Support NeoGAF

[Ninja Moomin]

just why has Blow got a broom up his ass about Microsoft anyway?

does he secretly think he should be getting the minecraft treatment?

He seems to spend more time talking abou MS / Xbox One than the game he's working on for PS4?

 

[pestul]

People find it hard to believe because they didn't say "(virtual) servers". They just said "servers". And 300,000 physical servers dedicated to xbox live is hard to believe.

Well, the calculation made by someone at B3D suggested that it would cost MS at minimum >$500M for 300k servers. It's actually not outside the realm of possibility, but I'd be surprised if they would sink that much money into this machine at the outset. They'd have to be very very confident in its success.

 

[blurredvision]

So is he basically saying that a virtual server doesn't count as a real server? I take care of many clients with multiple virtual servers spread out over multiple hosts. If you're not doing virtual, you're wasting an insane amount of resources and energy. Dude doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Dipswitch]

It's a mixture by the sounds of it.

Mary Jo Foley tends to know what she's talking about when it comes to MS. Especially on the enterprise/business side of things:

Microsoft officials also mentioned Windows Azure during today's Xbox One reveal. Xbox Live does not run on Windows Azure; it runs on its own servers in Microsoft's datacenters. When Xbox Live launched in 2002, Xbox Live required 500 servers. It now requires 15,000. By the time Xbox One launches this holiday season, Micorsoft officials said it will be running across 300,000 servers.

We do know that the Halo game team at Microsoft has used a new cloud-programming model, codenamed "Orleans," which was developed by Microsoft Research. And during today's Xbox One reveal, the Redmondians noted that users will be able to store their movies, music, games and saves "in the cloud," which I am assuming means on Windows Azure.

Link to full article

Thanks. Although, from that article, it sounds like she's confirming that those 300,000 servers are indeed separate and distinct from the Azure servers. It sounds like Azure cloud resources will be utilized for Skydrive'esque online storage needs.

Still doesn't explain the Azure/multiplayer hosting connection. But that will become clear in due time I expect.

 

[i-Lo]

just why has Blow got a broom up his ass about Microsoft anyway?

does he secretly think he should be getting the minecraft treatment?

He seems to spend more time talking abou MS / Xbox One than the game he's working on for PS4?

You would know that, right?

Some of you are truly on cloud 9 with MS's integration of teh clowd.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

It's a 'timed exclusive'.

That means for a certain amount of time the only platform you can get it on will be PS4, with it coming to other platforms later.

It's a timed console exclusive. He has said the deal does not effect PC/IOS, only any potential WiiU or XBO versions.

 

[Godslay]

You would know that, right?

Some of you are truly on cloud 9 with MS's integration of teh clowd.

They are investing a lot of money on 'teh clowd'. They are building the tools and the infrastructure to use it.

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[FordGTGuy]

They did name drop their Azure service. Which is a virtualized hosting service. So it is basically confirmed.

Mary on Windows Weekly confirmed that they are not Azure servers.

You guys do realize that Microsoft is one of the most heavily invested companies into the cloud right now?

Thanks. Although, from that article, it sounds like she's confirming that those 300,000 servers are indeed separate and distinct from the Azure servers. It sounds like Azure cloud resources will be utilized for Skydrive'esque online storage needs.

Still doesn't explain the Azure/multiplayer hosting connection. But that will become clear in due time I expect.

Pretty much, Azure servers are not meant to be used in the way the Xbox Live servers will be used.

 

[RadarScope1]

I sort of wondered if the claims made about the number of servers and cloud computing was BS and PR speak, but I know nothing about the tech and can't judge for myself. My thought was that going from 15k to 300k is a huge increase, so it jumped out at me. I hope this is something that journalists with access to MS people can get more details on, and/or something MS discusses much further at E3. If they do, they should give concrete examples from games available at launch, not just hopes and dreams. Prove it.

What's I find really funny, though, is how so many people who come to NeoGAF to sound off about games on the Internet would be soooo offended by a developer sounding off about the game industry on the Internet. Jon Blow isn't a dummy. He's lacking some professionalism, I think, but I appreciate some people - really, anyone at this point - with insight on developing games sounding off on either of these news consoles. Let's get all the questions out there. There's a lot of unknowns.

