Hardware/Software Questions

[zartanian]

Hardware/Software Questions

I just decided to put my shard on a server that I purchased a few month ago for this project.

I am looking for some comments if there should be any concerns with performance or software configurations.

Operating System Windows Sever 2k3 Enterprise
I am running a firewall client blocking all ports except 2593

Dell Power Edge 1750 Blade Server
CPU: Dual 2.8 Xeons
RAM: 8 Gig

 

[WeEzL]

You shouldn't have a problem with performance, but I do have a question regarding why you would choose a blade server. Do you have other projects going on at the same time that require the use of other blades? Or did you purchase a blade to be co-located in a blade server somewhere?

 

[zartanian]

I have a room dedicated to my servers. Just easier to slide a blade into a rack then put a stander pedestal/tower on the floor.

Any comments on the software/firewall?

 

[WeEzL]

What size of shard are you planning on with that powerful a server?

What's your internet connection supplying that shard?

 

[Lord_Greywolf]

well you may need to free a few other ports if you are planing on using pandora's box or UO architech - they use a couple of ports also

but otherwise - your server should run preetty good on there

just make sure you use one the SVN's - because rc1 of 2.0 has a bug that maxes out the pentium based cpu's (does not effect AMD's at all)

 

[zartanian]

What size of shard are you planning on with that powerful a server?

What's your internet connection supplying that shard?

Shard size well that is a hard one. I would like to see 1500-2000 players maybe more.

I know it will start off small 10-15 players and hopefully grow over time.

Internet speed: 30 Mbps down and 5Mbps for uploads.

 

[WeEzL]

Shard size well that is a hard one. I would like to see 1500-2000 players maybe more.

I know it will start off small 10-15 players and hopefully grow over time.

Understandable. If there's one piece of advice I'd like to impart it's to keep your sights set real low. Few (extremely few) grow to large and/or huge proportions. The 10-15 players may have to be acceptable for you for a significant period in the future before things actually start growing.... this is the general trend at least.

Internet speed: 30 Mbps down and 5Mbps for uploads.

Impressive... what sort of link do you have? Cable?

 

[zartanian]

well you may need to free a few other ports if you are planing on using pandora's box or UO architech - they use a couple of ports also

but otherwise - your server should run preetty good on there

just make sure you use one the SVN's - because rc1 of 2.0 has a bug that maxes out the pentium based cpu's (does not effect AMD's at all)

From within my internal network I have dedicated one IP address to have full access to the server to make changes to the shard. I just assumed that there would be no need for an outside client/player to need access to any other port. Please emphasize on why these ports might be required opened if lets say you wanted to play on my shard.

I am running RUNUO 1.0 until the official release of 2.0 is delivered. I read allot of mixed feelings on 1.0 or 2.0 beta. I just felt safer using 1.0 for a production/player shard.

 

[zartanian]

Impressive... what sort of link do you have? Cable?[/QUOTE]

Cable

This is a link to there site if you want to check it out

Optimum

 

[Lord_Greywolf]

pandora's box allows you to have your custom monsters & items usabale by your gm's from it via the "box server" - so this can be an advantage for them
it uses port 8035 i believe

UO Architec allows Admin to add, design and copy buildings on the shard (which later can be frozen, etc) - it uses port 2594

As for 1.0 vs 2.0 - i strongly suggest using a SNV of 2.0, because otherwise when you do go to upgrade to 2.0 later on - you will be having a player and item wipe because of the drastic changes between them
(or doing a lot of extra work in preparing it for it - like modifying all the base weapons, armor, players, etc to conform with 2.0 format - and even then having wipes and replacements for them)
and most players once on a shard for 3 months to a year (resonable projection until 2.0 final comes out) will not like to have everything wiped out

 

[zartanian]

pandora's box allows you to have your custom monsters & items usabale by your gm's from it via the "box server" - so this can be an advantage for them
it uses port 8035 i believe

UO Architec allows Admin to add, design and copy buildings on the shard (which later can be frozen, etc) - it uses port 2594

As for 1.0 vs 2.0 - i strongly suggest using a SNV of 2.0, because otherwise when you do go to upgrade to 2.0 later on - you will be having a player and item wipe because of the drastic changes between them
(or doing a lot of extra work in preparing it for it - like modifying all the base weapons, armor, players, etc to conform with 2.0 format - and even then having wipes and replacements for them)
and most players once on a shard for 3 months to a year (resonable projection until 2.0 final comes out) will not like to have everything wiped out

I was thinking that same thing for a while. but changed my mind after reading a few posts. I recall one person have some little problem and getting scolded because 2.0 was no supposed to be used on a live shard. I just did not want to be the guy at the other end of the bashing because of a minor problem.

Can I assume you are useing 2.0 beta on your live shard?

 

[Khaz]

As for 1.0 vs 2.0 - i strongly suggest using a SNV of 2.0, because otherwise when you do go to upgrade to 2.0 later on - you will be having a player and item wipe because of the drastic changes between them
(or doing a lot of extra work in preparing it for it - like modifying all the base weapons, armor, players, etc to conform with 2.0 format - and even then having wipes and replacements for them)
and most players once on a shard for 3 months to a year (resonable projection until 2.0 final comes out) will not like to have everything wiped out

Er...I upgraded a four-year old server to RunUO 2.0 without any wiping (except hair ). If you understand serialization, you can fix it should a problem arise. And you should understand serialization, since it is a large player in so much of RunUO.

I'd recommend RunUO 2.0 because it is highly optimized, improved, and more efficient overall than 1.0.

 

[Khaz]

I recall one person have some little problem and getting scolded because 2.0 was no supposed to be used on a live shard. I just did not want to be the guy at the other end of the bashing because of a minor problem.

It's not that you're "not supposed to" use RunUO 2.0 on a production server. It's definitely stable, it's definitely improved over 1.0. But it is not a final release. It's a release candidate. There are some bugs (see the RunUO bug tracker...), but if you stay up to date with the SVN publishes and you know how to fix issues that might arise, then you won't have a problem.

My server crashes maybe once every other month, and in the last six months, it has only crashed once due to a 2.0 issue that was fixed a couple days later.

 

[Lord_Greywolf]

i have very little problems with using svn 147 (rc1 did have a lot of bugs)

right now the only problem is the maps (different post) or if i do something wrong in my custom scripting - that can cause a crash

but a crash due to 2.0 itself, i have not had - all others crashes that i have had i tracked down and fixed, and it was from custom scripting

 

[mordero]

I like the set up, tbh. And yes you will want to download the latest SVN and compile the server yourself. Its stable and works fine, plus it reduces the amount of scripts you need to update in the future when its finally released...

 

[Asmir3]

160 is the newest runuo svn and it kicks but , btw zartanian nice computer and I think that server would kick but, its really nice.

i have very little problems with using svn 147 (rc1 did have a lot of bugs)

right now the only problem is the maps (different post) or if i do something wrong in my custom scripting - that can cause a crash

but a crash due to 2.0 itself, i have not had - all others crashes that i have had i tracked down and fixed, and it was from custom scripting

 

[zartanian]

just make sure you use one the SVN's - because rc1 of 2.0 has a bug that maxes out the pentium based cpu's (does not effect AMD's at all)

I was monitoring my CPU usage on a different system

Dual PIII 1000 MHz
Ram 1.5 gig

With RunUO 1.0 I was around 1%-7% with RunUO 2.0 50%-75%

I am unable to do any real testing under stress (with 100 clients logged) and this does concern me.

How much will the CPU usage increase with multiple clients connected?

For those of you using RunUO 2.0 can you give me some feedback on CPU usage with multiple clients connected?

If there is something I missed just smack me in the back of the head and let me know

 

[Malaperth]

I am lead to believe that the 2.0RC1 had some issues with cpu usage that have been addressed in the SVN.

 

[Khaz]

I am lead to believe that the 2.0RC1 had some issues with cpu usage that have been addressed in the SVN.

That's correct. I have two servers on one machine. The first is mine, which has been continually updated to the latest SVN publish. It's always had a constant 0-3% CPU usage.
The second is a friend's that had the same issue as you, zartanian. It would even go higher, eating up 100% of the CPU and lagging everyone in-game. Once updated to SVN 159 (160 wasn't published at the time), the CPU usage lowered.
It still spiked sometimes, which was strange since my server was using a similar core. I poked around and found that when I disabled the Reports engine (Scripts\Engines\Reports.cs), the CPU plummetted and both servers looked identical as far as resource usage was concerned.

Food for thought

 

[Lord_Greywolf]

cpu usage is based on the type of cpu, from what i have read through these threads

i have 2.3 ghz AMD and with 20 players on it uses from below 1% (shows as 0) to 2% and sometimes (rare) 3% usage - will spike from 10 to 25 during a save only

as for the pentium based ones - there was a bug in rc1 where it would spike to 100% and stay there - it was fixed in the svn's from what i have read