Here I made a short list:
http://forum.splatterladder.com/index.p ... st&p=14024
All maps are around 50MB or lower. The only exceptions are Storehouse, Springfield and (one version of) Helmsdeep.
ET Pro 3.2.2 beta test release 3
Moderators: Forum moderators, developers
-
Ragnar_40k
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:18 pm
- Location: Berlin, birthplace of the Döner
- Contact:
-
mortis
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:57 pm
- Location: at the center of the e-universe
- Contact:
Better too much RAM than too little. In the case of a short-term local system with plenty of memory, well, that's foolproof.
Yes, probably even in memory greedy Windows XP 128MB would be enough for most servers. Why leave it to chance? For a get-up-and-running server for a noob, it guarantees success. At Primer's ETpro we run a 256 MB hunk on a 30 slot server; that plus a DS3 means no server lag, not ever. We scrounged a few bucks and bought an extra 512MB DIMM so as to never have to worry about memory usage.
Your mileage may vary.
Besides, the memory allocation is only one small item in the scheme of getting a server up and running. Plus, I provided sample campaign, map rotation and server config files to get them started and understanding the whole process.
Just for you though, I put in a disclaimer suggesting that memory amounts from 128MB and up basically assure success. With 1GB on my home system and 880MB available, I'm pretty generous in the amount of RAM I dole out to applications.
--Mortis
Yes, probably even in memory greedy Windows XP 128MB would be enough for most servers. Why leave it to chance? For a get-up-and-running server for a noob, it guarantees success. At Primer's ETpro we run a 256 MB hunk on a 30 slot server; that plus a DS3 means no server lag, not ever. We scrounged a few bucks and bought an extra 512MB DIMM so as to never have to worry about memory usage.
Your mileage may vary.
Besides, the memory allocation is only one small item in the scheme of getting a server up and running. Plus, I provided sample campaign, map rotation and server config files to get them started and understanding the whole process.
Just for you though, I put in a disclaimer suggesting that memory amounts from 128MB and up basically assure success. With 1GB on my home system and 880MB available, I'm pretty generous in the amount of RAM I dole out to applications.
--Mortis
-
RoadKillPuppy
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:21 am
- Location: Belgium!
- Contact:
-
maarten144
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:14 am
- Location: its me g-man
-
mortis
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:57 pm
- Location: at the center of the e-universe
- Contact:
On my home system during LAN parties on Windows XP, I just use the task manager and remote desktop. I usually just monitor overall system resources rather than Wolfy specifically. Our public server is running on Linux, and I have a webpage that continuously reports memory usage and server stats.RoadKillPuppy wrote:Is there a way to monitor the hunk-usage?
rrd-style graphs usually say more then a 1000 words or calculations....
As debated above, I have never seen major spikes in memory usage, even when running a large number of player slots, and I have not min/maxxed the ideal Windows XP memory usage. Maybe I'll look into testing some empty / full server comparisons so that we can get some substantial, proven data for XP.
The main reasons that I overassign RAM to my applications are:
I have plenty of spare memory.
Windows likes memory. Lots of memory.
I have read the full-scale server guide and it's memory recommendations. I then doubled it to make sure that I would be free and clear. Later on I got to thinking that so long as I am not running other applications, why not just let it use as much memory as I can spare?
I hate disk-swapping. I don't like to cut memory usage even remotely close to the minimum. Step away from the virtual memory and come out with your hands up!
As I understand it, setting the hunk assigns the amount of memory available to the server for all its functions. I also increased zoneMegs and soundMegs a little bit. Why? The server seems to perform better when set higher than the minimums. I'm nor sure why arni thinks that noobs should spend endless hours finding the min-max point of memory usage for a LAN server they run for one weekend or something.
I also don't run more than three game servers on my 3000+ Athlon XP, because I don't like lag. I know there are server fiends who will put 3GB of RAM on their servers and run 50 different processes and set specific processor affinities and QoS priorities and, well, you get the idea. A noob, just starting out in the world of ded servers needs a simple, reliable, and understandable guide to get started. I despise M$ as much as the next guy, but last time I checked, that vast majority of end users (especially computing noobs or near-noobs) in the world are using Windows. And they can learn to do it without pretty pictures, too.
--Mortis
i've always found server info to be puzzling. i've often thought of getting a bargain server for my own use, be it webspace, game servers, storage, etc. it would be great to have a little "online home" for experiments and stuff. but i'd want it to be able to handle use as an actual game server.
for example: http://www.ev1servers.net/hosting/value.asp
i'd never consider paying a dime more than $100 USD per month, but would that box be able to handle 12 ppl on an ET server, for example? also, i'd want to play around with other games as well and at the same time. as well as using the box for websites. the sites would likely get minimal traffic, but if i was messing around with some php, i'd want it to not cause lag in the game servers...
can anybody give a bare minimum needed, hardware-wise? a 1.3 celeron and 512 megs of ram strikes me as pretty damn weak for anything more than a low-traffic website. but if i were to get a box, it'd have to be able to handle anything i was currently interested in - including game/voice servers.
for example: http://www.ev1servers.net/hosting/value.asp
i'd never consider paying a dime more than $100 USD per month, but would that box be able to handle 12 ppl on an ET server, for example? also, i'd want to play around with other games as well and at the same time. as well as using the box for websites. the sites would likely get minimal traffic, but if i was messing around with some php, i'd want it to not cause lag in the game servers...
can anybody give a bare minimum needed, hardware-wise? a 1.3 celeron and 512 megs of ram strikes me as pretty damn weak for anything more than a low-traffic website. but if i were to get a box, it'd have to be able to handle anything i was currently interested in - including game/voice servers.
