Stupid hardware question

[Quantos]

I figured this thread will help you get an idea of a few systems and how effective they are.

http://www.runuo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30888
Bandwidth is not too much of an issue but its still nice to have at least a Cable connection as Dial up shards generally can't be large.

Now, I am hoping to scrounge enough to get a new server.

I hope to get: Dual P4 Xeon Processors 2.4GHz (with HT, not that HT is really important with RunUO yet), with 1GB 400MHz DDR and a 2 Western Digital 36GB 10k rpm HD's with 8MB buffer and 5.2 ms seek time on a SATA 150 RAID Controller (and maybe a liquid cpu cooler and/or lots of fans) running WinXP pro

I imagine the save times will be damn fast and there will not be any lag whatsoever, even with all facets spawned and about 200+ players on. Maybe you will see a tiny bit of lag if all 200 + players are all hanging out at the bank, but I doubt it.... thats just a fast ass system... but not cheep.

You will never get 200+ players on a cable connection, maybe spend less on the server and more on the connection. Your logic is flawed.

 

[KillerBeeZ]

oh my, your dream system is overkill and a half. 1 i doubt runuo will ever be fully threaded 2 xeons are so not cost effective its not even funny.

kudos on the HD config, striping i assume?

raid 5 is amazing, add a 3rd drive to that dream and look into it.

i'm gonna stop watching this thread now... really.

lol no not overkill, as I said I also run a web server on the same machine, and while its not that cost effective, in this case it will affect the shard in extreme cases like 200 player CTF and such while serving the shard status page listing all players online to 20 or 40 people.

its a dream, I like my dream.

As for the raid yes raid 5 sounds good as its will reduce save times.

 

[Quantos]

KillerBeeZ, see my above post.

 

[KillerBeeZ]

You will never get 200+ players on a cable connection, maybe spend less on the server and more on the connection. Your logic is flawed.

my logic is fine, I get 8 MB down peak (4 to 6 MB common) and 512 KB up and in theory I can get 200 to 400 on with that, I HAVE had 100 to 200 people on a 256KB up connection in the past with the laptop and there wasn't that much lag.

I know how to build a shard that requires little data to be send to each client, its not that hard, you just don't add too many statics unless you also make a patch, dont add too many monsters in one area and the list goes on.

RunUO is great with bandwidth, they did a great job in creating it. Its the system thats the main issue and rightfully so considering what it needs to do.

Besides, a server is a one time fee, a connection is ongoing and damn expensive.

 

[Quantos]

Who is your cable provider, nobody in Canada offers that. Actually except for the outgoing you are surpassing T-3. I would doubt what you say without a little proof, I'm a born skeptic

 

[KillerBeeZ]

Who is your cable provider, nobody in Canada offers that. Actually except for the outgoing you are surpassing T-3. I would doubt what you say without a little proof, I'm a born skeptic

No not surpassing a T3 I believe thats like 56Mbits , but much faster than T1

I do have a correction tho, I meant 8Mb, not MB (big difference)

and I'm with Adelphia in Georgia USA

 

[burgle]

Well thank you all who have posted there advice, not sure who i will listen to lol but at least i have an idea.

 

[Quantos]

No not surpassing a T3 I believe thats like 56Mbits , but much faster than T1

I do have a correction tho, I meant 8Mb, not MB (big difference)

and I'm with Adelphia in Georgia USA

Shit man, I wish we had service here like that.

 

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

Shit man, I wish we had service here like that.

Feel free to ask Spider about Adelphia some time...

Besides, what's wrong with 3Mb DSL?

 

[Marcus247]

my kickass comp...

200 KHz
32 RAM
90MB Hard Drive

I host a shard that you could probally not log into... even if you waited 3 hours...

 

[KillerBeeZ]

Shit man, I wish we had service here like that.

most of the bandwidth for servers is upload, and while I can peak at 8Mb down, I am strictly limited to 512Kb up... (even so it is pretty high)

I'm out in the boonies, in a place where they just happen to have cable access, so, I'm on a hub with very few people, although it is growing real fast, I currently have maybe 30 people on my hub... a hub that Adelphia will likely one day put 300+ people on.

"Besides, what's wrong with 3Mb DSL?"

nothing at all, esp if its thats both up and down. if so, I'd take it over mine any day... like I said, upload is the key.

 

[Quantos]

most of the bandwidth for servers is upload, and while I can peak at 8Mb down, I am strictly limited to 512Kb up... (even so it is pretty high)

Cable here is limited to 512 upload as well, but that is peak, standard here is 256. Which sucks.

 

[KillerBeeZ]

Cable here is limited to 512 upload as well, but that is peak, standard here is 256. Which sucks.

well 256 is still better than 56

 

[BeTrayed]

Heck I wish Bandwidth was my problem.... I have a DUAL OC3 connection.. Yes I said OC3 (thats 310 Megs, for those who don't know). My problem is being able to program in C# .. ROFL.

Anyhow,

Upload is key, before I moved my server to my hosting facility I was getting lag times of 5 - 6 seconds with 25+ users on. I moved to my hosting facility and now I get roughly 2 - 3 seconds on saves. And I have YET to encounter ANY lag that is bandwidth caused.

p4 Dual Xeon Processors, 1 gig DDR 400 ram.

-----------Quick Note-----------
YES YES I use to be an Opteron pusher!! and YES my old server was Opteron, but I recently switched to Xeon and NO DONT ASK WHY!!!!
And you were right Ryan...(hates admitting he was wrong at something)
-----------/Quick Note-----------

--BeTrayed
http://www.wecentral.com