Provide evidence of a correlation between the 2049 instance and lag or shut up

[Moltier]

snip

That insta will not grant auto lag for the party, but when lag happens, more often then not, its 2049.
So people sometimes reset its location for safety.

This happened to many players:
Crazy lag spikes hits in 2049, quick insta reset, and the different location isnt lagging at all.

I dont think we need any more evidence then this. Maybe you need.

[Charononus]

I think personally that 2049 and 50 are more commonly used by the server than others, this means that more people are in them and when a hamster gets a cramp these are the first to be effected, if you are in 2051 for example because there are less people there and less load it doesn't go bad quite as often. Just a theory.

[NaturalHazard]

Even if I don't believe that those instances cause lag I would still reset it for people just so they feel more comfortable but im weird like that. The emperor is just a corpse on a golden throne but if your prayers make you fight harder then im all for it, just hope no pesky mind witch reads my thoughts and reports me .

[gerardIII]

I am annoyed due to constantly being asked to recall out in order to enter a new instance when the raid party enters the raid and the instance is 2049i.

I've never seen this i2049 talk outside the forums.

You are probably being trolled because of your psycho-rigidity.

[Machination]

Hey Norg, I can't recall a wipe due to lag EVER in 2052. And perhaps it is anecdotal, but that's at least 20-25 runs where there has been a very concerted effort to be in instance 2052 rejecting the others.

Prior to the effort to always be in 2052, and again this may be anecdotal, lag wipes did happen more often in 2049 and 50.

Now, I think the lag issue depends a lot upon other factors beyond the control of anyone (network latency of party members, general internet traffic, server load, server connection load, etc. etc. etc.), but overall yes the random thing I notice is that 2052 pretty much does not have lag wipes 90% + of the time.

I think probably only Turbine has the actual logs on this and maybe should ask them!

I lead 20-30 raids a week. The primary raids that I currently lead are Fall of Truth and Caught in the Web. I am annoyed due to constantly being asked to recall out in order to enter a new instance when the raid party enters the raid and the instance is 2049i. I refuse to recall out and re-enter the quest and have completed tons of raids in 2049 as well as the other instances. I have experienced lag in 2049 as well as the other instances. There is no greater possibility for lag in 2049 vs. the other instances that I have seen.

Who comes up with these myths and superstitious nonsense? Khyber raiders are an incredibly superstitious lot. I have not seen a single shred of evidence, analysis, or rationale as to why 2049 could have more lag. We need to call in the DDO myth busters. Developers is there any logic and rational or anything at all for this? Players provide your evidence or logic because you have none that I have seen.

Let's all carry a lucky rabbit's foot, not cross under a ladder, knock on wood, break a mirror, cross our fingers, keep our umbrellas outside, be mindful of Friday the 13th, and not do quests in instance 2049 because the world just might end. I have my end of the world bunker ready to go how about you people?

[Machination]

I will log my next 100 lag LOC and either send you the entire data load or parse it for your convenience. If you need more let me know, it won't take long mind you.

Precisely, the data analysis is terrible and really is not credible. The engineering logic is also totally nonexistant. All superstitions start with one idiot spreading something and that is what we have here. Amazingly this has spread a lot on Khyber which leads to a less then flattering picture of Khyber Raiders. No wonder some of the things that Turbine is trying to do to make money seem so outlandish well to these sorts of people playing on Khyber Turbine's money making moves make a lot more sense.

[Krelar]

I will log my next 100 lag LOC and either send you the entire data load or parse it for your convenience. If you need more let me know, it won't take long mind you.

To be useful you would actually need to parse ALL of your loc and if you had lag or not in each one.

To help keep it objective you need to write down whether or not there is lag first then check the location.

You need to check all instance not just laggy ones because just recording the ones with lag misses important information. If when you notice lag you are in instance i20whatever 80% of the time but 80% of all your instances are in that same place then there is nothing unusual going on, you spend more time in that instance so it is expected that you notice lag more often in that instance.

