Why is instance 2049 on Orion exceptionally laggy

[Paladin_of_Power]

Why is instance 2049 on Orion exceptionally laggy.

We consistently noticed significantly more lag on i2049 than any other instance. we have been avoiding that instance when doing raids and high skull quests.

Instance shopping is no fun and a waste of our time and really should not be an aspect of the game.

[jirksa]

Same! We always check instance and immediately recall and reset if it is 2049

[droid327]

Replicants are running wild there. Better call Ryan Gosling

[Arkat]

There is no "Orion" server.

[Steelstar]

For most DDO content, the instance number you see in /loc is a label. It has no bearing on hardware or software connections to any other locations with the same number. For the purpose of creating instances in that content, the labeling system starts with i2049 and counts upward.

i2049 is the most common instance label. It's akin to #1. But it is, in fact, a label. It's not surprising that lag is seen most frequently in i2049, because when you start a new instance in that type of content, it's more likely to be labelled i2049 than anything else.

We still have ongoing work related to lag, but "removing" instance numbers would not change anything but perception.

Time to repost this! The reason you see lag most often in i2049 is that i2049 is the most common label attached to instances. But it's literally only a label.

[ahpook]

Time to repost this! The reason you see lag most often in i2049 is that i2049 is the most common label attached to instances. But it's literally only a label.

It may only be a label but I am curious what that label is for. Could that label be changed to some random string without issue? If so perhaps you should stop labelling things i2049 simply to put this nonsense to rest. While the user experience indicating they should avoid i2049 may just be confirmation bias, the history of the wi flag means players are never going to discount the possibility of a correlation.

And just because it's "only a label" that wouldn't mean it is unable to cause issues depending on how that label is used. Eg if that label is tied to logging with some kind of indexing on the label then i2049 instances could experience performance issues just because of a label. IOW, the "it's only a label" statement will likely do little to change players beliefs.

[Steelstar]

It may only be a label but I am curious what that label is for. Could that label be changed to some random string without issue? If so perhaps you should stop labelling things i2049 simply to put this nonsense to rest. While the user experience indicating they should avoid i2049 may just be confirmation bias, the history of the wi flag means players are never going to discount the possibility of a correlation.

And just because it's "only a label" that wouldn't mean it is unable to cause issues depending on how that label is used. Eg if that label is tied to logging with some kind of indexing on the label then i2049 instances could experience performance issues just because of a label. IOW, the "it's only a label" statement will likely do little to change players beliefs.

It's not tied to anything, and we've definitively (and exhaustively) confirmed that i2049 is not different from any other instances. It is simply a label. As for the label itself, it's 2049 because 1-2048 are reserved for other kinds of instances.

I understand that not everyone will accept that, but in that case there's nothing more I can say or do that will help. An explanation was asked for; a definitive answer was given.

[Mindos]

It's not tied to anything, and we've definitively (and exhaustively) confirmed that i2049 is not different from any other instances.

Why does the instance change when players instance farm? Why doesn't the game just keep using 2049? How does it determine if you get 2049 or some higher number?

[Phoenicis]

Why does the instance change when players instance farm? Why doesn't the game just keep using 2049? How does it determine if you get 2049 or some higher number?

On a hunch it's because the instance labeled 2049 did not shut down before the request for a new instance processed, generating a new label.

Again, just a hunch, but if there are multiple instances of, say, 'a cabal for one' the first one gets 2049, the next one 2050 and so on. If the instance with label 2049 completes or is reset it would free that label up, so the next new instance would now re-use 2049.

As I said, just my hunch.

[bracelet]

Why does the instance change when players instance farm? Why doesn't the game just keep using 2049? How does it determine if you get 2049 or some higher number?

Because an instance stays active for 5 minutes after the last person left? If labels need to be unique, and in this case it sounds like they do, then a new label is needed when spinning up the next one. Steelstar's explanation is pretty convincing to me.

