Jump to content


Maintenance: European Server Goes Multi-Cluster Tomorrow


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
318 replies to this topic

Kaltstein #301 Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:50 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14002 battles
  • 439
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
I wish you had chosen a provider with more than one outbound connection (or at least one with a better connection to my provider  :hiding: ).

My packets going on a sightseeing tour from Aachen to Amsterdam:

1	<1 ms	<1 ms	<1 ms  fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
  2	28 ms	28 ms	28 ms  rdsl-koln-de03.nw.mediaways.net [213.20.58.132]
  3	28 ms	27 ms	28 ms  xmwc-koln-de01-chan-18.nw.mediaways.net [195.71.204.82]
  4	35 ms	34 ms	35 ms  Xe2-2-0-0-grtfraix2.red.telefonica-wholesale.net [84.16.9.101]
  5   134 ms	52 ms	51 ms  213.140.49.150
  6	76 ms	77 ms	77 ms  213.140.49.221
  7   132 ms   132 ms   142 ms  213.140.55.134
  8	93 ms   100 ms	91 ms  4.69.158.181
  9   107 ms   105 ms	96 ms  ae-71-71.csw2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net [4.69.140.6]
10	96 ms	98 ms	98 ms  ae-73-73.ebr3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net [4.69.163.5]
11	96 ms   106 ms   108 ms  ae-48-48.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net [4.69.143.177]
12	99 ms   100 ms	98 ms  ae-23-23.ebr2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net [4.69.143.190]
13	99 ms	89 ms	90 ms  ae-45-45.ebr1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net [4.69.143.197]
14	98 ms	99 ms   106 ms  ae-58-113.csw1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net [4.69.153.194]
15	96 ms	94 ms   104 ms  4.69.162.130
16	94 ms   105 ms   100 ms  WARGAMING-I.edge5.Amsterdam1.Level3.net [212.72.41.246]
17	98 ms	97 ms   100 ms  eu3-slave-140.worldoftanks.eu [185.12.240.140]

Edit: Why don't you have a peering with the AMS-IX? My provider has one there:

1	<1 ms	<1 ms	<1 ms  fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
  2	28 ms	27 ms	28 ms  rdsl-koln-de03.nw.mediaways.net [213.20.58.132]
  3	28 ms	28 ms	27 ms  xmwc-koln-de02-chan-18.nw.mediaways.net [195.71.204.86]
  4	39 ms	45 ms	37 ms  rtr-eun-01.ams-ix.net [195.69.144.1]
  5	37 ms	37 ms	45 ms  www.ams-ix.net [91.200.16.53]

This is how a connection from Aachen to Amsterdam should look like. Or is there something wrong with the routing tables?

Edited by Kaltstein, 21 March 2013 - 09:38 PM.


SastusBulbas #302 Posted 21 March 2013 - 08:42 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 35125 battles
  • 2,925
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010
Hmmm,

Is this my imagination?

Worse lag and ping?

No improved game preformance?

Less companies up?

And sorry, but was it not that long ago that we were told there was no issue regarding servers and performance, that we were imagining it, yet here we see a claim of improved performance?

Did I miss any other news, because it seems rather lacklustre and short on details of what benefits we can expect from this in the Portal news. How does this affect clan members sending invites etc? Company battles?

metoneca #303 Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 42150 battles
  • 267
  • Member since:
    05-31-2011

View PostCpl_Hicks, on 21 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

These files:
\version.xml
\res\scripts_config.xml
\res\scripts\client\account.pyc
\res\scripts\entity_defs\account.def

p.s.: If your neighbour's WoT is working, just copy the file "wot_84.2311_84.2259_client.patch" from their "\Updates" directory, insert in your WoT client's "\Updates" directory and start the launcher, it should then install the update.

Have copied the above mentioned files + just to make sure:
"/Updates/wot_84.2311_84.2259_client.patch"
"/WOTLauncher.cfg"

then have started the WorldOfTanks.exe and it works.


Many thanks!!

TheSpearman #304 Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:32 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22935 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View PostKaltstein, on 21 March 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

I wish you had chosen a provider with more than one outbound connection (or at least one with a better connection to my provider   ).My packets going on a sightseeing tour from Aachen to Amsterdam:]Edit: Why don't you have a peering with the AMS-IX? My provider has one there:
This is how a connection from Aachen to Amsterdam should look like. Or is there something wrong with the routing tables?

The problem here is your ISP, MediaWays. They take a needlessly long and slow path through their upstream of Telefonica, before Telefonica peers with Level 3. Note that the latency does nothing but increase until it reaches Level3, and stops inceasing after that. The damage is all done before a single packet even leaves Germany. Telefonica are probably their cheaper route in money terms, but not in routing cost.

Kaltstein #305 Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:19 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14002 battles
  • 439
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostTheSpearman, on 22 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

The problem here is your ISP, MediaWays. They take a needlessly long and slow path through their upstream of Telefonica, before Telefonica peers with Level 3. Note that the latency does nothing but increase until it reaches Level3, and stops inceasing after that. The damage is all done before a single packet even leaves Germany. Telefonica are probably their cheaper route in money terms, but not in routing cost.

I think not that this is a problem of Telefonica. As you can see, Telefonica has a Peering at AMS-IX, and as far as I know Level3 should also have a peering at AMS-IX (but it's not used). All traces you see from me, and others never go through the AMS-IX.

Here is another example from my Webserver to the new server:

1  * * *
2  xe-3-1-0.dr-slave.r2.cgn3.he-core.de (176.28.4.98)  0.439 ms  0.421 ms  0.400 ms
3  xe-11-3-0.cr-nashira.cgn4.he-core.de (176.28.4.101)  0.239 ms  0.259 ms  0.236 ms
4  kol-b2-link.telia.net (213.155.141.45)  0.638 ms  0.645 ms  0.623 ms
5  ffm-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.247.246)  4.029 ms  4.015 ms  3.994 ms
6  ffm-b10-link.telia.net (80.91.251.120)  4.038 ms ffm-b10-link.telia.net (80.91.251.248)  4.065 ms  4.011 ms
7  ae11.edge4.Frankfurt.Level3.net (4.68.70.105)  3.835 ms  3.808 ms  3.788 ms
8  vlan70.csw2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.154.126)  7.896 ms vlan90.csw4.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.154.254)  7.811 ms  7.798 ms
9  ae-93-93.ebr3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.163.13)  7.811 ms ae-63-63.ebr3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.163.1)  7.880 ms  7.849 ms
10  ae-46-46.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.169)  11.781 ms  16.189 ms ae-47-47.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.173)  7.863 ms
11  ae-22-22.ebr2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.186)  7.870 ms ae-21-21.ebr2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.182)  7.830 ms ae-23-23.ebr2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.190)  7.864 ms
12  ae-48-48.ebr1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.143.209)  7.793 ms  7.799 ms  7.750 ms
13  ae-56-111.csw1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.153.186)  7.839 ms ae-58-113.csw1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.153.194)  7.828 ms ae-57-112.csw1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.153.190)  7.881 ms
14  4.69.162.138 (4.69.162.138)  7.792 ms 4.69.162.134 (4.69.162.134)  7.804 ms 4.69.162.130 (4.69.162.130)  7.889 ms
15  WARGAMING-I.edge5.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (212.72.41.246)  8.267 ms  9.504 ms  9.476 ms
16  eu3-slave-140.worldoftanks.eu (185.12.240.140)  8.085 ms !X  8.003 ms !X  7.977 ms !X

Hosteurope also has a direct peering at AMS-IX.

Edited by Kaltstein, 22 March 2013 - 03:19 PM.


TheSpearman #306 Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22935 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View PostKaltstein, on 22 March 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

I think not that this is a problem of Telefonica. As you can see, Telefonica has a Peering at AMS-IX, and as far as I know Level3 should also have a peering at AMS-IX (but it's not used). All traces you see from me, and others never go through the AMS-IX.Here is another example from my Webserver to the new server:

Hosteurope also has a direct peering at AMS-IX.

In general Level 3 tend to not peer at national level internet exchanges so AMS-IX isn't useful. If this isn't a Telefonica issue, why do HE have just one tenth of the latency?

Kaltstein #307 Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14002 battles
  • 439
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostTheSpearman, on 22 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

In general Level 3 tend to not peer at national level internet exchanges so AMS-IX isn't useful.