[Pape_27]

I'm not saying there is or isn't a problem, but until there is some evidence, its just urban legend.

I believe the proper term is anecdotal evidence.

as in when I experience crippling lag, it usually in loc 2049 or 2050. Its my experience, ie. anecdotal evidence - as in it is happening, its happening to me right now etc but I have no was to quantify or qualify the experience. Its not an urban legend.

as for the op - there is something wrong with the servers. there is something that causes lag on the ddo side. yes there is client side lag, but the source has issues. Its been better of late for me personally but I still experience soul crushing lag hits which I know isn't on my side.
.

[Ilindith]

It's simple.

I lag, I /loc. 90% of the time the magic number i2049 comes up. If it's not i2049 it's usually i2050 or i2051.

[SilkofDrasnia]

I lead 20-30 raids a week. The primary raids that I currently lead are Fall of Truth and Caught in the Web. I am annoyed due to constantly being asked to recall out in order to enter a new instance when the raid party enters the raid and the instance is 2049i. I refuse to recall out and re-enter the quest and have completed tons of raids in 2049 as well as the other instances. I have experienced lag in 2049 as well as the other instances. There is no greater possibility for lag in 2049 vs. the other instances that I have seen.

Who comes up with these myths and superstitious nonsense? Khyber raiders are an incredibly superstitious lot. I have not seen a single shred of evidence, analysis, or rationale as to why 2049 could have more lag. We need to call in the DDO myth busters. Developers is there any logic and rational or anything at all for this? Players provide your evidence or logic because you have none that I have seen.

Let's all carry a lucky rabbit's foot, not cross under a ladder, knock on wood, break a mirror, cross our fingers, keep our umbrellas outside, be mindful of Friday the 13th, and not do quests in instance 2049 because the world just might end. I have my end of the world bunker ready to go how about you people?

Until YOU can provide real evidence that this isn't true maybe you should just shut up ? You need to provide the same quality of evidence as you demand, and right now your just providing your opinion like everyone else.

[Gkar]

Until YOU can provide real evidence that this isn't true maybe you should just shut up ? You need to provide the same quality of evidence as you demand, and right now your just providing your opinion like everyone else.

Turbine, the people with the monitoring tools, and that actually know what an instance means/is, says it makes no difference. That's the only actual evidence, so it would seem that the fact is that it doesn't make a difference and the burden is on anyone to prove that it does.

[Gkar]

It's simple.

I lag, I /loc. 90% of the time the magic number i2049 comes up. If it's not i2049 it's usually i2050 or i2051.

That's not evidence on its own.

When you DO NOT lag, do you /loc every time? Why does it matter? Because if 90% of the time you are in instance i2049 then 90% of the problems shoudl be in that instance too. It's only if you are in there for 50% of the quests and lag 90% of the time that there is evidence of a problem.

After all, when my car stalls I have noticed that 99.99% of the time my key is in the ignition. So my key is causing stalling, right?

[Vanshilar]

The hypothesis was never that i2049 was the cause of the lag. The hypothesis was that lag was localized to a given instance, and therefore, switching to less-used instances would decrease the likelihood of getting hit by lag. It's not that it's the cause, it's that by doing so you can reduce your exposure to the symptoms. As players it doesn't directly matter to us what the cause is, we just don't want to get hit with the effects.

