Multiverse Feedback: Recent Activity
| Multiverse Feedback: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Upcoming releases | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Multiverse Feedback: (Generated at 2025-05-13 21:16:34)
Oh, I remember the kerfuffle. I didn't think that was the issue, but I don't recall for sure.
Oh; I thought adding a dyno didn't actually remove the lock, and so didn't actually help. There was a BIG kerfluffle about it when people realised they'd basically been paying for nothing a few months ago.
Vitenka is right - the issue is parallelism. Because I'm on Heroku's cheapo tier, the whole site is hosted by one process. This does indeed mean that any slow operation (editing cards isn't too bad - the main culprits are viewing visual spoilers or full cardset cardlists) makes everyone else using the site wait until it's finished.
It doesn't take any work at all to add a second Heroku process ("web dyno", as they call it), which would be enough parallelism to fix the issue Vitenka discusses, but it's absurdly expensive - $35 per month.
I've looked at remote-hosted databases a little bit in the past; not found anything that seemed feasible to plug into the Heroku structure I've got.
Well, several of us can hand over cash. The main problem is that multiverse (possibly the framework multiverse is built on) can only process one thing at once. So when someone is refreshing the recent changes list; submitting a card change grinds to a halt; and vice versa. My understanding is that takes both money and a lot of work to fix. Growing to the size where it becomes a problem is a good problem to have, though :)
I wonder - could each cardset (or chunk of cardsets) be sharded off to a different host+database? The recent changes page would become more like a local feed aggregator with all those problems, though.
In general this server is actually very slow to load any page. Is it because the database is growing too large?
Yea money is a sensitive issue. But let's at least see what the pricing is for better plans.
Yeah, that was the impression I had with hosting. I've no better suggestion, I agree the current compromise is probably the only option. (I agree the errors are annoying, but I don't really mind, for me they're usually only very temporary.)
Would it be worth spelling out what regular users would have to contribute to pay for better Heroku hosting? I assume most people wouldn't think it was worth it, but at least you could say "if it's worth this much to anyone, then we can do it, else we're stuck with the status quo" rather than just "no"? (Admittedly accepting money is awkward for lots of other reasons.)
Indeed, the site runs on Ruby on Rails. The Application Errors are certainly annoying. I have vague metrics of their frequency and I do apologise that it has been somewhat on the rise.
What's particularly annoying is that there's very little I can do about it. My options are:
1) Pay Heroku a lot of money to slightly increase the number of hamsters powering the site - this is an option I apply temporarily if the site gets linked from somewhere high-traffic, but it's too expensive to leave on all the time.
2) Move to a different hosting provider. I looked at quite a few but none of them provide me as good hosting as Heroku provide for free.
3) Move to a self-hosted VM somewhere. This is my preferred option, somewhere like http://edis.at , but it does need quite a lot of time on my part to get it set up, and I've not had the time to put that much time into Multiverse since this came up... pretty much a year ago, in fact. Sorry.
It's Ruby. But yes, it does seem to be getting worse again.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1695263/multi.png
Using Chrome. Same problem everywhere in the site.
There is a variation on this, which is what the skeleton itself uses. If you write
(((-CW01)))(don't ask me why I chose a dash), it'll expand to "CW01 Suntail Hawk".That said, yes, this makes a lot of sense and I ought to do it.
Huh. I coulda sworn it worked that way; but you're right, if it did, it sure doesn't today.
Hey Alex, Camruth here, I just had to reinstall everything on my computer and, as a result I have lost & can't remember my password, any chance you could email it to me ?
I'm curious if maybe it's possible to collaborate with, say the people at tappedout.net or Bestiaire.org to see if there's a way to arrange some collaboration for online drafting with custom sets?
typo
Mm. Makes sense. Not a very high priority, but should be very easy so I'll see if I can slip it in along with the next update.
draft server is cool. but according to wotc, sealed is a better format to test new sets. so i hope multidraft can do sealed.
edit: it seems there is already a MTG JSON project. (http://mtgjson.com/) . it's a good starting point, however, i would try to normalize the data.
I'm certainly up for that in theory. I should mention that Chowlett is working (theoretically with some help from me) on a web-based draft server, Multidraft, designed to integrate with Multiverse. But I think a nice standardised export format such as JSON ought to be compatible with both of those.
i want a JSON format that could work with a hypothetical custom-set playtesting webapp. we would have to work out the formating, although i do have a working one from a previous project. however XML may do for now to test the app. (ideally the webapp should accept other popular formats as well. main thing i'm concerned is how comprehensive those formats are and how they handle complex cards, like split cards.)
benefits of JSON are
1. can contain any and all data about a set, cards, and other data in a single file.
2. can handle cards, sets, and pack data, etc. of any complexity
3. easily parsed by javascript and other languages
4. application-neutral. any software can read and write the format easily
hmm; it's probably trying to grab it from some header that my browser isn't presenting. I'd assumed it was being created from something passed in to the comments page itself.
Wergle. For me, editing that comment gives Back.
But anyway, yes, the "back" link is pretty unnecessary there, I may as well just remove it.
Somewhat distressingly, the Rails source for that is
<
%= link_to "Back", :back %>In other words, the Rails special constant
:backappears not to be initialised for you guys. Somehow.Test
This one
URL on the 'Back' link is: http://multiverse.heroku.com/
No javascript even, the source shows: Back
Hm. I don't see this behaviour. The "back" link to me is a link to the comment thread for the card or cardset on which the comment was. Can you post a precise comment for which you see this?