It didn’t affect anything-----
Setting a local variable or a function parameter to
nildoesn’t free the memory or dereference the object it’s pointing to. Lua’s garbage collector will automatically deallocate memory for objects that aren’t reachable anymore.
client=nilwithin the loop is unnecessary. It doesn’t impact the actual
clientstable; it just breaks the reference between the local loop variable
clientand the current table item.
event,clients=nil,nilat the end of the function is redundant. Once the function execution completes, local variables (including function parameters) go out of scope, and if there are no references to the objects they pointed to, they are eligible for garbage collection.
Hope this clears that up!
Hey guys - just wanted to pop in to say we’re still working on something internally which will help us narrow down the problem. Thank you for your patience!
As for the question regarding the types of experiences this affects, it seems likely this problem is exacerbated for experiences with many concurrent players for two reasons: these servers tend to live longer with constant player activity, and these servers serve exponentially more traffic.
I want to mention this might be Player instance related issue!
I noticed that when a player leaves the game connections like .CharacterAdded are still connected
to fix this you have to do something like this:
local Players=game:GetService("Players") Players.PlayerRemoving:Connect(function(p) if p.Parent==Players then p.AncestryChanged:Wait() end p:Destroy() end)
after calling “Destroy” on Player my .CharacterAdded connections get disconnected
When Luau destroys an event’s object all of its connections disconnect automatically ~
How did you come to the conclusion that the event was not disconnected? If you stored the connection in a local variable, that variable may not be nil but the connection should be disconnected
When Luau destroys an event’s object all of its connections disconnect automatically
correct but what im trying to say is that when player leaves the game all of connections related to that player (like .CharacterAdded) are still connected
this can be fixed by connecting to PlayerRemoving and then calling :Destroy on that Player instance just to disconnect .CharacterAdded
local Players=game:GetService("Players") Players.PlayerAdded:Connect(function(p) local connection=p.CharacterAdded:Connect(function() end) Players.PlayerRemoving:Wait() p.AncestryChanged:Wait() print(connection.Connected,p.Parent) end) game:BindToClose(function() task.wait(2) end)
so in order to fix this
you have to add this few lines of code:
Players.PlayerRemoving:Connect(function(p) if p.Parent==Players then p.AncestryChanged:Wait() end p:Destroy() end)
I thought this was expected behavior? I have noticed for a while that this has been a feature/bug for a while now with all sorts of instances if I’m not wrong. Like the fact that Humanoid connections stay alive even after the character is destroyed.
yeah thats what probably causes the memory leak (connections are not supposed to stay alive when Instance got reparented to nil! example: player left the game and instead of destroying player roblox engine just parents player to nil and connections related to that player stay alive)
I think that its not expected behavior correct me if im wrong
also one thing
roblox engine does same thing to player.Character (just like when player leaves the game)
instead of destroying it its just gonna reparent it to nil and that means humanoid connections will still stay alive (grrr roblox should fix this and start calling :Destroy on those instead of just reparenting to nil)
EDIT: yeah looks like im probably correct with this one
im not the only one who figured out about this stupid memory leak
I see, thank you for mentioning that. I can confirm those issues are being looked at. Not sure if they’re related to this network/raknet leak though
Since this problem being fixed assumingly will take many months or quarters to accomplish, is there any way for us to receive larger Memory caps for our servers? 6.25GB memory-cap doesn’t seem like a whole lot.
I’ve had my fair share of Minecraft & ARK servers in the past, and they always needed 8GB+ memory for only around ~10 players to ensure stable gameplay while lightly-modded. An equivalent ARK:Survival Evolved server would require 32GB of memory to sustain 80 players.
- How come Roblox’ servers have such low memory capacity, without the ability to upgrade them?
- How does Roblox power imagination when our imagination can no longer be contained by Roblox’ servers?
Even an extension of the cap to 8GB, would allow our servers to live for an additional 2-3 hours without crashing. (They crash after 2-3 hrs of 80/100 players currently.)
Thank you for your time,
This would be so helpful! Even after a lot of optimisation, I’m currently unable to release my game to the public because it’s already too close to that 6.25GB mark
You can increase your server player count to 600+ players and it’ll be raised to a 12GB limit. You can then wrap your game in a server browser which artificially caps it at your desired count.
The reason that servers are memory capped is, well, they’re free! I wouldn’t want Roblox to charge even for optional “premium” servers because this would go against the philosophy of the shared cost model that Roblox has with developers.
You sure this works? If so, that’s awesome! Will try it out.
It works! Holy smokes. Thank you for telling me about this.
How did you come to know this info yourself?
Oh, just trial and error! same way I found out about the 6.5GB regular cap.
What also sucks is half my total memory in my game on Client and Server comes from CoreScripts in which I can’t control.
How does one achieve this while keeping players able to join their friends from the website directly?
Also, wouldn’t this involve memory stores with the key being the JobId and the value being the player count to communicate limits
We’ve now been at it for a week, trying to make our own, custom artificial playercap. It’s proving to be a REALLY big challenge, and has been expensive to make. It’s a shame Roblox wouldn’t just allow us more customisation.
It’d be great if we could set the Max visitor count to 700, then set the reserved slots to 600, so servers never fill up more than 100, using Roblox’ built-in systems.
@PlumJar any official response from Roblox regarding the recent revelations?