Server Soon, Specs.

BigBull · October 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">Need 2nd opinion</div> I was told by a reliable source that my server could hold 20-24 players and a website with quite a few downloads here are the specs:
Intel Pentium 4 – 2.0Ghz
512MB Ram
40GB ATA 100 7200 RPM HDD
750 GB Bandwidth

Will this hold up effectivly? I was also told i would need more RAM

Wither · October 2003

It can hold 20 players for sure, probably even 2 servers with 20.

More RAM would probably be wise but it'll run fine. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

BigBull · October 2003

Aight thanks. Least someone replied :O

Zdrone · October 2003

I've tried responding to this 3 times but have been slammed (work) every time I start typing (looks over shoulder).

Depending on the actual circuit speed (you don't mention that), you should be able to handle a 20 person server easily. Your 750GB restriction will keep you from running more though (I can provide stats when I get a few minutes).

As a comparison:
I have 3 NS servers running on 3 different boxes.
1 - dual 1.266ghz server with 1gb ram (hlds bound to a single processor)
2 - dual 2.4ghz server with 1gb ram (hlds NOT bound but I need to)
3 - single 2.4ghz Desktop PC with 1gb ram

The 1.266ghz server (IBM X330 1U rack mount) runs hlds much better than the 2.4ghz (IBM Netvista M42) desktop. The architecture of the physical box is able to handle the utilization much more efficiently. This is not to say that the desktop sucks, just that if given a choice, I would take a system built for running a server AS a server. Unfortunately I had to pull one of my X330's for a Cisco ACS server. Damn work.

I dont know that more RAM would really help. Can the HLDS process use more? It was written in an age before 1gb was an option for most people.

I will get some stats on the circuit utilization and post them hopefully today. I don't have anything on cpu utilization unfortunately (I don't track it).

Wither · October 2003

I've run 2 servers with the exact same bandwidth amount, (is your host servermatrix?) and i haven't had any issues. 1 TS and 1 NS server, NS server was 20 slots, TS 13, I never ever had bandwidth issues, so I really doubt that.

Zdrone · October 2003

I take back what I said.... 750GB is plenty for more than 1 - 20 person server. Long week.

Some quicky graphics:
<a href='http://www.h2ocs.com/users/z/H2O-7/H2O-7-Average-bps.htm' target='_blank'>Average Utilization</a>

<a href='http://www.h2ocs.com/users/z/H2O-7/H2O-7-Bytes-Transfered.htm' target='_blank'>Daily bytes transfered</a>

*note: the above is for a 20 person server over a 3 week period. Had some issues with the circuit over the past couple of days hence the dropoff.

BigBull · October 2003

Yes this is server matrix.

BigBull · October 2003

Great News. Now i have 1000gb of bandwith. What do you think i need to upgrade to run 2 successful NS servers. One bigger than the other. 22 and maybe a 16 or more. What are my limits? Im a nub

BigBull · October 2003

*Bump*

Plz im getting the server tommroow.

eaglec · November 2003

You can run 2x16 on that and should be fine, but more ram is always nice - depending on the popularity of the website and what you'll be running on it.

We have a P4-2.4ghz (800fsb) server with 512mb ram and run 1 NS server with 14 public and 10 reserves (rarely goes over 18 players) and a CS server with 8 public and 6 reserves. Also running is Apache with forums and a php based website, the website generates about 1.5gb/month of traffic serving about 40,000 pages a month.

We have had 2 NS servers with 20 players on each plus another CS server with 6 players on before lag was noticed, and then it was only when one server had hera and the other had fenris late game. However mapchanges caused swapfile access and this has a big risk of server lag. Basically 50 slots was pushing the server too far without more ram. We now restrict ourselfs to 40 total with no more than 32 public because quality of game is more important to us than the number of players.

In the end though our need for quality of games saw this number reduce further, we found that the smaller server actually leads to better quality teamplay and less anonymous noobism.

We have 180gb or 300gb/month available on a sliding scale and have never used more than 150gb in a month so far but we have less timezones to service than H2O <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Aea · November 2003

Think of it this way

1024 Kb/s / 8 = 128 KB/s

128 KB/s * 60 (seconds) * 60 (minutes) * 24 (hours) * 30.5 (days) = 337,305,600 = 337 GB (I think)

1000 / 337 = ~3

128 * 3 = 384 KB/s = 3072 Kb/s

384 / 5 = 96

If your server is full 24/7 you can have 96 players, but I did get something wrong for sure :|

GoPeDeRiCk · November 2003

Server matrix doesn't calculate their bandwidth right, and it goes in ur favor. I used to run two 32 player cs servers on a 2.4ghz box have i never went over 384GB in fact, it was always stuck at 384GB of usage and never went over.

BigBull · November 2003

G00D <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

I should get it in about 2 hours or now. I ordered it yesterday. You guys will ocme play right? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> www.nsarmslab.com

Some Cool Plugs will be on it. Thanks guys for your expertise.

Server Soon, Specs.

Comments