Why so aggressive, Ian?Ian Royal wrote:Are you actually trying to suggest that the flow of people through the turnstiles is 20,000 spread even remotely evenly over 2 hours?tmesis wrote:What kind of server were we using that would struggle with 20,000 checks in two hours?Nameless wrote: Originally the server at the gate had to refer back to the central database for every query whereas now there is a copy held locally at each gate making it quicker and more resilient.
its the inclusion of the actually, and even remotely that makes it sound confrontational(rather than aggressive)Ian Royal wrote:That's a question Green, if you think it's aggressive I think the internet may not be the place for you.
It was intended as incredulous.melonhead wrote:its the inclusion of the actually, and even remotely that makes it sound confrontational(rather than aggressive)Ian Royal wrote:That's a question Green, if you think it's aggressive I think the internet may not be the place for you.
HTH
But you can go in via gate 7 or 8 if you sit in the East stand, I know because I've done it. So therefore it must be centralised somehow!Nameless wrote:Pretty certain it's per gate not per turnstile, and that is a change from when the system was first installed . Originally the server at the gate had to refer back to the central database for every query whereas now there is a copy held locally at each gate making it quicker and more resilient. Every gate is one of a pair so if say gate 7 went down they could use gate 8 for everyone, or go to a visual check at the turnstiles which wouldn't be 100% but ok as an emergency.EPR2.0 wrote:It's better than that - I'm pretty sure each turnstile is autonomous and can work offline once loaded with event data.Nameless wrote:18,000 wouldn't have to see one person as there are staff at each gate. The whole system can't crash as data is held at each gate, not on a central server.
When Fortress was first installed I initially wondered why each gate had a computer per turnstile (the blue boxes up on the wall) thinking that it was massively over-engineered; then it occurred to me, that the last thing you want when trying to ingress 24,000 people into a stadium is for an entire gate (or more) to go down just because of a single point of failure.
Shackleton having a mare here.Shackleton Royal wrote:But you can go in via gate 7 or 8 if you sit in the East stand, I know because I've done it. So therefore it must be centralised somehow!Nameless wrote:Every gate is one of a pair so if say gate 7 went down they could use gate 8 for everyone.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 114 guests