I am intrigued by actor models, but I can't get my head around what that would mean in terms of architecture. A game loop is easy to understand, especially for functional programming. You just make the world at tick n+1 a function of the world at tick n.
For one thing, this makes server load easy to evaluate. It's just a percentage of simulation tick duration spent in calculation. How would I evaluate that in the actor model?
This game also computes an FPS rate. Whenever an actor completes an update, it atomically increments a counter. Every N increments, with N being the number of actors, we say a frame is done. But this is unnecessary.
The best way to estimate load is by looking at Quasar's internal execution queues. Also, every actor in this game has a loop of 30ms, i.e. it immediately responds to messages it receives, but if there are none, it updates every 30ms. If you miss that deadline, namely your current run is over 30ms from the previous one, you know the server is overloaded.
Of course, the main advantage of working like that is that you get really good parallelism. In a previous blog post where I discussed the standalone simulation, I mentioned that you can run it still using actors and still in parallel, but in lockstep using a Phaser. After each cycle, every actor waits for all the others to complete. This gives you "classic" predictability, but you're not making the most out of your hardware as all cores basically become idle after each step, and then you have to start them up again. When the actors run asynchronously, all cores are busy all the time.
Yes, but then how do I break things down in specific terms? With the game loop, it's easy for me to just take milliseconds timestamps before and after each subroutine. For example, I can just time how long it takes for me to run (prepopulate-monsters).
Also, every actor in this game has a loop of 30ms, i.e. it immediately responds to messages it receives, but if there are none, it updates every 30ms. If you miss that deadline, namely your current run is over 30ms from the previous one, you know the server is overloaded.
So then, I have to aggregate the loop running-times for every entity, or take a census of entities overrunning?
Of course, the main advantage of working like that is that you get really good parallelism.
I've always understood this part. However, consistent game ticks are useful for various aspects of simulation and game AI.
but you're not making the most out of your hardware as all cores basically become idle after each step
A laudable goal, but what if one is prioritizing "never lag" over efficiency? My game is to have some of the same "a-life simulation with a game attached" quality that Dwarf Fortress has. To ensure that such calculation never interferes with player responsiveness, I was planning to put such background processing on an entirely different instance, then import the resulting evolved monster species into player instances. How would this be architected differently using actors?
Well, you can do the same here, for each actor's loop. With a single loop you're letting your hardware go to waste and limit your scalability.
> So then, I have to aggregate the loop running-times for every entity, or take a census of entities overrunning?
You can do both. Whatever makes sense for you.
> However, consistent game ticks are useful for various aspects of simulation and game AI.
Well it's a tradeoff. I think that given the current state of hardware, you need to use all your cores.
> A laudable goal, but what if one is prioritizing "never lag" over efficiency?
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. How will you achieve "never lag" if your single thread can't perform all the computation in time?
> My game is to have some of the same "a-life simulation with a game attached" quality that Dwarf Fortress has.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the actor approach.
> To ensure that such calculation never interferes with player responsiveness, I was planning to put such background processing on an entirely different instance, then import the resulting evolved monster species into player instances. How would this be architected differently using actors?
Well, you could always still use a single-threaded loop and offload computation to actors. But a better way would be to split each entity to two actors. One for sending feedback to the player, and one for slow computation. If you want to ensure little interference, you can run the different kinds of actors in different Quasar schedulers, each using a different thread-pool, and control the number of threads in each of the pools. Quasar also supports distributed actors, so you can place the slow, computation-heavy ones on different machines, just as you have planned.
My plan is to determine the max number of players supportable in each instance, which I call an "interaction pool" and basically ensure no instance exceeds this number. All players will be in the same world, but can only really interact within the same instance. I think this will be okay since the shared world is huge and not every player will be interacting. (And I will write my way out of the sticky details. When players have to change instances, they will experience a "phase storm")
Let's say I want to move my Clojure code on top of spacebase, how would I go about it?
I sketched out an update for WoW that would allow RBC's (remote Boss characters) to be statues in game, until someone logged in and "inhabited them" where upon there would be an in-game effect (like 20 - 30 seconds of a glowing around the statue) and then 'wham' the boss comes alive. Until either dead, or they log off and the return to being a statue.
