Single-player like server?

[Stormseeker442]

So I was playing on a multi-player server with my friend for about a month or two. He got bored unfortunately and turned off the server. However I really got used to the feeling of the server always being on. Such as the quarry going while at work or whatever the case may be.

Is it possible to do this with a single player, or does it have to be a server?
- I know you can just press the inventory button and it will still run, but is there any other way?

Thanks, and cheers^^.

 

[ItharianEngineering]

You could leave minecraft on all the time. otherwise nope. You could just run a server for yourself on a separate computer or something and never turn it off so you can have it always be on. Even if you had a server the server would have to be running constantly for it to work.

 

[Stormseeker442]

You could leave minecraft on all the time. otherwise nope. You could just run a server for yourself on a separate computer or something and never turn it off so you can have it always be on. Even if you had a server the server would have to be running constantly for it to work.

I take it the server cannot persist on the same computer. Unfortunately I highly doubt I'll have an extra computer for awhile.
I could understand the server not being on all the time.
- Thanks for the insight

 

[KhrFreak]

if your computer is good enough you could run it off your computer you'd just have to remember to close the server whenever you wanna turn off the comp and restart it upon turn on

 

[ItharianEngineering]

Yea, there is no reason you can't run the server off your own computer. However just having a separate computer you never/rarely turn off is easier. As long as you have a decent computer with a bit of ram you should be able to run it.

 

[KirinDave]

You can also run servers out of Amazon EC2. If you're only running with one person then you can easily get away with an m1.small size instance and the cost is exceptionally reasonable. And if you ever do want to scale it up to many people, you can do that. EC2 is not even that expensive, and it makes it trivial to snapshot the server.

 

[Budman]

PM Sent

 

[Omicron]

You can also run servers out of Amazon EC2. If you're only running with one person then you can easily get away with an m1.small size instance and the cost is exceptionally reasonable. And if you ever do want to scale it up to many people, you can do that. EC2 is not even that expensive, and it makes it trivial to snapshot the server.

I'm kind of wondering how you can call a service that costs almost $83 per month at minimum "not even that expensive", when dedicated Minecraft server hosting companies like Creeperhost sell you a completely sufficient server slot for £9 a month. Heck, for a singleplayer server, Creeperhost's £3 server would be enough, except that they don't allow mods on that plan (even though it would work, I've had 5 people on a 512 MB FTB server before). No amount of currency conversion shenanigans can even narrow that gap in any significant way...

Amazon EC2 is extremely cost efficient when you're booting up the instance on demand for an hour or three a day or so. As a 24/7 thing, like Stormseeker would need, it's utterly uncompetitive.

 

[Budman]

lowendbox.com talks about cheap vps's.

 

[KirinDave]

I'm kind of wondering how you can call a service that costs almost $83 per month at minimum "not even that expensive", when dedicated Minecraft server hosting companies like Creeperhost sell you a completely sufficient server slot for £9 a month.

You don't need an m1.medium to run a single player server. You can do it with a micro unless you start using world anchors, which ranges from $0-$15 depending on if you're still eligable for Free Tier service. That is why it can be cheap. If you are using a more complex world with >20 world anchors, I agree low-tier EC2 is not a good call.

M1.mediums are only for multiplayer servers. I rotunely have many players and multiple world anchors on my server, so yeah I pay a lot more. I can also host multiple servers there (so long as they don't BOTH fill up). My experience is this server is better in every way to the ones Minefold sold me on the cheap, and Amazon makes it very easy to spin down the instances and then spin them back up at need. For example, are you going on vacation? Turn that sucker off.

Amazon EC2 is extremely cost efficient when you're booting up the instance on demand for an hour or three a day or so. As a 24/7 thing, like Stormseeker would need, it's utterly uncompetitive.

I think the real draw of EC2 is that you can manage the server and they make pretty realistic performance promises. Lots of people give you utterly oversold virtualized instances that cause multiple server crashes, or have so heavily modified the minecraft server engine for virtualized environments (e.g., Minefold) that you can't do what you want to do.

But if you're in the UK, then I don't know what's cheapest for you. I just know that $83/mo for a box I am using for multiple things besides just minecraft is just fine, given that my server has seen >15 players at once and not had any significant problems, whereas most of the hosted services I've tried weep at >6 people.