5 ms·
That sounds crazy to me and I understand why Microsoft or any company wouldn't want to do that. It seems completely reasonable to me to set reasonable limits to
by Sakos 3y ago
That sounds crazy to me and I understand why Microsoft or any company wouldn't want to do that. It seems completely reasonable to me to set reasonable limits to avoid excessive resource usage or unforeseen/untested/unwanted performance limitations.
- xp84 3y agoBingo. Everything has a limit and when you set it yourself you’re moving the “how many x can I make?” answer from the “unknown” column to the “known and testable” column. Imagine if you add a feature tomorrow that, on startup, has to run something in linear time with the number of channels you have. If the upper bound were essentially undefined (and not practically testable if it’s max int(32)) it could be that in practice your new feature makes it so that getting above 23,456 channels effectively disables the server due to a timeout in a critical part of startup. But if you’ve defined that channel limit, you can be confident that a feature like that either does or does not break things, even when at your channel limit, because you can test that.