Posted - 2007.08.03 18:22:00 - [31]

 

Will this have any impact on the extended downtime if the problem still exists next tuesday? (I think it was tuesday) ...just curious concerning your policy there, if you always want the servers stable for at least 24/48 hours before any major upgrade.

Posted - 2007.08.03 18:38:00 - [33]

 

WHy ? u server crasch `?

it´s windows

Posted - 2007.08.03 19:13:00 - [35]

 

ah and this thread started so well.
-----
DING DING

Ladies and Gentalmen, Tonight only! the Sensational Re-match of the The various Database Fans! who will be victorious and who will go home with there nose in a sling?

Lets get Ready to Rumble!!!!
-----
Pulease!

Posted - 2007.08.03 19:24:00 - [37]

 

Originally by: Angua Forres

---

Why do CCP use MS SQL Server? MySQL's much faster, and you can fix stuff like this yourself (Or let the enterprise support guys do that for you- they're really, really good at what they do compared to the spammed generic responses MS SQL Support people give you).

Hell if I know why CCP use Microsoft Server anyway, Linux is much better at their sort of operation by design, from the kernel down....

---

I'm sorry, but no. Just no. If you were going to bash MSSQL with something, at least go for something which is a proper database server. postgresql should probably be the absolute minimum, not mysql. If you're working with database servers with a bit of activity, then mssql isn't the absolute worst choice ever. Sure, DB2 and Oracle are probably better after it's been tweaked to your particular needs, but they're probably also, um... somewhat pricey.

And just to mention the "fix stuff" part, the times we've had to involve microsoft because of bugs in their software, it usually just involved getting a memory dump, handing that over to microsoft, and getting a fix the next day. Not exactly hard work, that.

As for the problem with the sql server, just to keep this from being 100% about "my database's mum kicks your database's father's ass! so nyah!" ... it sounds kind of like what I've experienced on 1 out of my mssql servers, i.e. it just stopped responding. The exception is that in this case it doesn't appear to be reoccurring as fast as mine did, where we got 5 minutes worth of uptime after a restart if we were lucky. Complete reinstall and migration of databases did fix it, though, even though we should've spent more time trying to work out why it happened... but having 2000-3000 databases down for an extended period of time wasn't exactly something we wanted.

Anyhow, hope you figure out what the problem is, or that an upgrade removes the problem. Nothing sucks more than getting downtime when you really don't want it.

Posted - 2007.08.03 19:33:00 - [39]

 

Originally by: cpt kunikoma

---

Well, actually I'm a *nix + open source RDBMS supporter (although not a mysql supporter :P), but here the matter isn't the kind of system, but the class of infrastructure.

---

Amen on mysql. :P

Originally by: cpt kunikoma

---

EVE is an higly stressed system with high availability needs, and these results can't be achieved with PC hardware and basically the same OS U use to play videogames on desktops.
Putting a bit more money on the plate (at least for the hardware, using those nifty enterprise-class open-source solutions), u can have a solid-rock, live-upgradeable (yes, even CPUs hot-swapping/adding) system with self-maintenance features.

---

I believe we've got CPU/memory hotswapping IBM boxes at work right now. Hell, we've even got 2 physical boxes which is combineable via a cable to effectively become a 2 piece server with 4 or 8 dualcore CPUs in each case. Hardware with hotswappability everywhere isn't just limited to mainframes anymore, thankfully, since they cost an arm and a leg.

Originally by: cpt kunikoma

---

Example: Let's talk about daily downtime (high availability is 99.97% or more, thus far beyond EVE's 95%). I bet most of the problem is related to "table shrinking" procedures needed by MSSQL... (of course some scheduled job is done, but with transactional DBS it shouldn't be a matter)

---

I've been wondering a bit about what exactly the downtime's all about. Some have said it's for repopulating the asteroid fields etc, and if that's so, then that makes a weird sort of sense. Another reason could be recalculation of indexes.

Posted - 2007.08.03 19:45:00 - [41]

 

Originally by: Kolwrath

---

Originally by: Goti Evans

---

ah and this thread started so well.
-----
DING DING

Ladies and Gentalmen, Tonight only! the Sensational Re-match of the The various Database Fans! who will be victorious and who will go home with there nose in a sling?

Lets get Ready to Rumble!!!!
-----
Pulease!

---

Yeah I was about to flame the guy above toting how much better Mysql is and linux too but you are correct that would be pointless.