 

[SPDIF]

Thanks. Although, from that article, it sounds like she's confirming that those 300,000 servers are indeed separate and distinct from the Azure servers. It sounds like Azure cloud resources will be utilized for Skydrive'esque online storage needs.

Still doesn't explain the Azure/multiplayer hosting connection. But that will become clear in due time I expect.

Yeah, I don't think I read your original question properly. Like you said it's definitely 300,000 separate servers. By a mixture I was just saying that Azure would also be used involved for storage etc..

 

[Myshkin]

He's right 300k servers probably doesn't mean 300k physical servers. Then 300k virtual servers doesn't say much when you don't know how powerful they are.

You can split a physical server in as many virtual ones as you want...

What is sure is he'll probably get a golden PS One too.

Well, they said somewhere that each game gets its own server. So they must be virtual servers.

 

[i-Lo]

They are investing a lot of money on 'teh clowd'. They are building the tools and the infrastructure to use it.

What exactly are you trying to say?

This:

Another thing to think about is developing for target hardware. If variable cloud stuff (ya know, dat 40x shpill) is needed to be taken into consideration, where does that leave the devs? Extra work? Essentially at that point it becomes a PC, albeit with standardized local hardware.

I can understand benefits to MP (world state persistence) but integrating in SP is something I'd rather see working in real world conditions.

 

[Dunlop]

The more I think about the topic..who cares is they are virtualized?

I'm monitoring a 20 server farm at the moment and outside of the naming convention I would not have been able to tell you which one is virtualized and which are physical (there are 12 VM, 8 physical)

 

[FordGTGuy]

Well, they said somewhere that each game gets its own server. So they must be virtual servers.

How do you end up with this logic?

How do you know that each of these 300k servers won't have their own virtual servers also?

Bottom-line Johnathan Blow has a reason to rail against Microsoft right now and it makes any factoids he might push as fact very dubious.

 

[Warm Machine]

Blow thought Greenlight was a good idea. He was pissed that he had to take into account safeframe for overscan like every console game since the NES. He hates explosions and actively considers any game with violence below him.

 

[blurredvision]

The more I think about the topic..who cares is they are virtualized?

I'm monitoring a 20 server farm at the moment and outside of the naming convention I would not have been able to tell you which one is virtualized and which are physical (there are 12 VM, 8 physical)

Exactly. Most don't understand the advantage of virtualized servers and not considering them to be a "real" server is nonsense.

For those not in the know, most servers serve a very specific function. In a lot of cases, a minimum of RAM and CPU is needed to serve these functions. A long time ago, you might have needed 20 physical servers that only needed 2GB of RAM and periodic processor usage. Instead of having 20 physical boxes, you can now (with today's virtualization) just create one "super" server/host, with a few CPUs and 64GB of RAM (or more). Virtualize those 20 servers onto the one host, they all share resources that they don't use at all times. You've now got one box instead of 20 clogging the server room, MUCH less heat, less power usage, and you could probably throw another 10 servers on that host since you have the available resources.

Jonathan Blow sounds like a jilted lover at this point.

 

[seventynine]

How do you end up with this logic?

How do you know that each of these 300k servers won't have their own virtual servers also?

Bottom-line Johnathan Blow has a reason to rail against Microsoft right now and it makes any factoids he might push as fact very dubious.

You got anything to back that up?

 

[Godslay]

This:

That's why they are developing the tools to minimize the extra work that would be required by devs. Orleans project seems to tie into this.

MS can't say we are going to use the Cloud, and then dump all the work off to the devs. MS will have to provide them with tools to utilize the infrastructure. It's really that simple, and from all appearances it's what they are doing.

 

[Self_Destructive]

He's a man with an opinion. Haters should get over the fact that he has them. If he believes there is something wrong with what MS is doing, he has a right to express it.

 

[FordGTGuy]

You got anything to back that up?

How about every statement his made in the past year against Microsoft and their policies?

I'm not defending Microsoft's policies but it's hard to take John seriously after all the comments he has made.

He's a man with an opinion. Haters should get over the fact that he has them. If he believes there is something wrong with what MS is doing, he has a right to express it.

I have no problem with him expressing his opinions but when he tries to push his opinion as fact when he seems to have no evidence to support it doesn't help his case.

How do I know he doesn't have evidence? If he did he would have used it to blow up this situation even further.

