My take on scaling

[vincenzo]

I agree with mini bbo's idea.

Very inetresting for local federation !!

Very useful for technical reasons Uday has explained

And also all other points Fred and Uday have written !!

 

Vincenzo

[melviss666]

Well, for my two cents worth, I ain't convinced on these separate BBO's. If a separate BBO for Vugraph & private clubs, & even ACBL tourneys would fix the problem, then that's what I'm for. Maybe even add WBF or other point-awarding organizations as well to this other BBO. And furthermore...

I like the lobby list, irregardless of how unwieldly some might think it is. I surely met at least half my friends thru the lobby before EVER playing with or against them at a table. I've started chatting to folks I didn't know at the time because of something interesting in their profile & folks have started chatting to me by the same token. I like that. And furthermore...

All my other user names agree with me on this.

Best Regards,

melviss666

[DrTodd13]

This is an argument for being able to see everyone logged in and their profiles. It is not an argument for forcing everyone to have their lobby list constantly updated. The people who are suggesting getting rid of the lobby as it currently exists all say that you should be able to explicitly request the complete lobby list. This small inconvenience to you would hopefully gain a lot in terms of BBO scaling.

[adf]

I've read lots of posts on scaling and am not fully convinced of what is right. However, I am convinced that this is an important issue; more important in the long run than pretty much anything else discussed in the "suggestions" forum. Consequently, I would urge Fred and Uday to do the "right" thing, whatever they decide that is, rather than the "easy" (or at least not as hard) thing, even if that means a delay in getting some fun features in the system.

 

That being said, I don't consider it necessary to keep people at tables (playing, kibbitzing, vugraph, etc.) fully in synch. Maybe there is a subset of information that would be broadcast, such as the full list of table and player names; if a player navigates away from a table, their client would request to be fully resynchronized; in the mean time, at least some information could be updated on their screen. The server could also determine when it had some spare time and try to keep people updated even when they didn't ask for it (as it does now, but 100% compliance wouldn't be necessary), so the amount of information that needed to be sent in the event of a request would be minimized. It may also be that the server should know some of the client's settings (which it doesn't know now) in order to optimize just what needs to be sent. Yes, this is more work, but it may be worth it.