Hey all,
I was just wondering how much RAM is needed for a Fully Functional PW Server, with all FBs Dungeons and so on open, also with no lags..
Would be nice to know (Yes I did look and not found anything as always lol.)
Just wondering..
Hey all,
I was just wondering how much RAM is needed for a Fully Functional PW Server, with all FBs Dungeons and so on open, also with no lags..
Would be nice to know (Yes I did look and not found anything as always lol.)
![[D@nte]'s Avatar](https://forum.ragezone.com/customavatars/avatar821773_1.gif "[D@nte]'s Avatar"){kind=avatar}
8GB+
For game- + web- and db-Server should make it w/o lags...
Ideal server is:
-8 cores intel 2.4 Ghz
-32 GB Ram + 16 GB Swap
Also near 1 TB hard drive to good support of db and store backups.
Mine is running fine with 7796MB ram actually. All maps running exept Arena1-Arena3 ( because adc arena is enough )
I would say for a 'test' server (or one that wont have a large number of people on it) 8GB of ram is ok. OFC ram usage goes up as more and more people connect. So if you're looking to use in a 'production environment' I would recommend NO LESS than 16GB of ram.Originally Posted by Trident
Hey all,
I was just wondering how much RAM is needed for a Fully Functional PW Server, with all FBs Dungeons and so on open, also with no lags..
Would be nice to know (Yes I did look and not found anything as always lol.)
my 'test' server is very, very small, a Virtualbox vm with only 2 gb of ram is enough to run the world map and a few instances with only me and a couple other people before it starts having to swap a lot...
Obviously you'd need more to do anything besides that...
-- Cores, not quite as important as some may think they are -- I would say anything between 2 and 24 cores is acceptable. (I'm soooo not getting into the intel vs amd debate/argument here!!!!) Also, clock speeds of the cores, really not too big a deal also. Everything in production now-a-days is of a rather decent 'speed'. There will be little to no difference if you decide to use CPUs with cores that have a clock speed of 3.0 instead of 2.4, or 2.2 instead of 2.4.
-- Ram, IS VERY important (probably one of the most important things aside bandwidth)! It also depends on exactly 'how' you plan on 'using' your server too. I would recommend using NO LESS than 8GB (to run all maps services etc.) for a very small or 'test' server. I would recommend using NO LESS than 16GB for a 'production environment' application where you intend on decent volumes of simultaneous connections. If you intend on having a very high volume of concurrent connections I would recommend using NO LESS than 32GB of ram. If you plan on having as many connections as say 'official' PWi, then you should use no less than 128GB of ram !!!
-- HDD, really does not have to be gargantuan. The DBs are rather decently efficient. I would say either two 146GB drives or two 300GB drives would be more than adequate... I'd say "you'll never use an entire TB"! (@ivanaivana you should NEVER keep what you're backing up, on the same drive it resides on -- then what will you do when the drive itself fails [and ALL drives eventually fail])...
-- BANDWIDTH, If you're running a server for a decent/large amount of people (other than at a LAN party) -- I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH -- BANDWIDTH -- is the MOST important thing! If you do not have excellent BANDWIDTH your server will suffer no matter how 'cutting edge' the server itself is (CPU,Ram etc...)! The most important aspect of your bandwidth, being a SERVER, is your UPLOAD speeds more-so than your download speeds. Most residential ISP do not advertise upload speeds because, well, a lot of people don't know the fucking difference between UPloading and DOWNloading - LMAO. So, the more people you intend on being able to simultaneously connect the faster your UPload / UPlink will have to be. If I am not mistaken you should a-lot approximately 64 kbit/s per simultaneous user -- THAT'S what YOUR UPLOAD speed should be...
example: lets say you have an internet connection that is 4 Mbit/s upload speed. Using the above 'formula' you will see that a 4 Mbit/s uplink connection would allow you to have approximately 62.5 simultaneous users connected (anything more than that and I can guarantee you will start running into problems).
Code:4 Mbit/s = 4,000 kbit/s 4,000 / 64 = 62.5 users
You don't quite need 64 kbit/s all the time, but I do say it is a decent average, even the cheapest server bandwidths available is at least 10 Mbit/s which will get you enough for 150ish people, I strongly recommend you get at least a 100 Mbit/s. (EC2 is even faster then that, since you don't pay for speed, you pay for use)
Where i get that .5 user from ? Is he/she afk ?
Your calculation is not correct. I had mah testserver at home with an uploadspeed of 500 kbit/s only. we had ~20 people on it without any lags.
I personally always like to go with 'high estimates' to 'be safe'. I'm guessing your personal experience wasn't too bad, but I'm also willing to bet 20 simultaneous connections to a server with 500 kbit/s upstreams was 'pushing it's limits'...Where i get that .5 user from ? Is he/she afk ?
Your calculation is not correct. I had mah testserver at home with an uploadspeed of 500 kbit/s only. we had ~20 people on it without any lags.
Like Das said, a single connection isn't going to always be using the maximum of 'what it could be'... But if for any reason all concurrently connected clients were utilizing 100% of their 'theoretical' limits, 20 users on a 500 kbit/s would probably become quite laggy. Even though this may be very highly unlikely, why 'chance' it :?
I do suppose you could use 56 kbit/s instead of 64 kbit/s for this calculation...
