Talk: Server

Do we really want this here? GuildWiki seems to be more about the ingame aspect of GW ST47 08:43, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Flag Gail Gray and w/e for deletion then.. — Skuld 08:54, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Why should GuildWiki be limited to the ingame aspect of GW? It is my understanding that we strive to cover all aspects of GuildWars, anything more or less closely related to the game. And the server clearly is GW related. -- 09:06, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

The article serves a purpose; but it could be filterred down a bit to make it less wordy. To me, it is a useful addition to the wiki. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:22, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Feel free to prune it. -- 09:48, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Indeed, this is clearly not a general article like we've had recently like RAM & heapsize. --Jamie 09:26, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I was under the impression there were two American Datacenters, one on the west coast and one on the east coast. At least that is my reading of the results of the GW Diagnostics Tool used (traceroutes to all the major datacenters?). --Kryshnysh 10:50, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Well go ahead and fix it. If it is obviously wrong fix it, if questioned just post your evidence on this talk page. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 10:57, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

As far as I know there is only one, physically located in Los Angeles. What's that GW Diagnostics Tool you're talking about? Got a link? -- 11:01, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

ftp://ftp.guildwars.com/diag/netinfotool_allos_gw.exe I belive there is one essential server in Los Angeles that everyone must go through (hence why all of GW was down for a while when they moved it), but that they have multiple server farms, or maybe I'm just reading that wrong and drawing totally wrong conclusions. --Kryshnysh 11:21, 12 July 2006 (CDT)