Anyhoo back on topic. Having worked with SQL server for a good 3-4 years now I can feel your pain trying to find the source of database crashes. Layer after layer usually need to be pulled back to find the problem.

Best of luck to the CCP database team. I would buy you guys beers if I were even remotly near Ice land.

---

Completely with the CCP guys here- just raising the point that there are other solutions out there, and raising the question if MSSQL is possibly the best one for the job?

But yeah, full respect to the DB guys at CCP- you've got a hellish problem by the sound of it, and I hope you get MS to give you a hotfix or whatever's required in this case before this becomes a recurring issue.

And sorry to return, but Windows just isn't the thing for servers at a very low level. Even MS guys (Hell, especially MS guys) I know will admit that freely. There's a reason close to 70% of the internet's webservers are Linux boxes, and it's not superior marketing ;)

PS: PostgreSQL, MySQL, the point is it's an open-source gig. I'd be all for PostgreSQL- and yeah, you're right, there's a number of cases where you'll end up with much nicer performance with Postgres than MySQL, but conversely some where MySQL works out best.

Guess I'd better stop listening to heavy metal and return to some nice calming trance ;p apologies for the somewhat-flame-like-message- fly safe and steer clear of the DB crashes for the time being!

Posted - 2007.08.03 20:01:00 - [43]

 

Originally by: Zenethian

---

Switch to DB2. ;-)

---

DB2 or Oracle would be faster, and more reliable than SQL Server.

Not problem free... but more reliable.

And fast is good. SQL Server is not even in the running with either DB2 or Oracle.

Posted - 2007.08.03 20:18:00 - [45]

 

Originally by: cpt kunikoma

---

...and an eye. U're perfectly right, but there are cheaper mid-range solutions.

Hotswappability isn't the only problem. Let's talk about PCs I/O bottlenecks, PCs CPU inefficiency on long lists, PCs memory locking issues, PC components reliability and so on...as with our skills, with 5%s here and there we quadruplicate our weapons DPS and, maybe, they can quad their DB performances and scalability.

Anyway, we can only speculate on what they need. I believe they're making good plans to fix EVE.

---

True. PC(ish) hardware is much less beefy than mainframes, but that's why I think of them as mid-range solutions, not high-end solutions. The good thing about PC(ish) hardware is that it's cheaper, and you can probably get about the same (or at least near to) kind of performance by just fetching more hardware. With mainframes, chances are you're stuck with AIX or the like, which is .. quirky and requires even more expensive support deals. As all things in life, it's always a tradeoff.

But why are we really talking about hardware performance etc? I thought it was a problem in MSSQL, not a performance issue :P

Posted - 2007.08.03 21:09:00 - [47]

 

All I can say is that database suff is wayyyyy over my head, all can say is thanks guys its all back up and running fine (for now)

;-)

Posted - 2007.08.03 21:47:00 - [49]

 

Originally by: Angua Forres

---

Why do CCP use MS SQL Server? MySQL's much faster, and you can fix stuff like this yourself (Or let the enterprise support guys do that for you- they're really, really good at what they do compared to the spammed generic responses MS SQL Support people give you).

Hell if I know why CCP use Microsoft Server anyway, Linux is much better at their sort of operation by design, from the kernel down....

---

Because EvE's been around long enough that it's DB is now a legacy app. Would CCP use MS SQL if they started over from scratch today. No. In 1999 was MySQL a viable option? No. Would migrating the game over to Linux cause issues that make todays problems look like a walk in the park? Probably.

So basically CCP is stuck with MS as it was the best option at the time and it would be extremly hard to change over. They aren't the only company in that boat.

Dal

Posted - 2007.08.03 21:49:00 - [51]

 

Edited by: Nye Jaran on 03/08/2007 21:57:05
Buy a crap product, get crap performance. Oracle on *nix, guys. SQL Server as an enterprise solution is a joke for anything requiring anything approaching the high availability demanded by Eve.

Barring emergency patches, we take down our Oracle servers once a year for maintenance. We take down the few remaining SQL servers we have once a month, at least. DT is about the same for each group (4-6 hours), but it's a difference of 4-6 hours / year and 48-72 hours / year.

Plus if you look at content, the Oracle servers house all of applications that require 24/7 or 8am-5pm support. The SQL Servers now only house the crap that no one really cares about.

Posted - 2007.08.03 22:13:00 - [53]

 

Edited by: WhitePhantom on 03/08/2007 22:22:54
All I see is a bunch of people bashing Microsoft for what, I am not exactly sure. All I can say is there is a good reason that Microsoft gained control over most of the industry and it wasn't becaused they played dirty tricks. If you can think of a better reason then their products have bugs, I am all for it, every product has bugs. I can think of several in every single project I follow.

All I can say is if CCP thought it was best to move to another system they could, would take a good amount of work, but they could do it. Since they feel its best they stay with their current setup, stop trying to suggest their problems are only because they use Microsoft products, you sound like freaking fools when you claim that. They know more on the subject then you do, that subject being their database, so don't claim anything you cannot prove.

Microsoft is alot of things, they played a different game in the 1970's and 80's, one that wasn't fully developed thanks to really old fashion people being incharged of today's top companies. I still say that Microsoft offered alot of good things in the last 30 years, only when Linux started to get more user-friendly did it start to be a choice to be used.


All I can say is if CCP was not using MSSQL, and they were not having this particular issue, they would be having some other issue. Its the nature of the beast, and there still would be people saying "why didn't you use ..." like fools because of their own blind beliefs on the subject.

I trust CCP alot more then you fools that blindly support the other choices just because you hate Microsoft. I am not Microsoft supporter, nor do I hate them, I just cannot stand people who blindly support other products because of their hate for another product.

Posted - 2007.08.03 22:23:00 - [55]

 

Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 04/08/2007 14:22:19
Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 03/08/2007 22:23:52
Ran the technical services for a systems management vendor for 5 years in Northern Europe which worked exclusively in the MS server space. Speaker at TechEd etc. Implemented MS server products worldwide, for the likes of CSFB, Shell, etc. etc. Implemented SQL clusters. Wrote software to monitor and manage SQL blah blah. Current company provides systems management consulting, is a gold partner, and RDP partner...

background check over.

I would highly recommend the following tools to help if you don't have them already:

Idera's SQL Diagnostic Manager & SQL Safe (down time each day could possibly be shorter). While we're at it you might want to use some of their other products too like Change Manager, Schedule and Config.

On a different topic but of equal interest to your DBAs and storage people might be SonaSafe for SQL Server.

One of my businesses is a distributor of both products.

Oh, and the person who said MS should be helping you out is dam right. Hopefully you have a Technical Account Manager (TAM) who can get some one from Microsoft Consulting in to help.

Dr S

ps. Wrangler you're welcome to drop me an email if you want to swap notes with one of our SQL consultants or see if we can help you guys out.

Just realized that I have already made this suggestion to CCP in Easter of 2005 (Linkage so hopefully it hasn't just been totally ignored for 2 years... Guess I should have just quit while I was ahead.

Posted - 2007.08.03 22:28:00 - [57]

 

Heh.. Was sorting through the CCP corp site and came across this pic of the current DB setup so its no wonder they are upgrading the database hardware and software.. This old stuff must be a biatch to debug!

Posted - 2007.08.03 23:01:00 - [59]

 

Originally by: Madam Currie

---

*** DING DING DING ***

Class is now in session.

This may confuse most of you initially but stick with me and it may become clear.

Case in Point:

1. John Force - multiple back to back winning funny car champion. Car: Ford Mustang

What does this have to do with Windows and MSSQL? In general, nothing, but specifically to EVE and CCP...read on and learn!!

Q: If John Force was winning so consistantly why didn't everyone of his competitors move over to the Ford Mustang?

A: 'Cause Ford sucks? No. Because John Force is an ass? well, yes, but No. Sponsors is why. Sponsors.

Sponsors, boys and girls. Sponsors make the world go round.

Is using Windows to run EVE the best choice? You may say no, but that would simply be answering as a sponsor yourself, you are simply sponsoring Linux, Solaris, Whatever, but sponsoring it with lip service only.

I'm sure CCP would gladly switch to your favorite OS if you would beat the price break/benefits MicroSoft was providing to CCP.

I'm sure CCP would gladly switch to your favorite hardware combination if you would beat the price break/benefits IBM was proving to CCP.

I seriously doubt CCP is running their dream software on their dream equipment. They are running as close as they could get basing the desision off of sponsorships, business partnerships, and skill sets of their employees.

Why are they doing this? Because they are running a business and not a game.

---

We have a winner, class dismissed.