On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:41 -0300, Mark Boon wrote: > Here I'm fantasizing what you could do with a million bucks and Don > can't host an extra CGOS server due to resource constraints. Do you > need full access to a server or would a VPS do? I can't believe it > would take more than a mediocre PC with a DSL connection to host a > server like that.
The main limitation is the 1 gig limit we are allowed. That's not much these days but more importantly I cannot store all the games so I have to constantly compress and archive them to a totally different server somewhere. Hence the links on the main page. There is a file stored for each SGF game and it's also carried in a sql database and sql databases are probably not particular efficient for storage. A few years ago I would have killed for 1 Gig of disk space! When you use the viewing client, there is a very long delay getting the games. Try this on the 19x19 server when it's up and running. Very fast and snappy. I don't have any idea what the reason is for this and I'm not saying it's a low performance server, cpuinfo reports 4 Xeon 2.80 GHz processors. Maybe the bandwidth is throttled or disk quota's are set up and that takes it's toll. I'm just guessing. Maybe there is no problem whatsoever. The system seems to have a modest load on it most of the time too. I'm not that concerned about the performance, it seems to serve the games at full speed other than the initial latency issue that I don't understand. - Don > > Mark > > Moving a step up to 13x13 would certainly be interesting. But I think > it's too early to kill off the 9x9 server. > > On 30-jul-08, at 16:16, Don Dailey wrote: > > > There seems to be something special about 9x9 go for computers, it's > > very popular, perhaps because it's so much more approachable. > > > > However I personally think it's time to start looking at bigger board > > sizes seriously. If it were up to me, we would move to 11x11 on > > CGOS > > but I fear that would be especially unpopular because it's not one of > > the 3 "standard" sizes. > > > > If we were to look at 13x13 I don't think I would want to continue > > supporting the 9x9 server, I would want to replace it with 13x13. > > > > There is also the issue of space and performance. I think we are > > pushing the limits of what boardspace can handle, especially in > > terms of > > space. I can't complain too much because it's a gift that we can > > use it > > at all but I'm constantly fighting a small storage limit. I'm not > > sure > > what the performance issues are but the 19x19 server seems fast and > > responsive in comparison to the 9x9 server. I do not have any > > idea why > > this is. But what I'm trying to say is that we can't have BOTH > > a 9x9 > > and 13x13 due to resource limitations and if we move to 13x13 I > > think we > > would need a bit more capable server to be happy and comfortable. > > > > I have some contacts at universities that I could approach with regard > > to this, that I have never considered before. But I would first like > > to see if changing from 9x9 to 13x13 would create a lot of anxiety > > with > > people. 9x9 does seem amazingly popular and I would hate to "kill" > > CGOS > > by moving to 13x13 if nobody is interested or would support it. > > > > - Don > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
