necessary to go online now, trying to desperately catch a slot? If there are so many there, its laggy anyways... hm..."

IF this works (which I highly doubt without source code)

I try to make is as clear as Harper-ishly possible:

1. Allocating different FLS programs to different cores: yes it works
   
2. Moving data from computer A to computer B on demand: yes it works (since, as stated, 10 years)
   
3. Loading a character from one server to the other: The FLHook Guru Cannon works on it.
   

O'course it would be easier with the source code, but many things have been made happen with FLHook coding that were meant to be impossible in the first place.

What if one of the servers crash???

If one server crashes, all players on THAT server are disconnected, but the other players on the other server would still be flying around. Only if one player crosses the invisible border and should be loaded on the other system, he either gets a neverending tunnel of light, or a connection error. As long as the other server is up, there should be no issue as long as a player does not decide to stride far away.
If the server reboots automatically after shutdown, then the players allocated on the other server would kind of never realize that something was odd and wrong anyways.

*tired* *bed*

---

To hunt the prey is life,
to lose the prey is death,
to hunt the loss is insane...