That would be great. I'm very good with technology, but I haven't followed the hardware scene nearly closely enough the last 2-3 years to know what would be best. I liked the 1u form factor for a rack mount because I can shove it under something provided it had decent airflow. I would say my budget is 350 bucks tops at this point unless I can get some more members to chip in. If you can help me spec a build that could support a handful of maps that would be great. I'll type more coherently tomorrow when I've had some sleep.
Server hardware discussion. Any server Owner Must Read !
- Thread starter Greedseed
- Start date
PCPartsPicker did not have server chassis and frankly a desktop chassis should fine and might actually be cheaper. This is basically a good low - med end server with a modern processor, a solid state drive, 16 gigs of memory and a modest case and power supply.
It does come out to roughly $500 with shipping though, and there isn't much to be done about that. You could swap the SSD for a normal 500gb HDD and save around $50, but the performance gains for things like chunk loading are massive. You could save another $50 by going with only 8 gigs of memory instead of 16. I would suggest getting some donations until you have enough for this box with the SSD and 8 gigs of memory, it will be quite snappy and I am sure its more powerful than anything a place like Creeperhost would rent you.
Edit: Almost forgot the link: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/18Dkq
It does come out to roughly $500 with shipping though, and there isn't much to be done about that. You could swap the SSD for a normal 500gb HDD and save around $50, but the performance gains for things like chunk loading are massive. You could save another $50 by going with only 8 gigs of memory instead of 16. I would suggest getting some donations until you have enough for this box with the SSD and 8 gigs of memory, it will be quite snappy and I am sure its more powerful than anything a place like Creeperhost would rent you.
Edit: Almost forgot the link: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/18Dkq
Now if I could just get good networking without breaking the bank then I could have my own before summer end. But man they are crap ton of money just to collocation for the decent bandwidth. They come about at 45 to 60 dollars a pop every month just for 10mbps worth of bandwidth. I just wished I could just solely get more upload speed on my regular internet and just hook up the server in my house to bring the cost done. But as far as I know it's doesn't exits.
yea but still 45 dollars a pop per month is still steep, may as well get a dedicated server for not much more per month. I have no idea why it's so expensive to even run a server from your own server cause of the bandwidth. If anything you should actually be paying way Less money per month than hosting counterparts.
Managed Machine
Dual Core 2.4ghz Intel
8gb's DDR2 maby 1066?
500gb HDD Sata (not 6gig)
No GPU
64bit Debian Server Linux.
Also runs a rarely used apache web server, and mySQL for back when i had block logging.
i run on a gigabit internal network, external upload is around 10mb/s download between 50-70(speed tested)
Now as for my actual minecraft server i could handle 10 on the ultimate pack. World Generation's a bit slow when everyone's playing at once. Probably due to the fact that i don't have an SSD. But other than that, it runs VERY well. Its my brothers old Gamming PC, so i got it on the cheap.
I don't know many other people who actually run there MC server on "Managed Machine" as you call it, either way its still 100% Dedicated Server. Just Curious if anyone else runs Managed and what they are running and how it runs for them.
Dual Core 2.4ghz Intel
8gb's DDR2 maby 1066?
500gb HDD Sata (not 6gig)
No GPU
64bit Debian Server Linux.
Also runs a rarely used apache web server, and mySQL for back when i had block logging.
i run on a gigabit internal network, external upload is around 10mb/s download between 50-70(speed tested)
Now as for my actual minecraft server i could handle 10 on the ultimate pack. World Generation's a bit slow when everyone's playing at once. Probably due to the fact that i don't have an SSD. But other than that, it runs VERY well. Its my brothers old Gamming PC, so i got it on the cheap.
I don't know many other people who actually run there MC server on "Managed Machine" as you call it, either way its still 100% Dedicated Server. Just Curious if anyone else runs Managed and what they are running and how it runs for them.
I'm running FTB Ultimate on a i3 @ 2.93 with 8GB DDR3 @ 1600 Mhz + Sata disk + Java 64bit (Win 2008 R2 - runs IIS and a few other services as well) and it runs just fine (never really had issues and ran Bukkit before FTB).
Only issue I'm having is with Applied Energistics... whenever i craft a recipe (through the mass fabricator: 4 cpu's + 4 pattern providers) which will use my automated (and 8x overclocked) macerator(s) + elec. furnace(s) i get screen/movement-jitter.
I't not lag really (can't really check PING as im in the same network) and a steady spike in the Minecraft Server window (stats part) does show, but no real load seems to be processed (also dedicated 6GB to the server with a step-in of 1GB) plus the physical serverload is on 25% of the CPU and it never tops its assigned RAM amount, but rather fluxuates around 250mb to 1600mb (even when idle due to a chunkloader i guess - set at square: 2).
Am i looking at a client or network/server issue here?
Client: win7 i7-3770 with 16GB RAM + GTX560 Ti Twin Frozer - Network: 1GBps - Java 64bit
If anyone feels they should reply to this Q, then go ahead, no rush, just my 2 cents
Honestly in 1.4.7 large AE networks could murder servers, even more so when it was doing autocrafting. One of the best solutions that all the big servers still on 1.4.7 is Tick Threading, without it there is almost no way to keep a big server from really bad tick lag.
https://github.com/nallar/TickThreading
https://github.com/nallar/TickThreading
Awesome tip! thanks
Running some tests now and once the server has settled there does seem to be an increase in performance.
Apparently i had allready come across Nallar's thread but didnt further investigated it yet as i was hacking away at the BAT that launches the server.
