backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 71 comment(s) - last by Oobu.. on Aug 15 at 2:38 AM

Warhawk server cluster  (Source: Blog.us.playstation)

Warhawk server cluster close-up  (Source: blog.us.playstation)
Warhawk server clusters spread around the world to ensure ranked server availability for gamers

Online games have fast become the preference of many gamers over tolling through a single player game alone. Now gamers can hop online and frag guys from across town or around the world from their PCs and game consoles.

One of the most anticipated games coming for the PS3 is Warhawk, which will support vast multiple player online matches. To reduce ping time and ensure that there are always enough servers for Warhawk, the game developers used a method called Integrated Game Server (IGS).

IGS allows each Warhawk player to run a server on their own PS3 rather than having to connect to Sony servers to play. This will be a great feature for clans looking for some private practice.

Those who prefer to play on ranked servers will be able to as well. Sony has set up Warhawk server clusters around the world. The server cluster pictured on the right has 90 PS3s running in a rack mount environment. That’s about $45,000 worth of PS3 hardware in s single Warhawk server cluster.

Playing on dedicated Warhawk servers provided by Sony will allow players to rank up and win unlocks similar to the way you rank up and unlock in Battlefield 2142. Players wanting to host a server on their own PS3 can have 32-player dedicated servers for things like practice or 24-player play servers for actual games.

It would be interesting to know whether the ranked server clusters contributed to the 135% PS3 sales growth since the price drop.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
bandwidth?
By omnicronx on 8/13/2007 3:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Doesnt anyone have any idea how this works? if the server is client side would that not mean you would needs tons of bandwidth to run a >24 person server? let alone a small 16 player server? And why the hell did they choose to use ps3's as servers? unless theres a really good reason, it seems like the biggest waste of .5 million dollars to me.




RE: bandwidth?
By AnnihilatorX on 8/13/2007 3:46:11 PM , Rating: 3
I can answer your last question

Since it's a PS3 exclusive game, the game source code would be written and designed for PS3 from the ground up; hence any server codes are likely to be best to run by PS3s


RE: bandwidth?
By MonkeyPaw on 8/13/2007 5:37:45 PM , Rating: 3
That might make sense, except from what I gather, the game developer is making the server:

quote:
the game developers used a method called Integrated Game Server (IGS).


Unless they are completely inept, they shouldn't have any problems porting their networking code to a legitimate server, maybe even one running on Cell/BE. I'd have to think that a dedicated server would be far more efficient than a cluster of 90 PS3s--each running on its own power supply. I guess maintenance will be easier, if a PS3 breaks, just replace it. However, this seems more like a college dormitory solution than a legitimate online hosting service. Each PS3 is just providing a host machine, something any user should be able to do (for their clan) with their PS3 already.

Also, as criticized as MS's Live service is for costing users money, it may prove to be necessary. If a game developer is resorting to building their own PS3 server farm (which makes more money for Sony), then it certainly suggests that Sony's own free server network might not be good enough. Will other games see such dedication to the user's online experience? I dunno, I guess this seems more like a publicity stunt than a practical solution to a real problem.


RE: bandwidth?
By kamel5547 on 8/13/2007 6:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a game developer is resorting to building their own PS3 server farm (which makes more money for Sony),


Actually Sony will lose MORE money because of this... they are not selling the consoles at a profit.

All being said if the devloper knows what their doing (I assume they do as they developed a working game), then they shouldn't need to run on any specific platform. Code will execute as written, and it is easy to abstract the platform from anything.

Simplified but:
1. Send request to server, wait for acknowledgement
2. transmit data to port xxx
3. recieve data on port xxx

None of which is platform dependent. The code should be easy to port to a PC cluster running Linux and be done with... in todays age devlopers should think of multi-player during development, the only excuse I can think of is that Sony prevents them from using anything but a PS3 through it license agreement.