See, that is exactly the problem. Why choose a single (with all certainy expansive) provider, which doesn't even makes the most out of the good location (Amsterdam with AMS-IX in this case)?

Yes, maybe the peering of Telefonica with Level3 is bad, but so are others. But this is all avoidable ... That is my point ...

Edit: Ohh, and as I'm just seeing, Hosteurope also has a direct peering with Level3 in Amsterdam, but the route is not available/chosen - so again: I guess there is something wrong ...

Edited by Kaltstein, 22 March 2013 - 04:16 PM.


TheSpearman #308 Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22935 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View PostKaltstein, on 22 March 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

See, that is exactly the problem. Why choose a single (with all certainy expansive) provider, which doesn't even makes the most out of the good location (Amsterdam with AMS-IX in this case)?Yes, maybe the peering of Telefonica with Level3 is bad, but so are others. But this is all avoidable ... That is my point ...

Because the international connectivity from tier 2 networks to Amsterdam is excellent, and they're far more likely to peer with Level 3, unlike a small tier 3 like Mediaways. Arranging proper peering is Telefonicas responsibility, and they've failed to do so, as I know they've failed to do so in other countries.

Kaltstein #309 Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14002 battles
  • 439
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostTheSpearman, on 22 March 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

unlike a small tier 3 like Mediaways.

Just for your information: Mediaways is a part of the Telefonica backbone for years now, and Telefonica is one of the biggest network providers of the world. They basically classify as Tier 1 like Level 3. Here is an interactive map of the network: http://www.internati.../mapaFlash.html

TheSpearman #310 Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22935 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
I'll explain a bit more by PM then.

haseebzahid #311 Posted 23 March 2013 - 06:47 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 30030 battles
  • 27
  • [-AA-] -AA-
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010
I cannot Connect to EU2 new cluster always fails to connect and also i cannot even ping the cluster2 IP from retrieved Wikipedia its my ISP cant even reach the new server Ip how is that even possible
and i cannot play on 360-480ms ping of old server

i need help support is quite slow on replying me

Philipp_ab_exterminatore #312 Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:39 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 29114 battles
  • 61
  • [CVNTS] CVNTS
  • Member since:
    11-19-2012
The 2 servers will hopefully stop the crashes that were happening quite often but i think it would of been better to have 1 normal server and 1 that is only accessible by players of over 50% win rate.
what do you guys think??

Dukat281 #313 Posted 24 March 2013 - 01:35 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14314 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    05-31-2011
Great mess. Now we got all clan pro players on #1, while #2 will be full of noobs.
Accordingly you can have a tough quality game with lots of teamwork that sets you into competion with lots of pro players, increasing the chance on a quick death. Or you can seek for slaying noobs on #2, with the con of getting no support from your own team either.
  :amazed:

Edited by Dukat281, 24 March 2013 - 01:36 AM.


TheSpearman #314 Posted 24 March 2013 - 02:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22935 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010

View Postp1j2i3l4, on 23 March 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

The 2 servers will hopefully stop the crashes that were happening quite often but i think it would of been better to have 1 normal server and 1 that is only accessible by players of over 50% win rate.
what do you guys think??

It'd be easy to exploit the by keeping your winrate under 50% to stay with the poorer players, you'd just have more afk'ers, tk'ers or suicidal charges to ensure a loss.

KMJP13 #315 Posted 24 March 2013 - 06:08 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8797 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    04-26-2012
This is terrable


I didnt want to comment untill after, wanted to see the effects of it but theres alot of issues with this it take a few key elements away from World of Tanks such as platooning, tank company and team training.
To achive any of these you need to be located on the same server and the fellow members, I understand you can select the server you wish to be located on however this is only good for clans.

Messages
When sending personal messages if you are not located on the same server the box will not close it will just minimize, i particulaly do not want my World of Tanks footer being overloaded with personal mesages i can not close.

Platoon
I love platooning its great to have somone beside you who you can talk to give instructions to one and other over a microphone i hesitate to use the world of tanks mic system for the following server split, and push to talk rather than automatic voice detection. But i can not platton with someone if im on server 1 and they are on server 2 one of has has to switch server this is just too annoying.


I understand that WoT is trying to make the game play better and reduce battle waiting times but they has to be some form of fix for this like a server sync or at least let members close there personal message boxes, I love this game and have not been dissapointed untill now.


