Any way to access maps on a remote server?

[Inuyasha22]

Hi there,

is there any way to tell the server (software) to use maps that are located on another server (hardware)?

[Xlithan]

Why would you want to do this?

[Inuyasha22]

To save some space and that way some costs when the server is hosted by someone else...

[Xlithan]

It is possible. When the maps are loaded from the hard drive all the map data is stored into memory. The only time the files are used is when saving and reloading a map with the changed data (When editing a map for example).
All you would have to do is have the server load the map data from the external source, and then send any changes to it.
It would work similar to sending the map data to a normal game client, the only major differences would be loading and saving the data.

I had thought about this feature myself. You could do this with all of the server files, this way you could host multiple servers that all use the same data. Granted it's not quite as simple, there are many flaws which would have to be looked over.

[Matt]

It is possible. When the maps are loaded from the hard drive all the map data is stored into memory. The only time the files are used is when saving and reloading a map with the changed data (When editing a map for example).
All you would have to do is have the server load the map data from the external source, and then send any changes to it.
It would work similar to sending the map data to a normal game client, the only major differences would be loading and saving the data.

I had thought about this feature myself. You could do this with all of the server files, this way you could host multiple servers that all use the same data. Granted it's not quite as simple, there are many flaws which would have to be looked over.

Such as a lot more bandwidth usage?

[Inuyasha22]

It is possible. When the maps are loaded from the hard drive all the map data is stored into memory. The only time the files are used is when saving and reloading a map with the changed data (When editing a map for example).
All you would have to do is have the server load the map data from the external source, and then send any changes to it.
It would work similar to sending the map data to a normal game client, the only major differences would be loading and saving the data.

I had thought about this feature myself. You could do this with all of the server files, this way you could host multiple servers that all use the same data. Granted it's not quite as simple, there are many flaws which would have to be looked over.

Such as a lot more bandwidth usage?

If it's only about loading and saving the maps then it's a one-time bandwidth usage. Especially if the maps are already done and don't need to be saved anymore oO' That's what I would think... but multiple servers with the same data sounds nice to me somehow oo

couldn't this be made by using that FTP to server-tutorial?

[Matt]

It is possible. When the maps are loaded from the hard drive all the map data is stored into memory. The only time the files are used is when saving and reloading a map with the changed data (When editing a map for example).
All you would have to do is have the server load the map data from the external source, and then send any changes to it.
It would work similar to sending the map data to a normal game client, the only major differences would be loading and saving the data.

I had thought about this feature myself. You could do this with all of the server files, this way you could host multiple servers that all use the same data. Granted it's not quite as simple, there are many flaws which would have to be looked over.

Such as a lot more bandwidth usage?

If it's only about loading and saving the maps then it's a one-time bandwidth usage. Especially if the maps are already done and don't need to be saved anymore oO' That's what I would think... but multiple servers with the same data sounds nice to me somehow oo

couldn't this be made by using that FTP to server-tutorial?

Think about it for a minute. Each time a player needs the map, they'll have to not only make the server send to where the maps are, using bandwidth, but then the server will have to send it to the client, which uses bandwidth. Then, whenever someone edits the map, they have to send the map to the server, using bandwidth, sending it to the map host, using bandwidth. Then that map needs to be sent back to each player when they enter it because it's been revised and guess what, that uses bandwidth.

With this system, you're using TWICE the amount of bandwidth needed. And if you use dynamic maps, a 255x255 map is almost 2MB in size.

[Xlithan]

Yep, a good point which I would have put across but couldn't be bothered explaining the disadvantages. He asked how to do it so just gave him an idea I think as long as the main server is hosted on a high bandwidth connection it should be ok, but yeah, it would be rather stressful sending TWICE the amount of data each time.

[Jacob]

Maps are loaded into memory, so the only time you use 'double' bandwidth is if a mapper edits a map.

[Coke]

Still detracting from the fact this is pointless. If you host can't spare an extra 10 megs at most then he's UACC.

Undisputably a Complete Cunt.

[Matt]

Still detracting from the fact this is pointless. If you host can't spare an extra 10 megs at most then he's UACC.

Undisputably a Complete Cunt.

10MB if you use default map sizes..

A 255x255 map is about 2MB in size alone. So, 1000 maps is 2GB of space. Lol.

But, think about that when loading from a remote host. Do you really wanna waste 2GB of bandwidth because you started your server? Lol.

[Coke]

2 gigs?


noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[GIAKEN]

You could easily do this.

Have the map server send all the map data to the main server WHEN LOADING ONLY, have the main server act exactly the same as it does when handling the map shit, and only have the main server save maps when it closes, which it then sends all the maps to the map server...this way there is only interaction when loading and unloading.

[Matt]

You could easily do this.

Have the map server send all the map data to the main server WHEN LOADING ONLY, have the main server act exactly the same as it does when handling the map shit, and only have the main server save maps when it closes, which it then sends all the maps to the map server...this way there is only interaction when loading and unloading.

And you just mapped out 200 maps and the very last thing you did crashed the server. Have fun redoing those 200 maps.

[GIAKEN]

That's why you do proper error handling so when an error does come up it will properly shut down the server.

[Matt]

Not many people have that and they're not gonna bother coding it. This is just a stupid idea, no matter how you look at it. Way too many cons and 0 pros.

[GIAKEN]

I don't agree with doing this either, just throwing out ways to do it.

And it's not hard to do proper error handling...I posted a tutorial to use CodeFixer which goes through all of your code and enters error handlers.

[Inuyasha22]

So you all mean I should invest in that bigger hosting package? The maps will overrun that 200 MB - limit for sure. Even if they're NOT 255x255 but 30x30 ...
But thanks for the serious opinions.

[Labmonkey]

lets see, if 255x255 = 2mg, then 30x30 maps are about 20kb. If you have a thousand maps (which i REALLY doubt you have) that will be 200mb. You probably only have 100-200 maps though, and I really wouldn't be worried.

The 200mb is file space right? If it is, then 200mb is more than enough. If its bandwidth you, you should upgrade.

[Coke]

Why are we even humoring this fishcake? :roll:

[Matt]

Why are we even humoring this fishcake? :roll:

Very good question.

[Inuyasha22]

lets see, if 255x255 = 2mg, then 30x30 maps are about 20kb. If you have a thousand maps (which i REALLY doubt you have) that will be 200mb. You probably only have 100-200 maps though, and I really wouldn't be worried.

The 200mb is file space right? If it is, then 200mb is more than enough. If its bandwidth you, you should upgrade.

I haven't them YET but my game will actually need that amount of maps. You see, it'll be some wildlife simulator. And people will have to find their prey. If many people should be able to survive there I need many maps so prey still has to be found while there's enough to feed everyone. Also it's some more space to roam... 8-)

And yes, I'm at making the mapper's work easier by putting in some automatic map generation... like random placed trees and floor (letter has seamless tiles!) ... so actually it would be not that big of a problem to actually create the maps rather than transmitting them or finding the right size...

[Labmonkey]

When you go over your limit, then talk to us.