As you can see using 56 kbit/s instead of 64 kbit/s for the same 4 Mbit/s connection goes from 62.5 users - 71.4 users (just using technical math, I would say 63 users and 72 users respectively)Code:4 Mbit/s = 4,000 kbit/s 4,000 / 56 = 71.4 users
So, may it even be possible that you could 'squeeze' 100 players (or more) onto a server with a 4 Mbit/s uplink... Maybe, however it depends on who is at what load... The number one thing you should never even attempt to 'estimate', because we never know how who is gonna play... Same theory behind game testers, and why companies that develop games hire them. Developers could never imagine all the which ways people will play their games... So if I *knew* I was expecting 100 people, I would probably not use or even try to use a 4 Mbit/s connection, because I would never be able to guess or know how they will all play. God forbid they all did something at the same time that would put them all under 'full load'; the server would start to lag pretty bad. That's the only thing to attempt to avoid, because that is what will keep people 'happy'. Thus why I always 'play it safe' and use 'high estimates' ;)
---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------
...and don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to find out my estimates are 'way too high' -- even to be 'high estimates', because then I would just run my server (when and if I do open one) from my house =D
we havenot such of ram but 30gb scsi raid0 swap
@343
It was more a joke. For sure those 20 people were not doing skills and such all the same time. we were just standing there chatting. What im not sure about is this scenario:
One of the GMs spawned 6000 Harpies on one place. My grafics lagged me to hell but the server PC didnt even use 1 MB ram more than before. This is strange because im sure the server PC had to do more calculations etc at this time. All that went up was CPU usage to 80% on one core ( its a quad 2.4 )
For your calculation of bandwith i whould use an average kbit + 10 so its on the secure side. But thats just my opinion.
As far as spawning or having 6000 harpies in one place, it really doesn't add too much 'duty' to the server. As you said, it yes needs to calculate more things now (such as their hp level agro etc), but really it's a persons client that would suffer, because now the client has to render 6000 harpies in one place (same theory as to why many people, even with good computers, sometimes still get 'lag' in the west district in PWi, because there are soooo many bloody cat shops to render etc)...
This is also my further proof that bandwidth means more than anything. Because the CPU or ram usage isn't going to change a whole hell of a lot even if the number of concurrent connections does. The only thing that does matter in this area is... * bandwidth * =D
As far as 'safe' bandwidth calculations, unfortunately I myself have never actually 'tested' how much a single PW client => server connection utilizes. I have been going by things that I have read in this board... So based off of previous discussion on this matter I (unless or until I test it for myself) 'guess' that using either 56 kbit/s or 64 kbit/s per client would be a rather 'safe' calculation to use :)
I suggest a cluster ;)
Never checked the traffic but i guess its not that many. Sure it depends on the action performed but its not more that telling the client what to show. 99% is client side like graphics and stuff. As far as i understand that server it just sends small bits like hp, location and stuff and thats not very much in binary format and the client just says ok or gives feedback like ok. ( When you have heavy lag then you can see all you have done in a rush so it seems that the client really just says "ok, doing that now" and not gibing back any data like hp value and stuff ) Now lets just play a bit with that. Server says: Position x,y,z/ Playersname / HP / MP / Vigor / monstername / hp of monster / Monsters position x,y,z / Buffs and Debuffs which are just 2 bytes i think ... Now we kick that info in a file its very small so it will arrive in milliseconds even on a 28.8 old modem. Client says "ok" and is doing the graphics job.
Thats why i think its not that much bandwith but sure, i dont know what the hell that server is talking with the client. Just that what i think its doing
for traffic i have 700-1000 user/days, not more then 35Mbps ( Megabit )
need 32 or 48GB of ram to solved all problem ( dupe / map crash ), processor not much help...
Last edited by vixio_dv; 10-03-11 at 10:49 PM.
Lol. Tried PW server ( just main map ) on mah eTRAYz and it works fine with only 128 mb RAM and 6 GB swap
Hope it will not burn that little NAS cpu in therebut for now its running fine on LAN. ( 1 player only
Oh and sure this is just a test. Will delete that later. Just wanted to see if it is running at all
the problem will come if you alrady have much character on your database.Lol. Tried PW server ( just main map ) on mah eTRAYz and it works fine with only 128 mb RAM and 6 GB swap
Hope it will not burn that little NAS cpu in there
Oh and sure this is just a test. Will delete that later. Just wanted to see if it is running at all
I tried that with a fresh install. But im surprised that this little CPu can handle it at all.
Here are the specs of it btw:
Spoiler:
The problems come when you run out of swap. It happened to us with 8gb ram and 2gb swap. All instances running and around 30~40 players. Suddenly a map crashes, and most times it takes another process with it. If you get more swap it works, it just will become laggy if all maps are populated at the same time, which is very rare with <100 players.
Well obviously... hard drives (even ssds) are quite slow compared to RAM... For the people that don't know the MAIN bottleneck almost always is the secondary storage (which is HDDs, SSDs, w/e). 99% of the time the reason why a computer seems slow is because the CPU is just sitting around waiting on I/O
And 343, if you look at network use and isolate ONLY a PW client connection (or any client > server) connection the number one thing after bandwidth is latency, high ping is also bad. And your 64kbit/s isn't that far off from what is needed in a densely populated area (such as one with lots of mobs since server has to send shit tons of location updates) can use ~40kbit/s and just like you said, better safe then sorry...
Reply With Quote
