Whats The Best Environment For An Ns Server Then?
AngryMonkey
Join Date: 2002-11-22 Member: 9603Awaiting Authorization
Join Date: 2002-11-22 Member: 9603Awaiting Authorization
I see some good discussion here about NS servers on Win32/Linux and all that jazz, changing process priorities/niceness, using different rates/booster plugins etc.
If you had fresh Dual AMD 2400 Server with 1 Gig of ram, and you just wanted to run the smoothest NS server possible, would you choose Win32 or Linux? Even more, what settings (config and OS) would you use (im talking about niceness/tick rates/booster plugins etc).
How do you achieve maximum server FPS these days (and does it really make that much difference?)
Or, has someone already compiled this type of information together somewhere?
If you had fresh Dual AMD 2400 Server with 1 Gig of ram, and you just wanted to run the smoothest NS server possible, would you choose Win32 or Linux? Even more, what settings (config and OS) would you use (im talking about niceness/tick rates/booster plugins etc).
How do you achieve maximum server FPS these days (and does it really make that much difference?)
Or, has someone already compiled this type of information together somewhere?
Comments
Now you can run 2 servers off that box easy provided you get a bit more ram and have availible bandwidth.
Now you can run 2 servers off that box easy provided you get a bit more ram and have availible bandwidth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
More RAM?
HLDS uses <100MB in general and certainly less than 200 with a bunch of leaky plugins.
In theory you could run 4 or 5 HLDS on that box.
Id recommend Windows Server 2003, with as few plugins as possible.
many people seem to have warped perspectives of how cpus handle the hlds process thread.
if you have 2 or more cpus DOES NOT mean you can run more than one copy of hlds at the same time. you cant tell hlds to use this processor instead of that, it will use whatever one windows tells it to use (and on linux also) and 4 to 5 versions on same box? wow i would hate to play on one of those servers, do you know how laggy it would be? everyone would have around 2000 ping, and thats not acceptable.
so it dont matter if your server has 2 processors, or 16 processors it does not predefine how many instances of hlds you can run on the same machine.
also many do not know how much cpu time that hlds uses when its hosting 24 people on NS
Natural-Selection on the server side has always used alot of system resources, and because of this you really need a dedicated box for it. i have a dual PIII 1000 with 1 gb of ram, and with 10 players and all that activity going on in the map, the server gets pretty bogged down, especially the cpu. usually when its full the cpu usage ranges from 40%-90%. and that makes no difference on a dual 2400, since hlds only uses 1 cpu it might as well be a single 2400. i have an athlon 2400, and i used to have a server on that, and with 20 players it was the same story. so imagine 5 hlds instances on the same box with 20 players each? can someone spell cpu overload?
many people seem to have warped perspectives of how cpus handle the hlds process thread.
if you have 2 or more cpus DOES NOT mean you can run more than one copy of hlds at the same time. you cant tell hlds to use this processor instead of that, it will use whatever one windows tells it to use (and on linux also) and 4 to 5 versions on same box? wow i would hate to play on one of those servers, do you know how laggy it would be? everyone would have around 2000 ping, and thats not acceptable.
so it dont matter if your server has 2 processors, or 16 processors it does not predefine how many instances of hlds you can run on the same machine.
also many do not know how much cpu time that hlds uses when its hosting 24 people on NS
Natural-Selection on the server side has always used alot of system resources, and because of this you really need a dedicated box for it. i have a dual PIII 1000 with 1 gb of ram, and with 10 players and all that activity going on in the map, the server gets pretty bogged down, especially the cpu. usually when its full the cpu usage ranges from 40%-90%. and that makes no difference on a dual 2400, since hlds only uses 1 cpu it might as well be a single 2400. i have an athlon 2400, and i used to have a server on that, and with 20 players it was the same story. so imagine 5 hlds instances on the same box with 20 players each? can someone spell cpu overload? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please take care to read posts your replying to,
I was talking about the MEMORY requirements of HLDS, not the CPU requirements. These are two totally different things.
And Bry is indeed correct, you can bind HLDS to different CPUs.
Now you can run 2 servers off that box easy provided you get a bit more ram and have availible bandwidth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More RAM?
HLDS uses <100MB in general and certainly less than 200 with a bunch of leaky plugins.
In theory you could run 4 or 5 HLDS on that box.
Id recommend Windows Server 2003, with as few plugins as possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
4-5 cs servers but NS is usually is 2X that of CS in terms of resources. NS is a resource hog as everyone knows. CS sometimes uses upto 250mb of ram when there are 20+people and the map hasnt changed for ~30 min. Once map changes it goes down to less than 100. HLDS almost always uses more than 100 mbs when there are 15+ people on a server.
Also NS classic games that have gone on for about an hour. Not all that uncommon, tend to use a large amount of Ram. Once I have seen it go to ~495mb.(plugins are not leaky as it clears the ram at map change)
Windows selects the cpu only when you dont force it to do otherwise. You can set cpu affinity to tell it which processor to run on, and it isnt laggy as I play on all of the servers all the time when simultaneously full.
