Alright. That is a much better way to do it anyway. So the servers shall be nodes in a cluster then? Each sharing the load. Sorta like multiple processors on a single board? I really like the load balancing idea. But then if it were to be that way, then why even the multiple servers upon the client load up? The only reason I see is if you live physically closer to one than the other and you want to reduce LAG times. (smaller ping response times) But even still, all the servers will be communicating with each other and the clients to show everyone accross every server. It would only be as good as the slowest server with the most lag yes?
I guess doing it this way would make more sense to me if, upon cleint logon, you just simply logged into the PS network, and not select an individual server, since that\'s really what a person will be doing anyway. Sure, the multiple servers could be listed to show the user the current status off them (up/down/etc), but really, but they would just connect to the PS network, not indivdual server.
Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way?
Also, although I do expect that there will be a time where multiple servers will be neccessary, (I don\'t mean this in any negative way) this will be far off, since the one server right now seems to be more than enough to handle peek times.