The line of reasoning is:
* Turbine's computing resources are allocated by instance. That is to say, instance 1 gets to use a certain amount of CPU/memory, instance 2 gets to use a certain amount of CPU/memory, etc. This is an unproven assumption, but is logical for software architecture (actually, this is from my MUD admin days, where we had to purchase a certain amount of CPU usage from a MUD hosting site, say 3% or 5% or whatever; they basically capped our MUD's CPU usage at that amount and stopped computing our MUD's process briefly when we hit the cap (i.e. throttling), so that our excessive usage would not affect other MUDs being run off the same CPU -- nor would other MUDs with inefficient code affect ours).
* Multiple groups can share the same instance. This is most obviously seen by the number of people in Marketplace, etc., but many quest/raid groups will share the same instance. The i2049, i2050, etc. is one example; Abbot for example uses this series. If no other groups on the server are in Abbot, the first Abbot group will get i2049. The next one will be i2050. If a third group starts doing Abbot, it'll have i2051. So forth and so on. For quests that use this instance scheme, they start at i2049 and work their way up if there are multiple groups. This is from testing. Areas that use this instance scheme are typically "indoor" areas such as taverns and indoor quests, though not always. So if a group in VoD and another group in FoT are both in i2049, then they are both sharing the same instances and hence, the same resource cap.
* Turbine's code has bugs (probably not a difficult assumption to make), some of which can occasionally exceed available resources (such as infinite loops) until they're found and corrected. For example, the hireling lag bug was eventually traced to hirelings in some circumstances requesting their position (IIRC) several hundred times a second.
* Instances that are more heavily used are closer to reaching their cap on usage naturally, as well as have more players/monsters that can cause buggy code to run and tie up resources.
* If a group uses up its instance's allocated resource usage, then processing on it is throttled for everyone in that instance -- in other words, server-side lag for people in that instance.

Back then (just as now), i2049 was used for most of the crafting halls. Back then, whenever someone clicked on a crafting altar, the server would upload the entire recipe list to the client (resulting in the client experiencing several seconds of lag -- the network usage for that particular client would become capped at 30k). This presumably is a substantial load on an instance, considering the number of people in the crafting hall at the time (enough that most servers had multiple crafting hall instances).

So the point of avoiding i2049 was to avoid that "baseline" instance load, so that the raid group wasn't affected by people crafting or whatever else was going on in other i2049 groups. Nowadays loading the recipe list is done client-side (i.e. when you click on the altar, it just loads a list from your HD rather than downloading it from the server), so crafting isn't as laggy. However, many other instances (include crafting) still use i2049 as the default.

Server lag can occur in any instance. It's not directly because of the instance, it's because of some code that's consuming too much resources. MaMalphunktion said the instance wasn't the problem but we never said it was -- the instance thing was just a way to isolate ourselves from the problem when it occurs. The instance thing contributes to the problem only so far as that 1) computed resources are allocated by instance (unproven but logical assumption) and that 2) people who are in the same instance as the problem are the ones affected. And of course, if your group is the one causing the lag in the instance (such as buggy raid script), then it won't matter what instance you're in. Switching instances is only good for preventing other groups from lagging your group, and to get a lower baseline resource load on your instance so that hopefully you have a bigger margin in terms of server processing before you hit the cap and get hit by server lag.

The instance i2049 is used for a great deal of dungeons, so yes, it's likely that a laggy instance will be i2049 and a non-laggy instance will also be i2049. Quests and raids that using the i2049+ scheme start at i2049 and work their way up so it's the default instance for all such quests and raids (by contrast, I haven't figured out the instance allocation scheme for quests that use the i1-i2048 numbers). It's unclear how much the "baseline" load is on i2049 nowadays since they've made some changes to decrease the load (such as how crafting recipes are loaded), so as always, YMMV.

You're certainly welcome to take the stance of "until I see concrete proof, I don't believe it". On the other hand, that in itself is a strong assumption -- you're essentially assuming that it's false without proof of its falsehood. Some people blacklist others who open the Chrono chests before the tent blows up, I've never seen any evidence as to why. I can say that back then, Over Raided had good success in using it, and nowadays, the lag we see tends to be at specific times during a raid, such as when a mass of monsters spawn (trash in final room in MA, trash near end of LoB, spectral dragons in FoT) -- although the lag doesn't always occur, when it does, it's highly likely to be during those times -- rather than at random times. I've offered to send the data on these lag spikes to Turbine but it's a matter of whether or not they actually bother to analyze it.

[smeggy1384]

Until YOU can provide real evidence that this isn't true maybe you should just shut up ? You need to provide the same quality of evidence as you demand, and right now your just providing your opinion like everyone else.