I got a minor performance boost out of tinkering, and reading java docs/threads @_@, with that using par's like: -XX
arallelGCThreads=2 and -XX:+AggressiveOpts; doubting if i should use -XX:+UseLargePages in combination with -XX:LargePageSizeInBytes=? as i cant seem the pagesizeinbytes for my setup, so i'll probably leave it out so it reverts to default.Thanks for directing me in the right direction
Seph
Best policy for JVM arguements is don't use them if you aren't sure they will help.
If the screen is still jittering, there should be this option in AppliedEnergistics.cfg
####################
# graphics
#===================
# Adjust Visual quality of complicated rendering.
####################
graphics {
B:gfxCableAnimation=true
B:gfxDrivesHighDef=true
}
Try turning the cable animation to false.
If the screen is still jittering, there should be this option in AppliedEnergistics.cfg
####################
# graphics
#===================
# Adjust Visual quality of complicated rendering.
####################
graphics {
B:gfxCableAnimation=true
B:gfxDrivesHighDef=true
}
Try turning the cable animation to false.
Sorry for the late reply, RL got in the way
Turned the animations off, no noticeable improvements, but every bit helps i guess
I did fix a bit of noobness on my part, mainly the extra energy storage in the IC2 machines i was running with 8 OC's all hooked up to AE xD
Those things were processing just fine, but every processed dust/ingot just drained the machine completely, got refilled instantly and then drained again... do that with a couple of stacks x the amount of machines... doesn't help much
I mightve gone a bit overkill in my first FTB survival world (having turtles and quarys dig for you gives you a whole lotta time!) so tuning that back down a bit (not using 6 OC'd furnaces or centrifuges to generate copper from lava
) will give us some more breathing room xD2 reactors @ 2k EU/t with auto-repairing LZH condensators pumping into 4 banks of 8 MFSU's each keeps everything running just fine ^_^ ... god i love this new stuff, so much to do!!
I might hop on to 1.5 now that Direwolf and FTB have released some new packs, but seeing as RP2 and some other mods we've come to enjoy aren't yet in there i might hold if off.
We'll see, still have to try them out.
Thanks for all the help, it gave me some more understanding on the inner workings of the server/code
I run a Managed Server for myself, my 2 daughters, and their 2 friends. So 5 of us. 3 on the home network, the other 2 from their own homes. Vanilla and Tekkit run great. But we wanted to try FTB.
Since installing Unleashed there have been what I can only determine to be 'lag' issues. Blocks not breaking straight away (reappearing), mobs suddenly speeding up, etc. Even though my PC says it's running at 125fps.
The server itself is my old PC. Dell XPS420. 4GB ram (that's the max the MB with take). CPU is pre-i3 (but I can remember what it is).
I'd like to upgrade the hardware, and utilise another old PC to save on peripheral bits.
I'm thinking along the lines of Intel i3, 8GB ram, a small SSD. The server will only be used for Minecraft, and probably only for the existing 5 players.
Do you think this will be a high enough spec to make sure all players have a smooth experience? Would you recommend i5, or 16GB ram, etc.
Thanks in advance.
Indie.
Since installing Unleashed there have been what I can only determine to be 'lag' issues. Blocks not breaking straight away (reappearing), mobs suddenly speeding up, etc. Even though my PC says it's running at 125fps.
The server itself is my old PC. Dell XPS420. 4GB ram (that's the max the MB with take). CPU is pre-i3 (but I can remember what it is).
I'd like to upgrade the hardware, and utilise another old PC to save on peripheral bits.
I'm thinking along the lines of Intel i3, 8GB ram, a small SSD. The server will only be used for Minecraft, and probably only for the existing 5 players.
Do you think this will be a high enough spec to make sure all players have a smooth experience? Would you recommend i5, or 16GB ram, etc.
Thanks in advance.
Indie.
For 5 players, 8GB of RAM and a SSD will be plenty, the cpu is going to be your bottleneck. The i3 will probably work, but if you don't mind spending the little bit of extra cash, the i5 has turboboost (the i3 doesn't) and a larger cache...I'd choose the i5 if the extra $40-$50 isn't an issue.
Thanks for the info, Staxed. If the i3 "will probably work" then I don't have a problem with getting the i5 instead. I'd hate to set it up only to find that a couple more friends want to play and it starts to lag again.
I read somewhere in this thread that 120GB SSD is enough for MC, so it looks like I have enough info to go ahead and click "BUY".
Thanks again,
Indie.
You'd be good with a 64GB (or smaller), 120GB is definately more than you'll ever need if it's just a private server (in case you want to save a bit on a smaller SSD).
Does that include installing the OS on the same SSD?
Edit : Also, do I need to consider this new Haswell chip, or will the cheapest i5 be ok?
The cheapest i5 will be ok, though you can't go wrong with newer
.What OS are you going to be using? Is this going to be used for something else, or just a dedicated MC machine? If just MC...install linux on that bad boy and yeah, 64GB will be fine. If you are going to use windows, I'd get the 120 just to play it safe.
The cheapest i5 will be ok, though you can't go wrong with newer
What OS are you going to be using? Is this going to be used for something else, or just a dedicated MC machine? If just MC...install linux on that bad boy and yeah, 64GB will be fine. If you are going to use windows, I'd get the 120 just to play it safe.
Initially it will just be for MC. Although at some point I'll probably let my parents have it (They've done enough for me lol).
And I'll probably put Windows 7 on it, just to keep it the same as the other machines in the house. Never tried Linux before.