RE: bandwidth?
By Tsuwamono on 8/13/2007 6:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
i think by "which makes more money for sony" he means more money for sony to try and grab as it flys out of its ass at high velocity. as in they will lose more..


RE: bandwidth?
By walk2k on 8/13/2007 7:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
RE: bandwidth?
By mircea on 8/14/2007 1:36:06 AM , Rating: 3
Why don't you stop with the loosing money talk and think a little before you do. Sony already made the PS3's right?? Than it means that it already lost the $700+ or more it costs them to build a PS3. So selling each system means they are recovering some of the costs, not making profit, but recovering. The only way for them not to lose money is to stop making them not stop selling them.


RE: bandwidth?
By doctat on 8/13/2007 6:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
why would you bother to port your server to some other platform? the PS3 is obviously more than capable of pulling off the task, there's no $$ to port the code, and $499 a pop is pretty fricken cheap, even when compared with cheap ass 1U linux boxes.

sounds to me like this is the best all-around solution for this particular task.


RE: bandwidth?
By afkrotch on 8/14/2007 11:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
[quote]Unless they are completely inept, they shouldn't have any problems porting their networking code to a legitimate server, maybe even one running on Cell/BE. I'd have to think that a dedicated server would be far more efficient than a cluster of 90 PS3s--each running on its own power supply. I guess maintenance will be easier, if a PS3 breaks, just replace it. However, this seems more like a college dormitory solution than a legitimate online hosting service. Each PS3 is just providing a host machine, something any user should be able to do (for their clan) with their PS3 already.[/quote]

It's really all about ease and cost. A PS3 is cheaper and smaller than a server, while using less power. It's a big savings to build the cluster and to power it for the coming years. In the future, if they need to upgrade, they can simply add more PS3s to the cluster. They even have the possibility to move over to actual Cell servers, as everything is already coded for the machines.

If they already know how to code for the machine, then it's an extremely cheaper alternative to an actual server cluster.

[quote]Also, as criticized as MS's Live service is for costing users money, it may prove to be necessary. If a game developer is resorting to building their own PS3 server farm (which makes more money for Sony), then it certainly suggests that Sony's own free server network might not be good enough. Will other games see such dedication to the user's online experience? I dunno, I guess this seems more like a publicity stunt than a practical solution to a real problem. [/quote]

Playstation Network isn't a game server. Just like how Xbox Live isn't completely a game server. Take for example, EA. No EA game uses Xbox Live as their game server. They simply use it as an interface to their own game servers. Sometimes this is more cost efficient for the company. EA already has their own game servers and why not use them, instead of paying Microsoft a fat lump of cash to use theirs.

I'm sure Sony will setup game servers for your smaller companies. If it's one thing Sony has, it's plenty of servers. I mean, how many MMORPGs does Sony run? Many of them are losing members, which ends up freeing up a server to be used for other stuff. I think EQ (not 2) dropped to only using one server.


RE: bandwidth?
By Anosh on 8/13/2007 3:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
Pure speculation but...

the server software they use for ranked servers is the same as the one built-in the average ps3 hence they cannot run it on other platform.

If true, I guess they figured they would save a buck or two. Or they saw this solution as the easiest one.

Again, pure speculation.


RE: bandwidth?
By Anosh on 8/13/2007 3:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I should clarify a bit..

I'm in no way speaking of any software built-in the ps3, that was bad choice of words. I meant the server code on the DVD/Blue-ray game disk is the same one as on the ranked servers.


RE: bandwidth?
By omnicronx on 8/13/2007 4:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
i fully understand that probably the 'server code on the DVD/Blue-ray game disk is the same one as on the ranked servers. ' but theres no reason why this had to be done this way. I just dont see how running a bunch of ps3's in series is a better solution than a bunch of rackmount servers, wether or not they did not want to write different code or not, chances of this being a better system is kind of slim, seems like more of a workaround, and a way for sony to get rid of a bunch of ps3's.


