95
submitted 2 weeks ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Kraken Express responded quickly. Days later, on April 30, the studio pushed out a "housekeeping" update addressing SSD and CPU usage, connectivity issues, missing building blocks, and various bugs.

The results were dramatic: pre-patch, RocksDB was generating roughly 90,000 - 130,000 writes per second, while post-patch testing during sailing (one of the heavier write scenarios) showed an average of just 20 – 30 writes per second, with peaks never exceeding 60 writes/sec.

Am I crazy for thinking 20-60 writes per second is still way too high? I know it's small enough to no longer matter performance-wise, but wouldn't it make way more sense to increase the database cache size further and batch write the changes to disk every few seconds? That's still well within the margin where players wouldn't notice the lost data in the event of a crash, while also making it so the game's not queuing disk IO operations nearly every other frame.

this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
95 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

14710 readers
327 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS