[DAWG-DAKOTADAWG]

Considering there's no definitive guide, or anything remotely approaching it, to server system requirements, and I'm looking for that information, could someone with admin experience fill me in on the requirements for UrT servers?

I've heard anywhere from 100mb to 300mb ram overhead, not much for processor consumption, and virtually nothing about actual bandwidth consumption. I'm going to assume that the bandwidth consumption is negligible, but CPU usage must be more than that.

I've heard that virtualized servers don't work well, due to the lag caused by the virtualization process. Does anyone have any experience with that?

So, if you've got any advice on the actual hardware requirements for a server, please post!

Thanks

— [DSG]DAKOTADAWG

[|P|Nitro]

DAKOTADAWG, on 26 September 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

Considering there's no definitive guide, or anything remotely approaching it, to server system requirements, and I'm looking for that information, could someone with admin experience fill me in on the requirements for UrT servers?

I've heard anywhere from 100mb to 300mb ram overhead, not much for processor consumption, and virtually nothing about actual bandwidth consumption. I'm going to assume that the bandwidth consumption is negligible, but CPU usage must be more than that.

I've heard that virtualized servers don't work well, due to the lag caused by the virtualization process. Does anyone have any experience with that?

So, if you've got any advice on the actual hardware requirements for a server, please post!

Thanks

— [DSG]DAKOTADAWG

If you are running a Linux server then 64MB ram per server instance should suffice. However I generally like to allocate a minimum of double that so that there is room for expansion.

bandwidth is determind by your users - my 32 man server uses 2Mbit/s constant when full.

Virtual Machine should be kept out of the loop if possible. However if its a must I would recommend KVM > http://www.linux-kvm.../page/Main_Page it utilises hardware virtualisation such as Intel VT and AMD-V I use to host my websites. However although it is possible to get a nice setup with KVM and low pings generally the timming cycles on KVM cause problems and create artificial lag or stuttering however I have seen worse when connecting to these new 64 player servers LOL.

for the cpu I would use the best available to you URT likes to use the cpu a lot - its very cpu intensive compared to other games.

[FS |HSO|RaideR]

Nitro's answer was better :D

[|P|Nitro]

RaideR, on 26 September 2010 - 11:30 PM, said:

Nitro's answer was better :D

you could have still left your reply in there with the bit about Hard Drive usage I thought that was a good point to make.

As you said most servers nowadays like to run "other" services in the background, such as websites, databases, server bots, and lots of logging which can increase - cpu usage, memory usage and worse of all hard drive IO activity.

[oK|tomparis]

Only one server running 64 people, mine. It is on a dedicated box, quad core, 8 gigs of ram. Server uses 1000-1500GB of BW a month, 5-8mbps per second. If you have an older machine, yes you will lag, and a few of the smaller maps do spike alittle, but that has to do with all the grenades and respawning. Other than that most maps im running are completely lag free on server side, all depends on the clients computer/stability of their connection. Rate 25K and maxpackets 42 and you should be just fine. 64 players uses about 80 percent of one core. 20 Percent of a quad core

[|P|Nitro]

tomparis, on 07 October 2010 - 09:11 AM, said:

Only one server running 64 people, mine. It is on a dedicated box, quad core, 8 gigs of ram. Server uses 1000-1500GB of BW a month, 5-8mbps per second. If you have an older machine, yes you will lag, and a few of the smaller maps do spike alittle, but that has to do with all the grenades and respawning. Other than that most maps im running are completely lag free on server side, all depends on the clients computer/stability of their connection. Rate 25K and maxpackets 42 and you should be just fine. 64 players uses about 80 percent of one core. 20 Percent of a quad core

Well seeing since this game does not support multi core 80 percent of one core is extremely high I would not be surprised if that's what's causing your lag spike issues and the fact the server is trying to track 64 player interactions. Plus you also have to remember about what your clients have to process on their screen is more than the server itself, so if your server hits 80% on 1 core of a quad then you can pretty much gaurantee a lot of players will not have an enjoyable experience playing on your server since a lot of people still play this game on hardware as old as 7-8 years and laptops with discrete graphics and your packing them into small maps with 64 players firing projectiles all over the place. Its bad even with 32 players nevermind 64.. How you can say there is no lag is unbelievable.. and I believe you failed to consider other things such as hardware lag and graphics lag.

oh and btw recheck your server list > there is atleast three 64 player servers i know of.

This post has been edited by nitro: 07 October 2010 - 12:01 PM

[Diggs]

tomparis, on 07 October 2010 - 09:11 AM, said:

Only one server running 64 people, mine.

Which is why the server just about clears all players between every map. Coupled with the "command cycled out" and "parse server message" errors on your server, just staying connected for any length of time is a challenge. Don't get me wrong. There are some skilled players on your server and when it isn't so busy it is not a bad place to game, but just because the server is stable, doesn't mean the clients trying to game on it are. It also seems that unless you are around, haxors pretty well have their way.

[Zamy]

I have servers on a linux machine, and i let it use about 200Mb for every game server

[|P|Nitro]

Zamy, on 08 October 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

I have servers on a linux machine, and i let it use about 200Mb for every game server

I have plenty of ram in my server to give each of my game servers 1000MB but it wont use it so it would be pointless to allocate it. I have never seen a URT server go beyond 128MB so its safe to use that. There is no performance boost gained by giving it 200MB over 128MB.

[Rambetter]

I just wanted to chime in regarding a comment above which explained something about a 64 slot server. Having a quad core machine for running a very full server isn't really going to help. The ioquake3 is a single-threaded process that isn't able to use more than one core. So, I _do_ have a quad core server, but I also have 6 lag-free UrT server instances running on it (but with much less than 64 max slots). The cores are there to handle lots of separate servers, but not one huge mongo server.