On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:03:44PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:04:41PM -0500, Brian Paulsen wrote: > > A better approach is to have the brains of the operation > > be a separate process that each of the bots communicate with. This would > > allow you to put the bot brains on to a separate machine (for CPU reasons) > > and then divide the bots up on to other machines. If one bot crashes, you > > don't lose 7 others along with it. > I wish to ensure a minimal response time, even taking into account the > fact that all data will be piped through a single process. If the > slave is on a different machine than the brain, the one layer removed > that may improve stability, sacrifices efficiency and responsiveness. Another point of interest, is that Netrek has a built in method of 'resuming' normal operation. The ntserv process will actually contact the local client on the "next socket" that was specified when the version information was sent to the server. If the "brain" maintained a persistence cache of information that could not be quickly derived from a request for a full update upon reconnect, including at least the list of "next socket"s for which the Netrek server would contact, the "brain" could pick up where it left off when restarted. Wrap the "brain" process with a script that executed the "brain" process over and over again, and the problem may actually be solved. It certainly beats waiting for dead clients to ghostbust... :-) mark -- mark at mielke.cc/markm at ncf.ca/markm at nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/