top | item 28609805

(no title)

tysont | 4 years ago

To add a bit of color from the author, the content in the article was informed by my experience building distributed systems at Microsoft, Amazon, and Riot Games. At Riot we sharded our playerbase for a number of reasons (including complexity of matchmaking), but we may have chosen a different approach if we had a service like Fauna that could push data closer to players at the edge. With centralized relational databases, cross-region calls to load account info, entitlements, etc. would have been a very jarring experience in the client.

I've seen a number of database companies publish blog posts and put out tweets offering a competing point of view: that single-region is enough and multi-region doesn't matter. Would love to engage with that crowd here and get their perspective on the content in the blog post.

discuss

order

omeze|4 years ago

Just clarifying - does this mean matchmaking for League had geographic affinity (for Valorant this is true I believe)? And was that driven by a desire to ensure tight matchmaking performance latency guarantees or in-game latency goals?

tysont|4 years ago

League sharded players to geographic regions and didn't allow matches between players in different regions. Geographic location wasn't a consideration in matchmaking otherwise AFAIK. I left Riot when Valorant was still under development and can't speak to how matchmaking works, unfortunately.