RE: bandwidth?
By cochy on 8/13/2007 4:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Whats the difference? The code runs on the Cell, the PS3 has the Cell whats the big deal if it's a cluster of PS3s or 1U servers?

I believe Yellowdog sells small PS3 clusters. We know the PS3 is a viable computing platform.

Plus since Sony makes these they should save some $.


RE: bandwidth?
By killerroach on 8/13/2007 3:51:23 PM , Rating: 5
Something tells me we just partly figured out how Sony cleared the 20GB PS3 out of American channels :)


RE: bandwidth?
By Thmstec on 8/13/2007 4:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
Those aren't 20giggers, those are the 60GB or 80GB ps3s. 20gb ps3s don't have the chrome accents. But that raises another question, why the bigger hard drive? Is it to store rank data? That doesn't make sense either though, either 20gb is enough room to hold rank data, or 60gb isn't enough and they have bigger than normal drives, like 160gb drives.

And whats up with the USB ports being taken up? The only thing I can thing is they might use the usb ports to power fans????


RE: bandwidth?
By isorfir on 8/13/2007 4:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And whats up with the USB ports being taken up? The only thing I can thing is they might use the usb ports to power fans????


I would guess it's to control the PS3's with some sort of SIXAXIS KVM switch. They still need access to them and using the bluetooth wireless probably wasn't a good idea.

I wonder if they still utilize the motion sensors...


RE: bandwidth?
By daftrok on 8/13/2007 5:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they do because flying in Warhawk is done by moving the SIXAXIS controller.


RE: bandwidth?
By isorfir on 8/13/2007 5:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was joking about controlling the PS3's as servers with motion.

Ya know, shake up and down to reboot?


RE: bandwidth?
By UMUJU on 8/13/2007 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that if the developers were able to write software to take advantage of all of the cells in the PS3's processor, it would be an excellent server. Especially since the games are all optimized to run on that system. My only concern would be the memory since a traditional PS3 only has 256MB of system RAM and 256MB of video Ram.


RE: bandwidth?
By AndreasM on 8/13/2007 4:17:11 PM , Rating: 3
Servers mostly just handle game logic, and things like physics simulation and graphics are done client-side. The cell is very poorly suited for that kind of code, and the GPU in this case would be just dead weight.

As the publisher is Sony, I think this is nothing more than a PR stunt. I would also guess that these are custom-made, without unnecessary components like a blu-ray drive. Even so, they will not be cost effective at all.


RE: bandwidth?
By cochy on 8/13/2007 4:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cell is very poorly suited for that kind of code


Your reasoning behind this is...?

Ever think that the server code is written specifically for the Cell?


RE: bandwidth?
By AndreasM on 8/13/2007 4:30:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Your reasoning behind this is...?


The lack of branch prediction in the SPEs.


RE: bandwidth?
By walk2k on 8/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: bandwidth?
By MGSsancho on 8/14/2007 4:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
branch prediction is one, second is the Cell was designed for streaming task. for floating point crunching task like folding@home. granted the Cell has a core similar to the power 4. this main core handles all logic for the cell, at 3.4ghz and the 22gbs ram it has, its nothing to scoff at. however, the ps3 only has 256mb ram. this is a major problem. normal game servers like the ones EVE online uses, has 32GB of ram. Not only that, how about HDDs? EVE online uses SSD drives for low latency. not only that real servers have faster HDDs than 1 sata drive, try scsi or sas drives, and many of them. now if the cell was used in cell blades, with more approbate HDDS, moer than 256MB ram, an OS better suited for server task like, ohhh i don't know.... AIX?
This is purely a PR stunt. This would be a better solution http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/servers/20...


RE: bandwidth?
By Darkon on 8/14/2007 9:17:58 AM , Rating: 3
Oh please SPE aren't just vector units they are just as good at integers as they are in vectors.

( http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...y/pa-cellpe...

scroll down to figure 3
" The SPUs SIMD support can perform operations on sixteen 8-bit integers, eight 16-bit integers, four 32-bit integers , or four single-precision floating-point numbers per cycle. At 3.2GHz, each SPU is capable of performing up to 51.2 billion 8-bit integer operations or 25.6GFLOPs in single precision" )

You are right though SPEs don’t have a dynamic predictor, but you can do branch prediction on them ala Itanium way

IBMs own words

( http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/SPU.html )

"The SPU branch architecture does not include dynamic branch prediction, but instead relies on compiler-generated branch prediction using "prepare-to-branch" instructions to redirect instruction prefects to branch targets."

To simply put and clarified for you : You can tell the SPE where the next jump is going to go, so effectively you have manual branch prediction. The idea is that you know better than the processor, what the intention of your code is.

So scalar code isn’t a problem for SPEs


RE: bandwidth?
By cochy on 8/13/2007 4:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if the server is client side would that not mean you would needs tons of bandwidth to run a >24 person server? let alone a small 16 player server?


Bandwidth requirements are probably very small. Could be as low as 1kb/s per player. Can't say for sure cause I don't have this game, but others can be around that.


RE: bandwidth?
By psyph3r on 8/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: bandwidth?
By DingieM on 8/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: bandwidth?
By kitchme on 8/13/2007 5:19:36 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know if I missed some information, but it's not 0.5 million, but $45.000.


RE: bandwidth?
By walk2k on 8/13/2007 7:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
RTFA

The game can EITHER be hosted by individual players on their own PS3s - OR - you can play on one of Sony's dedicated servers, which are ranked.

They used PS3s because that's what the game runs on... I'm sure they are equal to the task and there's no reason to try to port the dedicated server code to another platform when PS3s are abundant and cheap.


RE: bandwidth?
By JimFear on 8/14/2007 9:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
Plus they'll be cheaper to run as they wont run as hot, draw as many watts, won't need additional maintenance contracts or software licensing etc.

What with not having to port the code and all, I can't see any reason for NOT using the PS3.

I'd have expected them to use those Sony Computing boards though as they're based on the PS3 hardware and in a IU format.


Heat...
By Oobu on 8/13/2007 4:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
I can't imagine how much heat these things would put out stacked so closely together all in the same room. They must have one heck of an A/C system. Mine will heat up my entire room after an hour or so, depending on what I'm doing with it.




RE: Heat...
By Funksultan on 8/13/2007 4:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oobu, you obviously have a defective PS3.

Mine can run for days, and it's as cool as a cucumber. Hopefully, you bought from somewhere local, and recently. Take it back, get a new one, and save yourself some A/C bills. :)


RE: Heat...
By Oobu on 8/14/2007 3:03:07 AM , Rating: 2
You're kind of a troll huh?


RE: Heat...
By afkrotch on 8/14/2007 12:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you're the troll to me. My PS3 runs pretty cool. Sure, if I decided to shut all my windows, cover up all the cracks in my doors, insulate the walls and floors with blankets, then sure. The PS3 can heat a room.

For those who live in a normal house, it's not all that hot. Shoot a single lite candle makes more heat.


RE: Heat...
By Oobu on 8/15/2007 2:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
Trolls.


RE: Heat...
By zinc99 on 8/13/2007 4:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
most server rooms I have ever ben in have massive AC units. Its almost always 70F in there, and all you hear are fans.


RE: Heat...
By daftrok on 8/13/2007 5:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
That and there's probably some cooling system behind the racks.


RE: Heat...
By JimFear on 8/14/2007 9:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you've never played with an IR temperature gun in a server room then :P

10K RPM SAS drives get HOT, and I mean too hot to touch, when you have a whole rack of them storing a massive web based financial database you realise how warm server rooms can be, one of these drives would put a PS3 to shame in heat output *if higher = better and all :)*

I expect that room would be ~25°C with not that much air con, I'd epect they'd have an air channel to the right of the PS3's to draw heat up through a vent instead of through the rack, cool air gets pumped into the room leaving the PS3 sucking cool air throught their front intake.