Its a complex mechanic but it has the potential of providing a lot of quality game play for the subscribers. I'd need an economist though to get through the models of expected subscriber return value vs cost.
However, whenever something like this comes up, I always wonder about the new Java implementation of Web Sockets / actors. Do you have a comment on the difference between using Akka for your web interface instead of comsat WebActors?
I guess if this is a proof of concept for the comsat classes, it works quite well.
Also, web sockets are not directly related to actors. Comsat's Web Actors simply let you write HTTP and WebSocket using the actor model.
I get thats is only a demo but its not a very convincing one :/
At the top left of the screen you can see your network latency. Obviously, it depends on where you are. The server is a single US-EAST EC2 instance. So this is entirely a network issue. I can tell you that the server isn't starting to feel the load yet, and is currently running at 32.5Hz (pretty much the maximum rate). This is a much higher rate than most MMOs that run at 4-10Hz.
Well, in the example of your demo, the system can detect individual actor-loop overruns. How do I know that this will result in a graceful degradation? What if all of the overruns happen so close together in time, the system has insufficient time to mitigate and keep out of the notice of players? If having game loops on individual actors is more efficient but otherwise semantically equivalent to having a game loop, I would like to know more about this. However, my understanding of the actor model is that it comes with built-in indeterminacy.
Modern software systems are complicated; they're built on complicated middleware on top of complicated OS, on top of complicated hardware. There are tools to help you find your bottlenecks, but handicapping your application just so you'll understand it as we used to understand performance in the 80s and 90s seems like the wrong choice.
A system one can analyze is always preferable to a system that's potentially more efficient but less understandable.
I'm not trying to shoot down your architecture. I considered it for a couple of weeks, but I turned it down because I couldn't understand the risks involved. You can leave this as "an exercise for the reader" but we both understand this isn't going to win most people over. (Maybe that's your goal?)
Yes, but analyze how? In your head? If that's the case, then the last hardware+software architectures you could analyze in your head were about ten years ago. If that kind of performance is always enough for you then fine. But no one is able to mentally analyze complex software performance on modern OSes and hardware any more. On the other, there are tools that analyze performance for you.
Because game developers are among those who care the most about analyzing performance, and because they like working close to the metal, they like to continue using that approach, but it's no longer viable. There is no more "close to the metal" when the CPU itself is so complex it's almost non-deterministic. Unless your game runs on a console, there is so much interference from other processes, that even believing you understand how your code works in a vacuum is not good enough to guarantee real-world behavior.
What I'm trying to say is that writing single-threaded code, combined with network calls and queues for asynchronous processing is not really more understandable. It's just similar to 90s code so people have the illusion they can understand performance as they did back in the 90s.
For example: suppose your thread is now idle. What do you do? sleep or spin? If you sleep you're at the mercy of the OS scheduler; if you spin, modern Intel CPUs can actually decide to power down your core. In either case you'll have increased latency when waking up.
: forget virtual memory and multi-level caches. There's ILP, TLB, core boosting and power management, SSDs, modern thread schedulers and more and more.
Of course not. But I can work out how the software tools for performance measurement are going to work in my head. I can also work out if the performance degradation of a game loop will be gradual with some degree of reliability and also know how the measurement tools to verify that are going to work.
There is no more "close to the metal"
Long time Smalltalker and Clojurist here. Preaching to the choir you are. However, to minimize risks, one should still understand what one is doing as well as they can beforehand. I'm not saying that your architecture is bad. I'm trying to explain my decision making process with regards to it. Furthermore, if I had more information about how to implement pragmatic performance guarantees or at least a high probability of gradual degradation, and if I knew enough about performance monitoring in the actor architecture, I would probably change my assessment of the risks involved in trying it.
Unless your game runs on a console, there is so much interference from other processes
It's probably going to run on a dedicated server.
Basically, what I've been trying to get across in these threads is: Your architecture sounds really cool but I don't quite have enough information about it to make me want to try it.
Or to put it another way:
"It's really great because of Z!"
"Yes, but I also really need X and Y and I don't know how it would be with X and Y."
"Yeah, you should be able to work all that out, and can't you see that it's really great with Z!?"
"Yes, it's great with Z, but..."