 

[spwolf]

Exactly. Most don't understand the advantage of virtualized servers and not considering them to be a "real" server is nonsense.

For those not in the know, most servers serve a very specific function. In a lot of cases, a minimum of RAM and CPU is needed to serve these functions. A long time ago, you might have needed 20 physical servers that only needed 2GB of RAM and periodic processor usage. Instead of having 20 physical boxes, you can now (with today's virtualization) just create one "super" server/host, with a few CPUs and 64GB of RAM (or more). Virtualize those 20 servers onto the one host, they all share resources that they don't use at all times. You've now got one box instead of 20 clogging the server room, MUCH less heat, less power usage, and you could probably throw another 10 servers on that host since you have the available resources.

Jonathan Blow sounds like a jilted lover at this point.

you also dont call those servers, but instances.

When you say you have 300,000 servers, then you say that you have 300,000 physical servers, not 300,000 virtualized instances all of which have access to 1/100th of an server.


If 360 with 80,000,000 users has 30,000 servers, it is pretty silly to believe that day one they have 10x more for XO... what for?

It is also a lie to try to make it seem as those servers are going to make XO 40x more powerful than 360.

 

[RukusProvider]

Exactly. Most don't understand the advantage of virtualized servers and not considering them to be a "real" server is nonsense.

For those not in the know, most servers serve a very specific function. In a lot of cases, a minimum of RAM and CPU is needed to serve these functions. A long time ago, you might have needed 20 physical servers that only needed 2GB of RAM and periodic processor usage. Instead of having 20 physical boxes, you can now (with today's virtualization) just create one "super" server/host, with a few CPUs and 64GB of RAM (or more). Virtualize those 20 servers onto the one host, they all share resources that they don't use at all times. You've now got one box instead of 20 clogging the server room, MUCH less heat, less power usage, and you could probably throw another 10 servers on that host since you have the available resources.

Jonathan Blow sounds like a jilted lover at this point.

99% of the people posting in these thrads haven't a clue about virtualization. Even out of the 1% who know only a handful might have experience at an enterprise level.

MS has their own hyper visor so no licensing over head. For them to NOT use virtualization would be the real shocker.

People in here claiming that a virtual server is somehow not counted should go spend the time and energy to learn about the tech they're commenting on.

 

[Dunlop]

He's a man with an opinion. Haters should get over the fact that he has them. If he believes there is something wrong with what MS is doing, he has a right to express it.

He's a man using his current "fame" with Sony to leverage his name to his games. Like any business person should. The actual topic of this particular twitter is nonsense and he should be called out on it.

 

[FordGTGuy]

you also dont call those servers, but instances.

When you say you have 300,000 servers, then you say that you have 300,000 physical servers, not 300,000 virtualized instances all of which have access to 1/100th of an server.


If 360 with 80,000,000 users has 30,000 servers, it is pretty silly to believe that day one they have 10x more for XO... what for?

It is also a lie to try to make it seem as those servers are going to make XO 40x more powerful than 360.

You kind of answered your own question, I'm not backing up the statements about performance gains but if they are planning to have dedicated servers for every game and computations over the cloud they would need a huge amount of more servers than what they have been using.

 

[jcm]

Exactly. Most don't understand the advantage of virtualized servers and not considering them to be a "real" server is nonsense.

For those not in the know, most servers serve a very specific function. In a lot of cases, a minimum of RAM and CPU is needed to serve these functions. A long time ago, you might have needed 20 physical servers that only needed 2GB of RAM and periodic processor usage. Instead of having 20 physical boxes, you can now (with today's virtualization) just create one "super" server/host, with a few CPUs and 64GB of RAM (or more). Virtualize those 20 servers onto the one host, they all share resources that they don't use at all times. You've now got one box instead of 20 clogging the server room, MUCH less heat, less power usage, and you could probably throw another 10 servers on that host since you have the available resources.

Jonathan Blow sounds like a jilted lover at this point.

No one is saying they shouldn't use VMs, just that the 300,000 number, if it's referring to VMs, is a PR exaggeration. url=http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-xbox-one-whats-windows-got-to-do-with-it-7000015684/]Here's the context:[/url]

Microsoft officials also mentioned Windows Azure during today's Xbox One reveal. Xbox Live does not run on Windows Azure; it runs on its own servers in Microsoft's datacenters. When Xbox Live launched in 2002, Xbox Live required 500 servers. It now requires 15,000. By the time Xbox One launches this holiday season, Micorsoft officials said it will be running across 300,000 servers.