Well, if you spread the cost of the box out over 12 months, you could buy a $1200, which wouldn't be too bad. If you really wanted, you could get a dual-processor motherboard and only buy one processor. Then, when your server gets sufficiently loaded, just toss in another processor and some more RAM, if needed.
I have a 667MHz Pentium III right now that can handle a 4 person ET game server (Never tried any higher due to bandwidth), with a small website running in the background that serves up several virtual hosts, some with PHP and there have been no problems. A 2GHz 64-bit Opteron would be plenty for anything small.
I have a 667MHz Pentium III right now that can handle a 4 person ET game server (Never tried any higher due to bandwidth), with a small website running in the background that serves up several virtual hosts, some with PHP and there have been no problems. A 2GHz 64-bit Opteron would be plenty for anything small.
Got any old idtech3 tutorials you made or saved? Send them my way.
notice i'm talking about a server i'll never see or touch 
upgrading means paying some schmuck an obscene amount of money for performing little to no work by sticking some ram in or whatever. and he can charge anything because he's my only option
i'd rather get a decent box up front. i'm just wondering how much horsepower a game server needs. i started a CS:S dedicated server on my home box and added 10 bots and let them play a while, as i did other things and kept an eye on CPU usage. never saw more than 20% on this athlon 64 3000+. dunno if real players use more than bots but i'd guess not. and i've seen major game server providers using older pc2100 ram, so i guess that's not an issue. perhaps HDD speed is? it would be nice if a junker would suffice, so you could spend the savings on bandwidth.
upgrading means paying some schmuck an obscene amount of money for performing little to no work by sticking some ram in or whatever. and he can charge anything because he's my only option
i'd rather get a decent box up front. i'm just wondering how much horsepower a game server needs. i started a CS:S dedicated server on my home box and added 10 bots and let them play a while, as i did other things and kept an eye on CPU usage. never saw more than 20% on this athlon 64 3000+. dunno if real players use more than bots but i'd guess not. and i've seen major game server providers using older pc2100 ram, so i guess that's not an issue. perhaps HDD speed is? it would be nice if a junker would suffice, so you could spend the savings on bandwidth.
Well, if that's the case, it might be better to just get it all up front. As for the harddrive, I'd suggest getting a nice new one that has a long warranty. So even if it does die, you won't have to pay for a new harddrive at the very least. Also, I didn't follow your link from before, so I didn't realize that you weren't talking about colocation (Which might prove cheaper, who knows!).
If you're planning on having a heavy load on the server, one good processor should be fine. I'd say go for a 2GHz processor, but only if you're sure you're going to need to handle extra traffic. To be honest, a webserver doesn't use that much CPU, even if it's a site that's all server parsed and is under constant use, as long as the constant use isn't a high load.
Back to the HDD, actual speed probably wouldn't be a problem. Most IDE drives would handle the loading of a map fine, and most loading of the rest of the game is only done on server start. A good way to go for maps that take a while to load would be to make a small ramdisk and load the maps from there using symlinks. Another great thing would be to load all files for the server into a ramdisk if you have the memory. This way even if the harddrive fails, you might get away without a second drive if all that is needed is loaded in memory.
If you're planning on having a heavy load on the server, one good processor should be fine. I'd say go for a 2GHz processor, but only if you're sure you're going to need to handle extra traffic. To be honest, a webserver doesn't use that much CPU, even if it's a site that's all server parsed and is under constant use, as long as the constant use isn't a high load.
Back to the HDD, actual speed probably wouldn't be a problem. Most IDE drives would handle the loading of a map fine, and most loading of the rest of the game is only done on server start. A good way to go for maps that take a while to load would be to make a small ramdisk and load the maps from there using symlinks. Another great thing would be to load all files for the server into a ramdisk if you have the memory. This way even if the harddrive fails, you might get away without a second drive if all that is needed is loaded in memory.
Got any old idtech3 tutorials you made or saved? Send them my way.
Surely the requirements of the biggest known map is a good enough recommendation. Even if you want a safety margin of 100% it "only" adds up to 140MB.mortis wrote:I'm nor sure why arni thinks that noobs should spend endless hours finding the min-max point of memory usage for a LAN server they run for one weekend or something.
(These "noob" admins also have to help their "noob" LAN players adjust their hunkmegs if they run huge maps, and with a good recommendation for the server they can use the same value for all clients.)