In my experience 500mbs per an instance of HLDS as you must leave room for all the other crap windows loads. You dont want HLDS to start to use Pagefile as it *will* cause lag.
Windows 2003 server is very nice but also very expensive. Windows xp has alot incommon with 03 but with alot of home user BS which can be disabled. Im not saying that XP is better than 03 but I think you get a better bang for your buck.
NS and linux is hit or miss. I havnt actually used linux to run NS but I have read that there are few combinations of OS and kernal that work well with NS. Although they are working hard to fix this.
*edit* I am enjoying this conversation as it isnt going into the flame, GJ guys keep it up.
Now you can run 2 servers off that box easy provided you get a bit more ram and have availible bandwidth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More RAM?
HLDS uses <100MB in general and certainly less than 200 with a bunch of leaky plugins.
In theory you could run 4 or 5 HLDS on that box.
Id recommend Windows Server 2003, with as few plugins as possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
4-5 cs servers but NS is usually is 2X that of CS in terms of resources. NS is a resource hog as everyone knows. CS sometimes uses upto 250mb of ram when there are 20+people and the map hasnt changed for ~30 min. Once map changes it goes down to less than 100. HLDS almost always uses more than 100 mbs when there are 15+ people on a server.
Also NS classic games that have gone on for about an hour. Not all that uncommon, tend to use a large amount of Ram. Once I have seen it go to ~495mb.(plugins are not leaky as it clears the ram at map change)
Windows selects the cpu only when you dont force it to do otherwise. You can set cpu affinity to tell it which processor to run on, and it isnt laggy as I play on all of the servers all the time when simultaneously full.
In my experience 500mbs per an instance of HLDS as you must leave room for all the other crap windows loads. You dont want HLDS to start to use Pagefile as it *will* cause lag.
Windows 2003 server is very nice but also very expensive. Windows xp has alot incommon with 03 but with alot of home user BS which can be disabled. Im not saying that XP is better than 03 but I think you get a better bang for your buck.
NS and linux is hit or miss. I havnt actually used linux to run NS but I have read that there are few combinations of OS and kernal that work well with NS. Although they are working hard to fix this.
*edit* I am enjoying this conversation as it isnt going into the flame, GJ guys keep it up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have never seen ns3b5 use more than 200mb ram
At the moment my server with 8/32 players is using 75mb.
Also NS runs fine under Linux, it just seems to hit the CPU a bit more. (Imo from a players perspective its completely the same)
I agree with you about 2003 Server, however most datacentres will cut you a nice deal (volume licensing)
At the moment my server with 8/32 players is using 75mb.
I agree with you about 2003 Server, however most datacentres will cut you a nice deal (volume licensing) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, I'll double check my numbers.
Thanks,
Emanon
not on windows 2000, you cant <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
not on windows 2000, you cant <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh u can <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
firedaemon does the job qutie nicely
- Shockwave
I personaly run
Febora core 2
Dual Xeon 2400 DP
1024 MB DDR 333 (Kingston)
80gb Segate 8mb cache
100mb/s Connectivity
IN terms of the fast most stable NS servers
<ul><li>you want a fast HD with a large Cache typically 8mb</li><li>a telehouse colocation (Not ADSL/RDSL/Cable)</li><li>Plenty of ram (HLDS uses more memory than CPU)</li><li>Consideration to max users/server (My spec 160 player slots MAX)</li><li>Choose you colocation with a network with good "peering"*</li></ul>
*peering = connection world wide i.e. they connection to X countires servers
i.e. my colo peers with paris, new york, netherlands, google (soon)
then you have another 2 options
Buy a server
Rent a server
typically for a server rental with (uncapped bandwidth for gaming usage) you lookgin @ £100/month for UK based servers, but it's all dependant on where you want your server hosted.
If you buy and then colocate the monthly rental is much cheaper as you not renting hardware
however you are responcible for that hardware, any problems with it and it's your problem.
any way do some research into you countires Colo providers, and looking for the best deal (not the cheapest!). Look for
peering
bandwidth
redundancy (UPS, fire...etc.....)
and rember tracert is your friend
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
tracert 82.138.247.33
Tracing route to 82.138.247.33 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 [My router]
2 40 ms 24 ms 47 ms lns6.dsl.enta.net [62.249.***.***] [myISP's server]
3 25 ms 29 ms 26 ms telehouse-east.core.enta.net [62.249.***.***] [Colo gateway]
4 33 ms 28 ms 27 ms shirley.b2000M.r6-999.lon.tsnglobal.net [217.79.
***.***] [colo router]
5 42 ms 57 ms 32 ms sarah-01.core.2000M.lon.tsnglobal.net [80.253.11
5.***] [colo router]
6 34 ms 23 ms 29 ms 82.138.247.33 [my server]
Trace complete.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
rember the less "hops" the better in this example mine has 3 hops from my ISP's server. If you looking for UK colo PM me and I can put you in contact with a few people currently running offers on colocation in red bus telehouse in london.
hope this helps