The number for 2002 was almost certainly 500 physical machines. So if they are comparing VMs to physical machines, and calling them all "servers", then they are being deceptive.

 

[Godslay]

you also dont call those servers, but instances.

When you say you have 300,000 servers, then you say that you have 300,000 physical servers, not 300,000 virtualized instances all of which have access to 1/100th of an server.


If 360 with 80,000,000 users has 30,000 servers, it is pretty silly to believe that day one they have 10x more for XO... what for?

It is also a lie to try to make it seem as those servers are going to make XO 40x more powerful than 360.

I've heard them called both. Server is pretty common terminology for a virtual server. So what if it's 1/100th of an actual physical server? It's considerably more efficient to do it this way, you would be silly not to.

 

[StuBurns]

He's a man using his current "fame" with Sony to leverage his name to his games. Like any business person should. The actual topic of this particular twitter is nonsense and he should be called out on it.

Bullshit, he's been 'famous' since Braid.

 

[FordGTGuy]

The number for 2002 was almost certainly 500 physical machines. So if they are comparing VMs to physical machines, and calling them all "servers", then they are being deceptive.

Unless they aren't being deceptive...

You know why I believe Microsoft actually has 300,000 servers?

Because they are one of the most heavily invested companies in cloud right now and they have a lot of money to spend.

 

[RukusProvider]

you also dont call those servers, but instances.

When you say you have 300,000 servers, then you say that you have 300,000 physical servers, not 300,000 virtualized instances all of which have access to 1/100th of an server.


If 360 with 80,000,000 users has 30,000 servers, it is pretty silly to believe that day one they have 10x more for XO... what for?

It is also a lie to try to make it seem as those servers are going to make XO 40x more powerful than 360.

I've directly been involved in consulting engagements with many fortune 100 enterprises. They are always referred to as servers. The physical box is referred to as a host.

Your 1/100 example is irrelevant as long as the hardware is not over subscribed. Major credit to MS if they can pull off a 1/100 ratio btw. Now that's some secret sauce I wish they would share!

 

[seventynine]

How about every statement his made in the past year against Microsoft and their policies?

I'm not defending Microsoft's policies but it's hard to take John seriously after all the comments he has made.



I have no problem with him expressing his opinions but when he tries to push his opinion as fact when he seems to have no evidence to support it doesn't help his case.

How do I know he doesn't have evidence? If he did he would have used it to blow up this situation even further.

Well he isn't the only one doing so. Individuals from Dice, Double Fine, Curve Studios and some other studios have spoken their mind in regards to they see as negative aspects of the Xbox One.

Personally, I find it refreshing that developers are speaking their minds on this.

 

[FordGTGuy]

Well he isn't the only one doing so. Individuals from Dice, Double Fine, Curve Studios and some other studios have spoken their mind in regards to they see as negative aspects of the Xbox One.

Personally, I find it refreshing that developers are speaking their minds on this.

Who said it isn't right for them to speak their mind?

Like I said I have no problem at all with them giving their opinion, my problem is with John pushing his opinion as fact without evidence.

 

[blurredvision]

you also dont call those servers, but instances.

Semantics, whatever.

When you say you have 300,000 servers, then you say that you have 300,000 physical servers, not 300,000 virtualized instances all of which have access to 1/100th of an server.

I completely disagree. Hosts have increased resources specifically to take care of multiple VMs, you're completely discounting this. It's not like they're taking a low-end single physical server box and suddenly throwing 100 VMs inside and expecting it to work.

If 360 with 80,000,000 users has 30,000 servers, it is pretty silly to believe that day one they have 10x more for XO... what for?

No, it's not silly. Microsoft's ambitions with this console are pretty big, they plan to host anything and everything in the cloud. Microsoft's IT knows what they're doing and I'd guess that each single server has a specific function, increasing the number ten-fold.

It is also a lie to try to make it seem as those servers are going to make XO 40x more powerful than 360.

I don't really see where Microsoft said this, that's what you took out of it. Use your brain, don't let marketing speak put two and two together for you.

