|
Post by Frost SoE on Dec 9, 2007 23:42:04 GMT 10
Thanks frost, ive thought about it before, and im prob wrong in the mechanics, but ive always wondered if the extra "hop" via a dns service might affect performance. it prob doesnt but thats always been my concern, i guess we should set one up anyway and test it well I checked this and got some interesting results - took the WPPC server as an example: WPPC's mapped address is wppc.servegame.org (behind this actually the IP 24.159.156.194, which changes from time to time). First I "pinged" both addresses from the command box (start -> execute -> cmd (formerly "DOS box"): That first gave me the current IP behind "wppc.servegame.org" and second showed that there is no significant difference between both ping values (174 ms vs 176 ms). Then I checked the whole route with all hops with "tracert" (= trace rout): From this we can see that there is no additional hop for the mapped route "wppc.servegame.org". As a conclusion, using a IP mapping service instead of IP connect, should make no difference and won't have any impact on your server performance. (looks like servegame.org or dyndns.org manage to update the public DNS servers, so it doesn't result in additional hops for their services. Btw servegame.org has the IP 63.208.196.104, this one doesn't show up anwhere in the screenshots above). For further investigation, you could check both direct connect via IP and connect via mapped address name for WPPC or SoE server, with the address data listed in my previous post. There shouldn't be big differences in ping values and performance. As far as I can see, using this services in order to get a static server address with all it's advantages, didn't have any drawbacks for SoE or WPPC servers during the last years. Whatever, it's an interesting topic, if ya got any new findings plz let me know. thx ~S~ Frost
|
|
|
Post by jim on Dec 10, 2007 4:44:28 GMT 10
Thanks Mate, first off i can see the work put into this and im grateful for the legwork youve done, ill organise a starfleet one asap.
again thanks for the suggestions and data.
a grateful capt kirk
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Dec 10, 2007 7:00:09 GMT 10
I'm on it Kirk, thanks for the help Frost
|
|
|
Post by Tasha Yar on Dec 10, 2007 9:08:20 GMT 10
I have setup 3 dns names for SF servers and SF vcoms as follows.
sfenterprise.dyndns.org sfdefiant.dyndns.org sfvcoms.dyndns.org
I need to install the auto update software on the respective servers also but I've just tested vcoms and it works fine so I dont expect there will be too many issues if at all.
Once I am certain everything works as it should I will post names at HPGRelay. I will also give a thumbs up here. If anyone wants to give it a shot I would appreciate some feedback.
Yar out
|
|
frost
Honoured Guest - SoE
Posts: 13
|
Post by frost on Dec 11, 2007 7:55:57 GMT 10
I just checked the new SF dyndns names, here's my feedback: 1) Ping from the command box is ok for all 3 names, no packet loss detected 2) I played on both SF defiant and enterprise server via dyndns name. Ping + server performance quite as usual, everything worked. Then made a countercheck by connecting via MekMatch and IP, couldn't see any differences regarding ping or overall server performance. So this should be a good solution in times when neither ZoneMatch nor MekMatch are available. With new dyndns names ppl will always have the correct server addy once you published it - no further IP update required... ~S~ Frost
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Dec 11, 2007 9:14:02 GMT 10
Yep, thanks Frost I did some checks last night and all worked fine.
The help is greatly appreciated
Cheers mate <S>
So here they are officially folks.
sfenterprise.dyndns.org sfdefiant.dyndns.org sfvcoms.dyndns.org
I will fixup hpgrelay when I get a moment.
Yar out
|
|
zwolch
Honoured Guest - SoE
Posts: 6
|
Post by zwolch on Dec 11, 2007 18:59:41 GMT 10
I´ve test the Enterprise Server over dyndns and it works very well. (ich sag nur )
|
|