Cores will be assigned manually, current plan is pretty much: Core 0: TF2 + L4D2 16 player Core 1: TF2 + TF2 Core 2: L4D2 + Trackmania + pending Core 3: Pending
RAM will be managed by the OS. I hardly think I am going to blow 16GB. All will be running sourcemod for managment and the 16 slot L4D2 will need a few extras ofc. Running Windows Server 2008 R2. I was looking at TCAdmin as a serious candidate for management - It would allow rapid deployment and management of the servers, but I'm still tossing up over it :) @Synths: LAN isn't until July 9th, so I have plenty of time to test this all out - That is hy I am seeitng it all up now, I don't wanna spend the whole LAN managing whether my server is about to die. On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Androski, Matthew J (N-Maintech) <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you manually assigning the cores and ram usage or letting the servers > decide for themselves? Also what OS are you running and are you planning on > running any plugins or mods.... I have been acquiring server hardware for a > while now (dual X5550 Xeon server and a AMD Phenom x4 server) with a plan to > set up a large scale lan party in a setup that is mobile for far less setup > time. > > -Matt > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Bost > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 7:16 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds] TF2 Server Benchmarking > > Thanks for the info guys, much appreciated :) > > And now I can stop hunting down the source of my 45% choke on the LAN > server while testing it. Didn't realize bots were so CPU hungry > :yikes: (~45 FPS: 1 server with 1 human/31 bots) > > If anybody has benchmarks for similar setups though, I would still > like to see them if possible, though I'm thinking 3x24 player TF2 + 1 > stock + 1x16 player L4D2 server across 2 cores should run just fine > (There will be other servers on the other cores, Trackmania, UT, etc) > > Cheers, > > Joshua 'Dislexsick' Bost > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Saul Rennison <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Bots taken far, far more CPU cycles than real players. Even the best >> servers can only handle about 16 bots before they begin to lag... many >> GSPs ban the use of too many bots they're so resource intensive. >> >> On Friday, June 18, 2010, Josh Bost <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I'm preparing a server to be used at a local LAN party next month, the >>> server is pretty much enterprise specs (Dell PowerEdge 2950 - Intel >>> Xeon 5365, 16GB RAM, 6x146GB 15K RPM SAS drives in RAID-5) and I plan >>> to have several game servers running at once. I want to figure out >>> how many source servers I could run at once (Until now all my TF2 >>> servers have been through GSPs), and so I made a little benchmark - a >>> 32 man server, but since I can't populate that on my NAT'd (stupid >>> landlord, fml) ADSL2 connection I decided to stick 32 bots in it, >>> since I assume the AI would use just as many CPU cycles as a real >>> player. >>> >>> Anyway, onto the questions: >>> Has anybody tried this before? Does the benchmark given by running >>> bots translate easily into real world performance (Even if it is >>> something like take the CPU usage and multiply it by 1.5 to get an >>> approximation of how much a real player would use, etc)? >>> >>> I am only interested in CPU here, as that is the weak point of the >>> system (Allocating 500MB RAM to each server would give me 30 servers + >>> 1GB RAM to the Host OS, and there is no way I would need that much - >>> Similarly the RAID-5 Setup gives my 180-250MB/sec read speeds on the >>> HDD - Dual Gigabit NICs will do just fine for a LAN party) >>> >>> Alternatively, is anybody using a similar setup and could give me some >>> benchmarks for usage running TF2 (or L4D2, though it will only be >>> running one or two L4D2) servers? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Joshua 'Dislexsick' Bost >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>> >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> - Saul. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >> > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