Thing is one smooth run through one of the supposed 2049, 2059, or 2051 instances would be proof enough. Of course i saw someone quote a Turbine employee elsewhere saying the I before 2049, 2050, or 2051 isn't actually referring to an instance(might have even been on the previous page of this thread) so how would someone run a non-existant instance to check for lag or no lag?

Does the i2049, i2050, i2051 show up when folks are lagging and use /loc.. yes, sometimes. Does it show up other times? I doubt most people have checked where they are every few seconds to see if the Evil I's show up unless there is lag.

[smatt]

All I can say is that in the past, when I've been in a horridly lagged out raid instance, and bothered to check, more often than not it's been i2049 or i2050.... Nope, no proof whatsoever.. Of course Madmatt is right as he ALWAYS is Just ask him... He knows...

Now then, is there any actual provable data on anything in DDO? Proof of anything? Nope... Just a few guesses here and there, with at most a few hundred(s) in sample size. Simply put the the Devs won't ever really say much of anything....

I've lagged and not lagged just about everywhere in this game..... Yes SERVER side lag.. Not my very own lag, which happens as well.... I don't play all that much anymore..... And typically don't/didn't care enough to bother spending hours/100's of hours testing stuff like this...... I simply go by what I do bother to look at.... Otherwise meh.....

Matt it's YOUR raid.. If you don't want to recall don't.... After all you are the great one... Well besides Shade Prove it's not i2049/i2051 related. Give us YOUR provable data Sir......

[smatt]

Turbine, the people with the monitoring tools, and that actually know what an instance means/is, says it makes no difference. That's the only actual evidence, so it would seem that the fact is that it doesn't make a difference and the burden is on anyone to prove that it does.

Did they say this? I haven't seen it, not that I really bothered to look all that hard....

There's no burden of proof to provide....

[Krelar]

Did they say this? I haven't seen it, not that I really bothered to look all that hard....

There's no burden of proof to provide....

Yes they did. I even quoted it in post #18 of this thread but I'll do it again just for you.

Thanks for investigating, but this only points to a place it is happening not the problem.
We already collect this data, and when you see the bigger picture, it does not narrow down to just the crafting hall, or instance 2030 or whatnot. It can happen everywhere.
There is a few optimizations in the patch (not in this build tho...next week's...sorry) that should help everyone...especially large groups, but there is at least half a dozen other things we want to change/fix/optimize in the next couple of months.

there are two huge changes that I'll talk about right after patch 1 that we are doing. There are some big under the covers changes that are long overdue. Will this help the instance lag? To be honest, we are not sure yet, there is still more testing to be done.

[SilkofDrasnia]

Turbine, the people with the monitoring tools, and that actually know what an instance means/is, says it makes no difference. That's the only actual evidence, so it would seem that the fact is that it doesn't make a difference and the burden is on anyone to prove that it does.

Aye this is true but forgive me if I don't trust Turbine enough to give me unbiased information on this issue, the fact is it's on anyone to prove anything they say and this pretty much makes this thread useless as no one can prove diddly one way or the other.

Thing is one smooth run through one of the supposed 2049, 2059, or 2051 instances would be proof enough. Of course i saw someone quote a Turbine employee elsewhere saying the I before 2049, 2050, or 2051 isn't actually referring to an instance(might have even been on the previous page of this thread) so how would someone run a non-existant instance to check for lag or no lag?

Does the i2049, i2050, i2051 show up when folks are lagging and use /loc.. yes, sometimes. Does it show up other times? I doubt most people have checked where they are every few seconds to see if the Evil I's show up unless there is lag.

No not at all one smooth run doesn't prove anything anymore than one laggy run proves anything.

I believe Vanshilar has the right of it.

[Cheezburgerz]

I run about 100 raids or EE quests per week. The only instance that I experience lag in is 2049i.

[Absolution_40]

I lead 20-30 raids a week.

I have 100 pennies. That is a dollar.