 

[RukusProvider]

Well he isn't the only one doing so. Individuals from Dice, Double Fine, Curve Studios and some other studios have spoken their mind in regards to they see as negative aspects of the Xbox One.

Personally, I find it refreshing that developers are speaking their minds on this.

Like when developers hated the cell but were demonized for being lazy?

 

[maeh2k]

Well, the calculation made by someone at B3D suggested that it would cost MS at minimum >$500M for 300k servers. It's actually not outside the realm of possibility, but I'd be surprised if they would sink that much money into this machine at the outset. They'd have to be very very confident in its success.

According to post they spent about $500M when they launched XBL. Now they want to significantly expand the Xbox One's cloud capabilities (dedicated servers and stuff) and they have a really large revenue stream from XBL subscriptions. XBL makes them more than those $500M every year. No reason to think they wouldn't be willing to spend that much now.

 

[Dipswitch]

you also dont call those servers, but instances.

When you say you have 300,000 servers, then you say that you have 300,000 physical servers, not 300,000 virtualized instances all of which have access to 1/100th of an server.


If 360 with 80,000,000 users has 30,000 servers, it is pretty silly to believe that day one they have 10x more for XO... what for?

It is also a lie to try to make it seem as those servers are going to make XO 40x more powerful than 360.

Eh. In my experience, the term "server" is very blurred these days. We utilize a lot of VM's where I work, and the term server is used interchangably with VM all the time. Is this accurate use of terminology? Probably not. But it's used nonetheless.

Furthermore, the term "Server" can also be applied to server hosted processes associated with a product. It's not uncommon for vendors to label such components as "Product X server" (With "Product X Client" being used to describe desktop components). So for all we know, and XBL "Server" might just be a process consuming resources on a VM/physical server. In that case, there may be hundreds of such processes running on a VM/physical server.

Considering how tightly they control information about the XBL infrastructure (Which is probably sound logic for security reasons), we may never know what they actually mean.

 

[Protome]

He's a man using his current "fame" with Sony to leverage his name to his games. Like any business person should. The actual topic of this particular twitter is nonsense and he should be called out on it.

Sony brought him on stage because he had internet fame, not to give him it.
Blow is an egotistical douchebag, but he has been instrumental in the rise of indie games and the success of XBLA. Just because you hadn't heard of him doesn't mean that nobody else did, he has been popping up in gaming news for years now sparking controversy about all sorts of things.

 

[Dunlop]

Bullshit, he's been 'famous' since Braid.

He was in the spotlight at the Sony unveiling and has been taking swipes at Microsoft since.

Keeping attention on himself in the process when he has a launch title.So like I said good business sense but also very unprofessional.

No one has seen what MS plans to do with cloud computing, just like a lot of the Sony conference was stuff that would most likely not be there at launch. A And yet he felt no need to mention any of that

 

[FordGTGuy]

Microsoft already said they put a billion into Xbox One's game development alone so $500 million isn't much for the server system those games will rely on.

He was taking swipes at MS before that too, he's been complaining about them since Braid. The only difference is now people who don't like his opinions can write off his complaints because he has a PS4 game coming.

Really?

His game is a time exclusive until 2014 I honestly couldn't care less if he has a PS4 timed exclusive coming.

What I care about is what evidence he is trying to support his statements with.

 

[StuBurns]

He was in the spotlight at the Sony unveiling and has been taking swipes at Microsoft since.

Keeping attention on himself in the process when he has a launch title.So like I said good business sense but also very unprofessional.

No one has seen what MS plans to do with cloud computing, just like a lot of the Sony conference was stuff that would most likely not be there at launch. A And yet he felt no need to mention any of that

He was taking swipes at MS before that too, he's been complaining about them since Braid. The only difference is now people who don't like his opinions can write off his complaints because he has a PS4 game coming.

 

[FranXico]

The thread title is misleading. JB is criticising the "power of the cloud" marketing, nothing more. Although he could just as easily criticize Gaikai for this.

And yes, it is BS. Distributed computing is not a novelty, client-server applications are most definitely not a novelty.

The only novelty about "cloud technology" is calling all this "cloud technology".

 

[Dunlop]

The thread title is misleading. JB is criticising the "power of the cloud" marketing, nothing more. Although he could just as easily criticize Gaikai for this.

And yet he does not, which is the point I am trying to make. He is bias and should not be taken seriously in this context.

I don't think either Sony or MS will pull of anything really tangible outside of storage with the current internet infrastructure around the globe

 

[seventynine]

Who said it isn't right for them to speak their mind?

Like I said I have no problem at all with them giving their opinion, my problem is with John pushing his opinion as fact without evidence.

I'll leave it there with you on this.

Like when developers hated the cell but were demonized for being lazy?

"Lazy devs" was a ridiculous argument. Cell was what it was but the problems with it were more to do with the tools at the time. If you cared to look you'd find those that liked it, such as Criterion and recently 4A.

 

[Takuya]

At the end of the day, nobody even knows what these 300,000 servers are, what they can do, how powerful they are, and if they're even all accessible in some way.

Just a big number they threw out to "wow" people, just like the 5 billion transistors. lol

 

[Foaloal]

It's amazing to me how many people want to find a reason to hate Jonathan Blow, just because he uses twitter.

I've been following Jonathan since Braid was announced, I've seen every single lecture he's done on video game design, I've read all his blog posts about how he programs and develops and everything else he's written. I've been part of the Braid speedrun community and I've seen how deep the game really is, not because of the story, but because as a game it has depth. I've been following The Witness since it was announced, and read every post on the development blog. I think I know Jonathan as well as a person who hasn't met him could.

That said, I respect his opinion on game development more than any other dev I know of, and he has good reason to be suspicious of Microsoft.

Really, imagine lighting being calculated on a cloud server. There would be, at minimum, 100ms delay roundtrip if you have a decent wired connection and live close to the servers. If you live somewhere with high latency, or you use wireless internet, that delay could easily go way up. If your connection drops in the middle of a game due to your router or ISP or any other issue, what are you going to do, have no lighting in your game? The cloud will be good for storing your game saves and other data, hosting game servers, and that's really about it.

Even Sony's Gaikai is questionable, I can't see it being much better than OnLive, which, frankly, wasn't good enough (I've tried it myself)

Anyways, I really don't think people should be reading so deeply into Jon's tweets. It's just twitter, a place where you casually type out 140 characters.

 

[spwolf]

And yet he does not, which is the point I am trying to make. He is bias and should not be taken seriously in this context.

I don't think either Sony or MS will pull of anything really tangible outside of storage with the current internet infrastructure around the globe

if you dont understand the basic difference between Gaikai/Online vs XO's 40x stronger than 360 with help of the cloud, then read up... it is completely different service and one that is possible and can be used on any thin client like TV, and other thats not possible at all.

 

[maeh2k]

At the end of the day, nobody even knows what these 300,000 servers are, what they can do, how powerful they are, and if they're even all accessible in some way.

Just a big number they threw out to "wow" people, just like the 5 billion transistors. lol

Which makes it even more questionable to call the number a lie. There are no facts and no logic to back up the claim that it's a lie.

It is just a really big number to 'wow' people, but the 5 billion transistors weren't a lie either.

 

[staticneuron]

I am curious of a few things. Out of any large company, why is there a disbelief that MS would have 300k servers? Why does it matter if the servers are physical or virtual?

As a gamer I am only interested in if the can get the cloud to work like they claim. I would like to see the tangible end result. Arguing about the rest is silly imo.

 

[FordGTGuy]

if you dont understand the basic difference between Gaikai/Online vs XO's 40x stronger than 360 with help of the cloud, then read up... it is completely different service and one that is possible and can be used on any thin client like TV, and other thats not possible at all.

Oh c'mon now?

Are you honestly saying, on GAF for that matter, that cloud computing isn't possible?

 

[KHarvey16]

if you dont understand the basic difference between Gaikai/Online vs XO's 40x stronger than 360 with help of the cloud, then read up... it is completely different service and one that is possible and can be used on any thin client like TV, and other thats not possible at all.

Why isn't it possible? Please explain what Microsoft is doing and how they're doing it and why it cannot work.

Thanks.

 

[Godslay]

if you dont understand the basic difference between Gaikai/Online vs XO's 40x stronger than 360 with help of the cloud, then read up... it is completely different service and one that is possible and can be used on any thin client like TV, and other thats not possible at all.

The 40x performance gains number is bs, but there are tangible benefits to offloading computations in a distributed manner. It is possible.