[Kenpai]

I understand that not everyone will accept that, but in that case there's nothing more I can say or do that will help.

You could start quests in i2050 instead. Keep i2049 reserved to trap all the lag inside while everyone quests in the better instances.

[Oliphant]

Not sure I agree with Steelstar's logic. Similar to the Poisson distribution weighting lower digits' frequencies higher due to natural reasons, i2049 being the first instance generated actually is suggestive that it would be a problem instance because it may tend to be a tad (or more than a tad) larger than instances that follow. Numbers are only a label but they have order and order has mathematical consequences. If i2049 is the "first instance" that means this has order. I lack enough context to really make a judgement but I'm skeptical still.

[ahpook]

Not sure I agree with Steelstar's logic. Similar to the Poisson distribution weighting lower digits' frequencies higher due to natural reasons, i2049 being the first instance generated actually is suggestive that it would be a problem instance because it may tend to be a tad (or more than a tad) larger than instances that follow. Numbers are only a label but they have order and order has mathematical consequences. If i2049 is the "first instance" that means this has order. I lack enough context to really make a judgement but I'm skeptical still.

I don't doubt Steelstar and this is probably another instance of confirmation bias (we look for lag on i2049 and thus we find it).

But thinking theoretically, why have a label if it doesn't mean anything? If it is truly meaningless, delete it. If a label is needed for some purpose, but its value doesn't matter, make it random or a timestamp. Using predictable ordered numbers means that some process could be doing something that has a negative consequence (eg, checking in with process i2049 to see if it is active). I am sure that Steelstar has conducted a thorough check and found nothing. But we all know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Turbine engineers were certain there was nothing that would cause agro issues that were later attributed to Wi flag. At the very least, change it so that this silly discussion can go away.

[bracelet]

I don't doubt Steelstar and this is probably another instance of confirmation bias (we look for lag on i2049 and thus we find it).

But thinking theoretically, why have a label if it doesn't mean anything? If it is truly meaningless, delete it. If a label is needed for some purpose, but its value doesn't matter, make it random or a timestamp.

I am sure the label means something to the engineer investigating a bug report. That’s how they are going to find the right logs.

[Mindos]

I wonder about edge cases. I wonder what happens when two groups try to spawn a 2049 instance at the exact same time. Down to the pico second. Is there lag? A lock up? A race condition? A timeout, even a small one?

As 2049 "fills", at some point we get to 2050. What's the cut off and why? Is it resource allocation? Is a "full" 2049 a meaningful term?

What about when we reach this "end" of 2049? Whats the edge cases here? Is it possible the "allocator" to instances could ever overfill 2049 above what the "resource max" per instance is assigned? What if two or more groups try to enter at the exact same time? Will the scheduler over fill? Shouldn't resource max be set to 110 percent, just in case? Just to stop "clipping" as the 2049 hits it max before 2050 spools up?

2049 as an instance by itself may be functioning just fine, perfectly purring along. But the instance scheduler could be bugged. Or the resource's could be hardcapped, etc.

[ahpook]

I am sure the label means something to the engineer investigating a bug report. That’s how they are going to find the right logs.

Possibly. But then a random id would be better so one would not need to sift through the multitude of i2049 instances. And if they are being logged with that, and the label is indexed to help them find it, it goes back to a possibility that i2049 is slower to log due to indexing issues with a very common label.

[rabidfox]

Some bored dev should just add +1 to all instances number values that players can see and watch the conspiracy theories fly.

[Fisto_Mk_I]

Some bored dev should just add +1 to all instances number values that players can see and watch the conspiracy theories fly.

...or not...

[Oliphant]

If there's even a 1% chance, why take a chance?

[droid327]

If there's even a 1% chance, why take a chance?

There's not even a 1% chance

You're committing a burden of proof fallacy...its not on the devs to come up with a reason why not, its on the players to demonstrate a reason why they should