PDA

View Full Version : Why is "1 SOE hour =1:20-2:00 RL hours"?


Congri
06-10-2010, 10:50 AM
<p>I like the game, and I think that SOE have done a good job with it, but there's one part that really irritates me, and I really can't see any reason for why it has to be that way.</p><p>Almost <strong>every </strong>time the game goes down for updates it wont be back up at the stated time. If the servers are going down for 4 hours, they are almost always down for 5-6 hours. If it happened once or twice noone would say anything, but it seems to happen almost every time! And yes; I have taken timezones into account. Please note that I'm not saying anything about the servers having downtime, I'm only saying that it irritates me a lot that:</p><p>1 SOE hour =1:20-2:00 RL hours</p><p>I am curious, is there a reason why it has to be this way? To me it's much better if the devs would say "It will be down 6 hours at the most" and then let's the servers go online after 4 hours than doing it the other way around.</p><p>In my eyes it's very disrespectful towards all clients that pay for the game, and it doesn't seem very professional of the devs at all.</p>

Jaremai
06-10-2010, 11:05 AM
<p>Guessing you've never worked in, or with, an IT team that has to apply patches to servers or upgrade hardware.</p><p>Most likely the estimates they give DO allow them some padding, but as with everything, things can go wrong, or post-upgrade testing might reveal problems that have to be scrambled around to correct.</p><p>I'm fine with them taking a little extra time if it means the servers come up stable and they don't have to end up taking them down again 2hrs later.</p><p>Granted sometimes this happens as well, but having worked in the industry, I don't fault them for unintended side effects.. and I'm a "paying customer" also.</p>

Gungo
06-10-2010, 11:09 AM
<p>I usually log on after every tuesday hotfix and patch and you are basically wrong. Those 1 hour patches are generally less then 1 hour either way its an approximation. </p>

PlaneCrazy
06-10-2010, 11:19 AM
<p><cite>Congri wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like the game, and I think that SOE have done a good job with it, but there's one part that really irritates me, and I really can't see any reason for why it has to be that way.</p><p>Almost <strong>every </strong>time the game goes down for updates it wont be back up at the stated time. If the servers are going down for 4 hours, they are almost always down for 5-6 hours. If it happened once or twice noone would say anything, but it seems to happen almost every time! And yes; I have taken timezones into account. Please note that I'm not saying anything about the servers having downtime, I'm only saying that it irritates me a lot that:</p><p>1 SOE hour =1:20-2:00 RL hours</p><p>I am curious, is there a reason why it has to be this way? To me it's much better if the devs would say "It will be down 6 hours at the most" and then let's the servers go online after 4 hours than doing it the other way around.</p><p>In my eyes it's very disrespectful towards all clients that pay for the game, and it doesn't seem very professional of the devs at all.</p></blockquote><p>If you are talking about the 7 hour maintenance downtime on some of the servers, then it looks like they are an hour and a bit over right now, which is hardly unexpected on a long mtce. cycle. </p><p>If you are talking about the Hotfix on the rest fo the US servers, the 1 Hr. has just started.</p><p>While I have complained in the past about the frequent patching (especially right after SF released!), for the most part, the team has been pretty accurate in their downtime estimates.  They honestly can't win either way, so they just give their honest best estimate.  When they over-estimated in the past, people complaiend because they felt they lost out on playing time not knowing the servers were up early... and visa versa.</p>

Congri
06-10-2010, 11:48 AM
<p>It seems to be a quite big difference between different servers though; which might explain some of the mixed reactions.</p>

PlaneCrazy
06-10-2010, 11:53 AM
<p>I seem to recall that one of the servers... Befallen wasn't it? ...  always had more hardware related issues then the rest of us.  That would suck. No, I think they do a decent job on the times, as far as I have seen in the past year that i have been back.  My biggest complaints are 1) that they sometimes patch to often, IMO - and 2) that they refuse to change their patch times.  They claim that this is because 6am PST is the best time to not inconvenience the most subs, but they refuse to back that statement up with numbers.  Personally, I feel it might be the best time that still lets them work dayshift and not have to find employees who will work nights, lol.</p>

Trifixion
06-10-2010, 11:53 AM
<p>when working on a pc or network one hour can turn to 5 hours pretty fast lol.</p><p>its just the Way of the IT world nothing every works like it should.</p>

Morrias
06-10-2010, 12:36 PM
<p><cite>PlaneCrazy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I seem to recall that one of the servers... Befallen wasn't it? ...  always had more hardware related issues then the rest of us.  That would suck. No, I think they do a decent job on the times, as far as I have seen in the past year that i have been back.  My biggest complaints are 1) that they sometimes patch to often, IMO - and 2) that they refuse to change their patch times.  They claim that this is because 6am PST is the best time to not inconvenience the most subs, but they refuse to back that statement up with numbers.  Personally, I feel it might be the best time that still lets them work dayshift and not have to find employees who will work nights, lol.</p></blockquote><p>Not Befallen, pretty sure that was Oasis..</p><p>He may be talking about the fact the MOTD atleast on befallen said 5 and a half hours downtime.</p><p>Either way, with these kind of extended downtimes (if thats what hes talking about) the servers could be down all day if they run into an unexpected issue, but you cant expect them to say "Hey, were gonna have your server up.. sometime in the next couple days!!"</p><p>Oh and usualy the servers come up before their estimated time, SoEs been pretty good about that since RoK..</p>

