Time to delist from Contrabandent?
Jun. 22nd, 2005 @ 12:40 am
This big question we have wondered for a while, but I think nows a time to push it forward.
Why delist from Contrabandent? Heres my reasoning:
1. Its using the Epic Version of the list server which is not compatbile with new features being set up in the new list server.
2. Contains many bugs as its using the epic list server program, for example ServerNet.
3. Its linked to jazz.nimrod-online.com about 20% of its life, the other 80% is due to ServerNet Failing
We have the ability to sustain JJ2 by ourselfs now, why rely on a unmaintained list?
We have three community run list servers:
spaz.nimrod-online.com (Currently used for testing, but will become a dedicated list eventually)
JJ2 barely has more than 10 players or so. The question even arises as to why the need for backup? For the last year or so 90% of Jazz'ers have soley used jazz.nimrod-online.com and havent experienced problems. the only problems ever had were due to ServerNet and having more than one list.
I suggest we have just two lists, a main one and a secondary backup one. Both linked using ServerNet, and both using the latest build by Nebula.
This is public, so anyone can discuss. Sorry about my spelling, Im tired.
So, your views?
As far as I know we still haven't tested a full network with the new list server. We need to make sure that works as well for long periods of time. I also wasn't aware that the new list server has even been completed. If we're going to switch, we need what we're switching to to be complete and tested.
I have tested a full network with the new list server, and it has some serious problems. Me and Nebula put it down to the legacy ServerNet code, which was based around the ServerNet code in the Epic One.
Nebula is now busy working on ServerNet v2 which wont be backwards compatiable. Therefore when its ready, we will need to switch both of the selected servers over to it. This should stop a lot of the problems we have.
Also inregards to it being completed, its not completed at present, its got a lot of work to do but it has been used on the most used JJ2 List Server for over a year without any major problems. The few minor bugs it has left in it are nothing compared to the bugs left in the final release of the epic list server.
We would have to wait till ServerNet v2 is ready before upgrading the secondary list to the new build.
What I have noticed is Nebulas List can talk to an Epic List, an Epic List can talk to an Epic List, but when a Nebula List talks to a Nebula List they fall out. So lets dump legacy ServerNet as soon as we can. But until then, all but one list has to run the old buggy Epic List.
We don't need to dump the original ServerNet to build a new ServerNet. Nebula's list server already supports the old protocol, and it should be quite possible to support both old and new in the same server. This way we could still bridge old Epic list servers to the new server network for a smooth transition.
I would still be interested in helping to work on the ServerNet design as I have had network programming experience before. I rarely hear anything about what's going on with that though.
The current legacy ServerNet (the original servernet, copied into Nebulas) isnt 100%. It loses connections, specially when talking legacy to legacy (Two Nebula Lists talking to eachother)
Nebula has said to me that its the best its gonna be, and we should just make our own ServerNet.
Theres also the new security features like hiding private IP's thats not performed on the Contrabandent. I suggest we just remove it when we can, and get the lists under community control and stop relying on others.
For two updated list servers talking together, of course you would want to use a new ServerNet protocol. But what I'm saying is don't throw out the old ServerNet support because that way we don't have to drop the old servers as the new ones are being developed. And that security feature isn't really that important. Having support for the transition is more important. A good amount of development still needs to be done.
|Date:||June 23rd, 2005 01:55 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm not going to talk technical, and I think it's better up to the listserver admins to decide what happens with contrabandent.. I myself think we need to show Burger lots of love for what he does and what he has done for us. If he is not willing to maintain the listserver actively and spend a few minutes a week/month on it, then a listserver within the community might be better.
If it's REALLY necesarry (and I mean REALLY, not just because of the private IP stuff) I would like to have more than just one main server. I wouldn't want everything relying on just one person. If Monolith can also run a server, that would be great.
I agree we need to show Burger lots of love, and I am indeed very grateful for what hes done for us.
But sadly he has other things in life to deal with, instead of people constantly moaning at him because of his "bunny game" list server keeps breaking.
It would be in his interest, and our own interest to take the weight of his shoulders and support our favourite bunny game by ourselfs.
We have 3 available "main servers"
The Digiex Server in London, UK (currently hosting jazz.nimrod-online.com)
Matt Hills Server in Huddersfield, UK (Windows 2003 Box which I have an Admin account on, up 24/7 and very realiable - being used as a test server at the moment: spaz.nimrod-online.com)
Monoliths Server (currently hosting jazz.madskills.org)
I'm assuming we would only need 2 thou? In which case we need to pick the best two.
I've been thinking...I know (because I coded it ;D) that I haven't fully implemented it (though I won't go into detail, since it works for the most part). But do we really need a new protocol? I thought we did at first, but it'd be a lot of work, and just plain complicated. Designing some elaborate protocol to keep listservers in sync is pretty silly if there's only going to be two list servers. What's the general consensus? Do we need a new protocol??
And just out of curiosity, why are we thinking of ousting Burger's server? Sure, it's not running my code, but that's OK. How does it need maintaining? Someone clue me in please. ;)
BTW...how do I not have posting rights? :P
|Date:||June 30th, 2005 03:48 am (UTC)|| |
The issue we have with Contrabandent is that it runs its own DNS Server. When the server loads up, the List Server loads before the DNS is up and running, therefore fails to get the correct addresses of the other list servers. This ends up making it not accept incoming servernet requests from other lists, and also not connecting itself to others.
This is why I've been begging you to make ServerNet in your List to re-check DNS entries from time to time, incase they changed or a problem happened like above.
Thats the issue I have with Contrabandet inregards to it working.
My other concern is as its not running your List Server, if we enforce something on one of your lists, it wont take affect on Contrabandent.
Just say the user "JohnM" hosted tons of games that said "Nebula eats sh.." and we delisted them, they wouldnt be delisted from Contrabandent.
This would also destory the whole idea of "working togeather as a network" and make differences between the lists.
If rewriting a new ServerNet would be too much, maybe refining the current ServerNet? One bug that is present which is annoying is the fact that two of your lists keep losing there ServerNet Connection.
For example: jazz.nimrod-online.com can talk all ok with two epic lists (Madskills and Contrabandent) but has issues talking to another list running your program - spaz.nimrod-online.com
Just randomly all of a sudden, they lose connection and wont reconnect.
Thats all I can think of at the moment, it is 4:47am where I am, time for bed.
If Contrabandent doesn't work correctly and causes only problems, and Burger is unwilling to maintain it properly, I would support dropping it. Maybe this is something we should ask him about. It should not be dropped, however, until Nebula's list software works perfectly and we can create a stable list network using only his software.
Why can't delisting commands be propagated? That is something that should already be in the servernet protocol, because JJ2 only tells one list server when it wants to delist the game.
The bug with two of Nebula's list losing connection with each other is just that: a bug. It doesn't necessitate rewriting or refining the servernet protocol, it just requires fixing the software so it works correctly. Since it still appears to be in an incomplete state, this is not inconceivable.