(Rothgar) Re:EverqQuest2.exe 1.8gigs of memory usage?!?!?

Official Forums · 10-24-2009, 05:40 AM

We have another round of memory improvements that we plan to hotfix next week. They have not been full QA'd yet, so I'm not sure if they completely solved the crashing problem until QA has a chance to check them on Monday.

Either way, they are great changes that should reduce the memory footprint of the client by 50mb or more. In addition, less memory is allocated and deallocated during the zoning process which could also give a slight performance increase.

I'm going to try to have these changes published to Test on Monday. So if you can repro this crash on the Test server, you might want to watch for an update and let us know how these changes affect your issue.

LINK

Anurra · 10-25-2009, 10:53 AM

this post just leaks "lol"

"oh 50 MB! nice, it'll need 1550 MB instead of 1600 MB to run so when the allocator tries to get memory it'll be able to request 850 instead of 800 MB!!!!!"

"lets QA this before we send it out. we know that this is very productive because the last update didn't introduce any memory issues since we QA'd it!"

i like Rothgar, i think he is a good guy but man, this entire memory situation is just outrageous. if this was in real industry it: 1.) wouldn't of happened or 2.) would of been fixed right away. i feel sorry for the dude.

Mero · 10-25-2009, 11:41 AM

Depends how far they can take it, if this is one step of many then great.

Pinski · 10-25-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anurra

this post just leaks "lol"

"oh 50 MB! nice, it'll need 1550 MB instead of 1600 MB to run so when the allocator tries to get memory it'll be able to request 850 instead of 800 MB!!!!!"

"lets QA this before we send it out. we know that this is very productive because the last update didn't introduce any memory issues since we QA'd it!"

i like Rothgar, i think he is a good guy but man, this entire memory situation is just outrageous. if this was in real industry it: 1.) wouldn't of happened or 2.) would of been fixed right away. i feel sorry for the dude.

If this was in a "real" industry we'd be waiting 2 months for a patch. Also, that's 50MB less for the client, not 50MB less for the entire process. In case you missed, he said they'd be doing less allocating and deallocating during zoning which is where the memory starts to get "used" up.

Balnazzar · 10-25-2009, 10:51 PM

You wouldn't be waiting for 2 months if your customer was pissed and had any recourse other than knocking $15/mo off of your profits.

If it doesn't completely solve the problem, it can't be great. 50mb sounds more like a bandaid over a busted artery. We are just loving the constant link dead messages every raid. I don't know what resources are being commited to this issue, or what the percentage of folks are that are having these continuous connection issues, but it's a pretty big issue at least from first glance.

I do realize that if this affected a larger portion of the population then it probably would point to a larger, more visable issue that could be fixed much sooner but...This has been going on for weeks now, and can easily turn it into a month depending on how long the "QA" takes. In my opinion, standard gameplay issues should be the #1 priority of every programmer on the team and hopefully they are treating it as such. It's really inexcusable that some folks are having 0% stability.

I sifted through some of the posts on the EQ2 site, and it's rather bizarre just how many times they try to point people to do something different with THEIR computer instead of fully acknowledging that they completely broke something.

I'm not having the issue, but I feel for the folks that are because if they get frustrated, and end up quitting, it only further increases the headache for already underpopulated servers.

Let's hope the "QA session" goes well.

Pinski · 10-25-2009, 11:16 PM

No, you'd be waiting 2 months between each patch for the simplest thing. Grats on being a moron. Sure this problem would never have happened, but instead we'd have the insane wait time for patches outside the gaming industry is months. You know what companies do when they have huge contracts with other companies that provide them with software when they have a bug? They tell them, forget the approval process release us the beta code that fixes our problem, if there's other problems we'll deal with them.

Argyuile · 10-26-2009, 10:19 AM

Microsoft never makes any software mistakes especially with memory errors. In the odd chance that they do they have the fix out in 24 hours.

Oh wait...

the_mo · 10-26-2009, 11:21 AM

you mean like "newer" windows versions are unable to use hibernate if youve got 4gigs or more of ram due to compatibility/laziness issues with FAT32?

EQAditu · 10-26-2009, 11:41 AM

Ugh, why are you using FAT32 on a system drive where Windows is trying to put the hiberfil.sys (or equiv) file. It simply cannot create files larger than that. Before you ask why they can't make it into multiple files... answer my question.

the_mo · 10-26-2009, 01:49 PM

i dont use fat32 on my system partition. i was just guessing that this was the reason that windows disabled hibernation if youve got 4+ gigs of ram no matter the file system on yer system partition because theoretically it could be fat32 and then some programmer wouldve had to invest 5 minutes to write an algorithm that can split files