Accountants
By Slaimus on 8/13/2007 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
This is the Sony accountants' worst fear, people buying PS3s for the hardware. They cannot make the hardware loss back on game sales if the machines are used as servers that run one game.




RE: Accountants
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2007 4:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ha. Okay there I laughed. But I hope you were merely trying to be humorous, as your comment is rather ridiculous when you notice the quantity of PS3s in a unit: 75 (or 90 if the article is correct and not my count). So even if they had 20 of these server farms running in different locals (which would cost close to one million dollars US approximately, not considering power!), which I seriously doub they would do, you are talking about 1500 to 1800 units, which is not enough to amount to significant difference in the Playstation 3's financial fortunes.


RE: Accountants
By walk2k on 8/13/2007 6:27:08 PM , Rating: 1
It's a Sony game (SCE).

So you think they sold a bunch of consoles ... to themselves?


RE: Accountants
By Alpha4 on 8/13/2007 11:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Slaimus has a point. He says that if "People", meaning various consumers, decide to purchase a cluster of PS3's exclusively for hardware purposes than Sony will take a loss.


RE: Accountants
By afkrotch on 8/14/2007 1:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
If it's 1800 units, with a lose of $200 per console, that's $360,000 dollars. It's a very significant amount in our eyes, but in Sony's eyes, it's a good amount to lose for this type of PR.


RE: Accountants
By walk2k on 8/13/2007 7:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's a Sony game (SCE) nobody "bought" these PS3s, they are provided and run by Sony themselves.

As for game sales, what better way to sell a game than assuring people always have lots of fast dedicated servers to play it on??

This is an online-only game. There is no single-player mode, so it's going to live or die by the online experience, and they are trying to make sure that it's a good one.


RE: Accountants
By Ard on 8/13/2007 10:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
I was hoping someone would have the intelligence to state that.


Shhh....
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2007 4:28:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It would be interesting to know whether the ranked server clusters contributed to the 135% PS3 sales growth since the price drop.


Don't tell anyone.

I'm with other people that PS3s would make very poor servers. Your server doesn't have to do anything other than keep track of where people are and who hits who with what. A server PC would be a far better, more cost effective way of doing this.

I mean having the ability to host a match makes sense (you can do this with games on the 360 over Live) but to run the ranked servers on PS3s as well? A simple dual core PC with a decent amount of RAM and hard drive space would easily be better and could host more than one match. So they're going to have to have far more server PS3s than they would have had to use with server PCs.

To me this is why Live is a better solution. You have one interface to deal with that doesn't require custom solutions like this that are different for every game. I really don't care about having to pay $3.50 a month for Live (when you get the 13 month card for $45).




RE: Shhh....
By bigbrent88 on 8/13/2007 5:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if wrong, but doesn't live work without dedicated servers directly for the game? I was under the impression when you use live its just a seperate matchmaking/ranking system that finds someone else that is hosting a match on their machine. Most of the time this results in a nice slow game on the PC, which is why I only play on dedicated servers in BF or CS, I may not get the levels I always want but its lag free.

I could see where clans would make dedicated matches but would live show that these people had a dedicated server or just that you ranked best with them?


RE: Shhh....
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2007 5:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it depends on the game and type of server. I think private games are hosted by a player(I know in GoW they are). Ranked games I think are hosted on the live network servers. Regardless, its still a standard interface for games to connect to players through. Not just whatever implementation the developer chooses to use.

Definitely makes things easier on the developer.


RE: Shhh....
By psyph3r on 8/13/2007 5:25:59 PM , Rating: 1
Actually live is like a wannabe gamespy service....whoever has the best connection hosts the game on their machine. You don't have dedicated servers to my knowledge


RE: Shhh....
By bigbrent88 on 8/13/2007 10:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
So yea, whats so good about playing on non-dedicated servers? To get a good ranking score! Sony has got a lot of servers to worry about with home and its first party dedicated(I hear resistance and motorstorm all pretty much run on dedicated). So I dont mind if other companies come up with a way that suits them best, plus Im sure microsoft charges a bundle for developers to implement live anyway.


