On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 05:54:38PM +0100, Rado S wrote: > - network path problems: well, again, what's the gain for anyone to > see it listed as unreachable rather then not listed at all? I suspect you misunderstand. I mean network path problems that prevent solicitation packets from the server to a metaserver, yet permit play. We have had such servers in the past, and we may yet again, which is why I mentioned it as a reason. > - not implemented: isn't the goal to have all servers work with > solicitation? Anyone tried contacting the server's admin for a > status update or perhaps to aid implementing solicitation? > If it's dead for good, then it needs no "in memory of" note on the > metas, put it on a history page. ;) Whether a server uses solicitation or not is up to the server admin. I don't think it is a "goal" as such. Yes, we have frequently contacted server admins to encourage them to use solicitation, but as it isn't a critical feature there's no reason to block them if they don't use it. > > 2. solicitation may work fine, but by placing the server in the > > static list it is shown to clients as soon as the metaserver > > restarts, rather than waiting for players to join that server ... > > You mean "waiting for the server to report to the metas"? > If yes, then it's just a matter of moments per server-cfg. No, that's not how it works. The server does not send any packet to the metaserver until it has players join. > And how could they be joined before being listed on the metas? > (chicken-egg problem, unless you assume people keep local lists > and/or caches, but then this isn't an issue at all) Exactly ... and that by the way is an argument for why a server that sends a solicitation should continue to be listed for some days, so that players will join it, thus generating further solicitation. > > 3. the metaserver has an undesired feature that prevents it from > > working unless there is at least one static server. > > This can't be overcome? > Or it isn't wanted to be overcome? This can be overcome. This has not yet been overcome. Nobody has fixed it yet. If you care enough to, please do so. I'm not aware of any plans to fix it. On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 06:05:28PM +0100, Rado S wrote: > Apropos, the policy, which I quoted last time not to show > servers which are empty for 6h, why is this good? > When a server is not shown, how could it ever change its status when > nobody knows how to get there to fill it up? > When is "last_udapte" updated? > Can "age" ever become > 6h purposefully (unlike dead solicitation > servers as in my broken case [soon to be fixed])? You raise important design points. What do you propose as the solution? To me the simplest extension is to add an identifying token to the solicitation packet, and permit the original server to delist itself when it shuts down. Another potential extension is for a server to send a solicitation every hour regardless of being empty, and code the metaserver to remove entries from list that exceed three hours age. -- James Cameron mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org http://quozl.netrek.org/