Morrias
06-10-2010, 12:38 PM
<p>Sorry double post..</p>

Congri
06-10-2010, 03:23 PM
<p>Just a note... Runnyeye and innovation are still down...</p>

StaticLex
06-10-2010, 03:29 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Granted sometimes this happens as well..</p></blockquote><p>If it was sometimes you wouldn't see anyone complaining.  SOE does this repeatedly where they say 4 or 5 hours and it turns into 12+, like today.</p>

agnott
06-10-2010, 03:49 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Guessing you've never worked in, or with, an IT team that has to apply patches to servers or upgrade hardware.</p><p>Most likely the estimates they give DO allow them some padding, but as with everything, things can go wrong, or post-upgrade testing might reveal problems that have to be scrambled around to correct.</p><p>I'm fine with them taking a little extra time if it means the servers come up stable and they don't have to end up taking them down again 2hrs later.</p><p>Granted sometimes this happens as well, but having worked in the industry, I don't fault them for unintended side effects.. and I'm a "paying customer" also.</p></blockquote><p>You have without a doubt worked in the industry. You don't listen to the customer/op just like they do.</p><p>The OP's question was simple: If they are always down longer then they say, why not give a more realistic time?</p>

Kiara
06-10-2010, 03:53 PM
<p>Because we don't KNOW we're going to be down longer.  We give an accurate and reasonable esitmate based on what needs to be done.</p><p>We don't always know when something is going to go wonky. </p><p>And the way Murphy works... If we estimated 12 hours, we'd end up down for 15 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Alienor
06-10-2010, 04:43 PM
But..., but you need 15 hours! ;P

StaticLex
06-10-2010, 04:51 PM
<p>Accurate and reasonable according to who?  The janitor?  The only time the downtime estimates that are ever accurate are the early morning ones that last 20-30 minutes.</p>

agnott
06-10-2010, 05:05 PM
<p>It would be a horrible PR move to broadcast before hand a known 10, 12 hour downtime for maintenance. You would will have 5 times of the amount of people screaming.</p><p>It's better (for them, not us) to underestimate thier downtimes. This way you just get a slow trikle of people complaining who are trying to log in. </p>

Jrral
06-10-2010, 05:39 PM
<p><cite>Congri wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I am curious, is there a reason why it has to be this way? To me it's much better if the devs would say "It will be down 6 hours at the most" and then let's the servers go online after 4 hours than doing it the other way around.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is, you see, that there's this guy out there by the name of "Murphy". Normally he hides out in a bar somewhere, guzzling Guiness and playing darts. He's got good hearing, though, and when he hears someone somewhere in the world make a prediction like that, it gets his attention. And besides a Brell-like capacity for beer, he's got a vicious sense of humor and he can't resist a challenge. So off he goes to find some way of completely and utterly <em>screwing up that prediction</em>.</p><p>Which leads to things like dev predicting 4 hours down-time for an upgrade because they've done dry runs and it takes a consistent 2 hours, and they figure 50% padding ought to be enough for the expected unexpected glitches and their manager figures doubling the padding should take care of any unexpected unexpected glitches. But when they go to do it for real they find out that the production machines have different disk hardware that makes the copy-in run slower. And just before it completes it turns out a system patch that's been on the dev machines forever and was supposed to have been put into production hasn't actually been applied to the production systems because it's not critical and nobody wanted to approve the downtime for a high-risk low-benefit patch, and without it the install bombs out trying to finalize. And when they try to back out the update they find out that the back-out process doesn't work when finalization failed, because finalization's never supposed to fail (the install process is supposed to check for things like patchlevel prerequisites up front and refuse to run if the required patches aren't in place, so if finalization would fail the install isn't supposed to have even started).  So they go to reboot the box to try and reinstall from scratch and restore the backups, only to find the update's mucked with the boot files and the system won't come up far enough to start the reinstall. Easy-peasy, we just get the emergency recovery disc and that'll fix that. Except nobody can find the recovery discs, their cases are in the cupboard where they ought to be but there's no discs in them. And the manager who's responsible for that kind of thing and probably knows where they went is on vacation this week and isn't answering his phone. And... Bob, what are you doing with that knife?</p>

Samulbrar
06-10-2010, 06:16 PM
This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=450973&post_id=5344412" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=45097...post_id=5344412</a> Posting the same post in several threads is a bad idea.

Cuedywene
06-10-2010, 06:25 PM
<p>I work in IT and one of the things I hate trying to determine is time estimates.  You never know until you start what you will encounter.  I think SOE does a fair job and sticking to their time estimates and I feel that all their estimates are in good faith.  The only times I think SOE is purposely malicious is when considering Illy mythicals....then they are just being mean because they like to make people mad and enjoy the rush of trashing people's hard work and efforts.</p>

Looker1010
06-10-2010, 09:15 PM
<p>Sometimes the sand in the hourglass gets stuck...</p>