RE: Shhh....
By afkrotch on 8/14/2007 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To me this is why Live is a better solution. You have one interface to deal with that doesn't require custom solutions like this that are different for every game. I really don't care about having to pay $3.50 a month for Live (when you get the 13 month card for $45).


Too bad you are wrong. EA for one, doesn't use Xbox Live servers for anything more than an interface to their own custom solution.

Many of your larger companies do this. I'm sure when The Orange Box releases, it'll connect to Steam servers for online gameplay.

For large companies, this is a cost effective solution, as they already have the infrastructure to use their own materials.

Even then, who cares if they decide to use PS3 or require more. For the price of a low end server, I can get three PS3s. Which would probably end up using the same amount of power as the low end server, while being cheap to replace.

Plus all the free publicity. DailyTech posted it. Expect many others.


Math?
By Funksultan on 8/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Math?
By Murst on 8/13/2007 3:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...

The only thing that I could think of was if there were 10 of these clusters, but the OP said "$450k in a single cluster". =/

Maybe Sony sells them for 5k for commercial purposes? =p


RE: Math?
By Anh Huynh on 8/13/2007 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed, thanks.


RE: Math?
By Houdani on 8/13/2007 5:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
Y'all forgot to count the PS3s on the back half of the racks. Let's be conservative and put 12 on the backside (room for power supplies and whatnot). That'll give you 27 per rack, times 5 racks (I dunnah think there are any on the sixth rack) resulting in 135 PS3s.

Next, we pretend they bought these for $500 each which pegs the cost to around $67500.

(Of course, if Trenton bought all of these back in the day then the cost would jump to 135 x $1200 = $162k.) /wink


Actual Cost?
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2007 4:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you come up with number 90 for the number of PS3's in a server unit? I counted 15 x 5 racks (75) in the picture (the last rack does not contain units). The PS3 hardware alone for this would cost approximately $40,000 US given this number. However, the total cost of all the related components (racks/etc) might be slightly higher. I did read this article and was slightly confused as I did not notice the number 90 mentioned, so that leads me to believe that the writer may have gotten the "90 PS3s" figure from someplace other than the article.




RE: Actual Cost?
By omnicronx on 8/13/2007 4:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
i see 6 racks, looks like the last one is missing one or two, but there are 6.


RE: Actual Cost?
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2007 4:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
The sixth rack does not appear to have ps3s on it. Look for the conspicuous white in the image. Here is the original image w/ comments:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/99795...
from the post that the article referenced. Granted the image is a very poor quality jpeg so it is hard to tell, but the white/silver front of the ps3 (indicating it is a 60 gb version) is visible on the last five racks, but not the first (farthest) rack. Apparently someone commenting on the picture on the post had the same count as I did. It is not a big deal, just noting


Just some comments
By EglsFly on 8/13/2007 6:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if there is any proof behind the comments that a PC based 1U server (performance/cost), versus running the server on a PS3 would be better or worse. A PS3 cost $499 (retail), they may have even got a bulk discount.

Of course these server farms "contributed" to the sales growth, if you sold 1 PS3, it contributes to the sales. Thanks for that information. ;-P

Looks like there is 75 PS3s on the front, and those racks look like they could be loaded up on the back side too?




RE: Just some comments
By walk2k on 8/13/2007 7:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's a SCE game, no money changed hands for the consoles.


RE: Just some comments
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2007 9:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
It still costs them over $600 a console to produce each PS3. Unless they cut out the Blu-ray drive.