Happy Hunting
KieranPoynter

Kaltstein #316 Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:55 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14002 battles
  • 439
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Okay, looks like something I did (I guess) got the attention of Telefonica:

1	<1 ms	<1 ms	<1 ms  fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
  2	28 ms	28 ms	29 ms  rdsl-koln-de03.nw.mediaways.net [213.20.58.132]
  3	30 ms	28 ms	28 ms  xmwc-koln-de01-chan-18.nw.mediaways.net [195.71.204.82]
  4	60 ms	61 ms	62 ms  xe-10-2-0.edge4.Frankfurt1.Level3.net [212.162.24.9]
  5	81 ms	82 ms	81 ms  vlan90.csw4.Frankfurt1.Level3.net [4.69.154.254]
  6	64 ms	64 ms	65 ms  ae-93-93.ebr3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net [4.69.163.13]
  7	81 ms	89 ms	84 ms  ae-45-45.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net [4.69.143.165]
  8	78 ms	85 ms	74 ms  ae-23-23.ebr2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net [4.69.143.190]
  9	66 ms	68 ms	69 ms  ae-46-46.ebr1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net [4.69.143.201]
10	61 ms	64 ms	60 ms  ae-58-113.csw1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net [4.69.153.194]
11	63 ms	60 ms	61 ms  4.69.162.142
12	74 ms	73 ms	73 ms  WARGAMING-I.edge5.Amsterdam1.Level3.net [212.72.41.246]
13	85 ms	77 ms	77 ms  eu3-slave-140.worldoftanks.eu [185.12.240.140]
Ping statistics for 185.12.240.140:
	Packets: Sent = 208, Received = 208, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 58ms, Maximum = 83ms, Average = 70ms

The route doesn't look that bad as before anymore, but the results are still poor compared to a direct route to Amsterdam:

1	<1 ms	<1 ms	<1 ms  fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
  2	28 ms	29 ms	28 ms  rdsl-koln-de03.nw.mediaways.net [213.20.58.132]
  3	29 ms	29 ms	29 ms  xmwc-koln-de02-chan-18.nw.mediaways.net [195.71.204.86]
  4	38 ms	48 ms	49 ms  rtr-eun-01.ams-ix.net [195.69.144.1]
  5	39 ms	38 ms	38 ms  www.ams-ix.net [91.200.16.53]
Ping statistics for 91.200.16.53:
	Packets: Sent = 88, Received = 88, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
	Minimum = 38ms, Maximum = 45ms, Average = 38ms

So my advise still seems valid: Please get a direct/public peering/connection to the AMS-IX (in addition to the Level 3 connection if you like). The prices shouldn't be that high.

Edited by Kaltstein, 26 March 2013 - 08:17 PM.


ChEeSyBoOfS #317 Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:02 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 33333 battles
  • 105
  • [--4--] --4--
  • Member since:
    03-08-2011
Sorry but this new setup is just crap!

In a proper cluster the 'application' (the game in this case) should be unaware it is even running on a cluster.
To have to manually select EU Server 1 to play CW or ask a clan mate what server he is on so you can platoon is laughable.

The night before last I was invisible to the rest of my clan mates in chat. I was in platoon with them but for all intents and purposes it looked like I had logged off. I didn't appear on-line at all in the garage clan chat.

I mean I know you will have 'issues' with such a fundamental infrastructure change but this is really, really sloppy work.

snedger #318 Posted 02 April 2013 - 06:54 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9763 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    11-24-2012
I'm been letting Auto ride as my setting, but just now with just 2Kish on server 1 and 16Kish on server 2, the server 1 game just would not start for 2 minutes before I gave up - forcing me to log off and select server 2.

I was going to suggest better balance could be achieved by making server selection a premium only option, but forgot about platooning with mates/clan stuff - so no answer really - maybe an in game switch server button?

***edit*** just gone back on server 2, 4K server 1, 19K server 2 and only 80 players in queue and no game start - don't know what to say now - other than maybe only activating the second server when it is really needed?

Edited by snedger, 02 April 2013 - 07:01 AM.


scooby_doom #319 Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:04 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 31295 battles
  • 115
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011
Is it possible change the trace to eu2? I have Prague-Paris-London-Amsterdam and at 8pm have ping 150ms+




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users