Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
glowmuck · Glow Muck Discussion List
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Technical Question   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #811 of 837 |
Re: Technical Question

I am guessing most GlowMucks are small to mid-size mucks. Database
object count can be misleading if you use the virtual paths to link
exits, that can cut a database size in half.

The main thing that will eat up disk space is how many backups you
keep, in terms of both compressed and uncompressed backups. That can
be come 4-8 times larger than the normal running database.

For CPU load, that's usually just during saves, unless you have a
really low-powered machine. There's also network bandwidth to
consider if you're on a hosted machine, but the text sent usually is
nothing compared to web traffic most hosts are used to.

For me 100mb is more than enough to run a moderate size GlowMuck, but
that's when there's maybe 10-20 people online at once. As you get
into 100+, that's another story, but kudos for being able to attract
that many loyal players if you can get your active player base that
high! You can manage the database size using quotas, encouraging
people to use virtual objects and paths instead, and restricting
building and/or programming bits. That can help because each actual
object always occupies a certain amount of RAM, while properties are
loaded as needed only. If you require players who plan to build a lot
make a plan, that can help prevent a lot of junk objects from being
created.
-PakRat

--- In glowmuck@yahoogroups.com, "falderalrah" <grey2black@...> wrote:
>
> I hope this question is a worthy enough one. I don't see that anyone
> asked it before so please direct me if I missed it.
>
> If I was going put a GlowMUCK on a system with limited resources, what
> would be a recommendation for resources needed to have a "Mid-Sized"
> MUCK, projected for the future, FurryMUCK being a hypothetical maximum.
>
> From my experience of putting up a few of them already, I would say
> not that bad and probably under less than a hundred MB for total DB
> size and limits can be curbed on what is loaded into or kept running
> on it, but I'm not 100% sure otherwise.
>
> I would like to know from the Programmers themselves if possible or
> someone that has a good established GlowMUCK MUCK what is the highest
> standard load, process, bandwidth, ram, HD space ratios of a MUCK of
> established size.
>







Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:22 am

pakratartie
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #811 of 837 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

I hope this question is a worthy enough one. I don't see that anyone asked it before so please direct me if I missed it. If I was going put a GlowMUCK on a...
falderalrah
Offline Send Email
Nov 15, 2006
2:52 am

I am guessing most GlowMucks are small to mid-size mucks. Database object count can be misleading if you use the virtual paths to link exits, that can cut a...
PakRat
pakratartie
Offline Send Email
Nov 15, 2006
3:56 am

... I'd concur. Most mucks (muds, even) tend toward small. To give some ball-park ideas: MUCK University has about 2000 database items, with low activity. *...
Iain E. Davis
Feaelin
Offline Send Email
Nov 15, 2006
5:36 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help