IF YOU DON'T KNOW...
By JonnyDough on 8/13/2007 11:22:42 PM , Rating: 1
If you don't know the valid difference between a dedicated server like this and player hosted matches then you can't really consider yourself a "gamer." Let me explain it for you. If you've ever played more than a single game of Halo 2 online, you know what I'm talking about when I say the words "HOST" and "LAG." Dedicated servers reduce latency. When you line up a shot and pull the trigger you get the kill with a dedicated server. With a player-hosted match, the HOST has the advantage of his/her screen being "real-time." That is to say, what the person with the host computer or console sees, is what he/she gets. Everyone else is seeing old images. Good coding can play a small role in helping to reduce latency, but the more complex games become graphically the more lag we're all going to get. Why? Physics. If there's 30 trees being shredded in the game by someone, their console or computer has to tell mine that those trees are being shredded so that my system can also display them. It would really suck for you to die on my screen, while on your screen you're still running around. Dedicated servers fix the problem that ruined great games like Halo 2. They provide an even playing field, and let another system do the work of serving, so your system can be dedicated to handling input/output of user data and images.




RE: IF YOU DON'T KNOW...
By Brockway on 8/14/2007 3:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
A user PS3 hosting can't play at the same time, so that would eliminate any home field advantage. Unless someone owns 2. Every game would have a dedicated server.

I was under the impression that Cell was awesome at physics and gpgpu type stuff. IBM seems intent on selling them in server racks and hospital imaging equipment after all. We can't really do a cost comparison unless we know just how many server's it would take to do the same job. Just how many of these cluster's are they gonna have placed around the globe?


RE: IF YOU DON'T KNOW...
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2007 9:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
Where did you get that you can't host and play at the same time? I sure didn't see that in the article.

And Cell is good at running in order, non-branching code. That includes image processing. Which is why its good for medical imaging.

And whether or not Cell is good at physics isn't the problem. The problem is that you're shooting trees on your screen but others don't know that until they get that packet. The more data that has to be sent, the more lag. So I could shoot you in the head on my screen, but at that exact second on yours, you could be ducking behind the wall you were near. Its up to the server to determine which happened first. With a dedicated server, we both are on an even playing field. With a hosted one, whoever is the host has a bit of an advantage since they have no lag. Whatever they do happens before whatever anyone else does. If I'm the host and I fire my gun at the exact same time as you, mine is going to happen first. So I'll kill you and leave you wondering how I survived a shot to the head.


Servers or testbeds?
By riddance on 8/13/2007 6:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have a feeling this setup may be nothing more than an elaborate testbed for assuring the functionality of the Integrated Game Server (IGS).




RE: Servers or testbeds?
By walk2k on 8/13/2007 7:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
RTFA


Auto?
By TomZ on 8/13/2007 3:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why is this post categorizes as "Auto"?!?




mini super computer
By zinc99 on 8/13/2007 3:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Think of the amount of power all those cell's can do. Folding@home would kick butt! Its a mini super computer with the right software.




Power Supplies
By fenderkb76 on 8/13/2007 7:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how long it will be before the power supplies start popping. PS3s don't have redundant power supplies and I doubt they meet the standards of server qualified supplies. Usually a console power supply is the cheapest you can get by with, but I don't know about these Sonys. I'm sure a lot of people with PS3s keep them on all the time and I'm sure that there's a lot of people who run folding@home 24/7. Does anyone have any good stories about blowing power supplies on PS3s? I wouldn't think that the PSUs were overengineered like a lot of server and home enthusiast PC power supplies. I think I read something about the PSUs having a little power to spare. Does anyone care to elaborate?




Fully Functional PS3s?
By MrTeal on 8/13/2007 8:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
The article doesn't mention if these are off the shelf PS3s. While $45,000 isn't much to Sony, if they're installing alot of these clusters the cost could add up quickly. It would seem that if they were planning on selling/leasing several thousand PS3s to use as servers, they might try to reduce costs by not including a BR drive, or other unneeded components.

Then again, the picture shows that chassis and all. If you were going attempt to do that you would think you would run several PS3s from a set of big redunent supplies, and house several motherboards in a rack case instead of the fancy chrome-trimmed case.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki