need help with CPU dedicated server

[hakimos00]

Hi,

 

i wanna rent a dedicated server to put 4 or 6 arma 3 servers but i have a prob to chose a good configuration for my Dedi S

thats why any help well be welcome :)

 

first one :                                         |                  second one                        |               third one

                                                        |                                                            |

AMD Opteron 6338P                       |             AMD Opteron 4386                 |     Intel Xeon E5-1620v2

12 core                                           |                  8 core                                 |                4 core
2,3 GHz                                           |              3,1 GHZ/ 3,5 GHZ                  |        3,7 GHz+/3,9 GHz+

                                                       |                                                             |

64 Go                                             |                    64Go                                |                  64 Go

                                                       |                                                            |

SSD                                                |                      SSD                               |                SSD

 

 

what better CPU for dedicated server & for arma 3  ?

 

THX

[Dwarfer]

Hi,

 

Well how many players do you want on each box ?

 

Arma3 if you want 60+ players you need Min 4 cores and IMHO the Xeon is going to give you good performance, However that is only 1 server.

 

If you looking for 10-20 players each a3 server will need 2 cores (Physical not HT). 

 

A3 needs raw speed so I wonder about the base speed of the 6338P.

 

Either way 4-6 server I think you are losing before you start.. 

[Darth_Rogue]

I seriously doubt you will be able to run even 4 servers on the same box and be able to provide any kind of smooth playing experience for your guests. Personally I would recommend cutting your expectations in half and you should be ok as long as you take appropriate steps to ensure proper CPU prioritization.

[hakimos00]

at least 3 servers & 50 players each

[Dwarfer]

hakimos00

 

I think you will be pushing 3 server with 50 players.. 2 maybe OK if you don't plan on running any AI mission systems and just base Epoch..

 

Thanks

[hakimos00]

hakimos00

 

I think you will be pushing 3 server with 50 players.. 2 maybe OK if you don't plan on running any AI mission systems and just base Epoch..

 

Thanks

 

thx for reply but what configuration i need to run 2 server with 50 player  each & ai mission too ? :)

[second_coming]

thx for reply but what configuration i need to run 2 server with 50 player  each & ai mission too ? :)

To do that you would need 2 of the Xeon servers.

Forget trying to run multiple servers on the same machine if you want AI missions it isn't going to happen unless you get one of the really high end Xeons.

[1Man]

I agree with everyone else but you could get the dual Xeon and run the 2 servers on the physical cores seperate with the affinity startup parameter so each server uses its own single Xeon and headless clients on the logical cores. If you have no idea what I'm talking about then I don't recommend the above method. I would imagine you already have a player base? If you don't you will have a hard time finding players.

[hakimos00]

I agree with everyone else but you could get the dual Xeon and run the 2 servers on the physical cores seperate with the affinity startup parameter so each server uses its own single Xeon and headless clients on the logical cores. If you have no idea what I'm talking about then I don't recommend the above method. I would imagine you already have a player base? If you don't you will have a hard time finding players.

thx for reply i understand but dual xeon it a bit expensive :(

[hakimos00]

what u thing about this config:

 

AMD 2x -bi-4386
16c/16t 3,1 GHz+/3,8 GHz+

 

128 Go DDR3 ECC 1066MHz

 

SSD

[Dwarfer]

One additonal thing, If you don't already have a player base then I would recomend getting 1 cheap server to start with (if we a GSP most offer trade up programs) then build a player base and move to bigger boxes as and when you can/need to.

 

50 players on a new server is hard to start. Just look at all the empty servers already around.

[hakimos00]

One additonal thing, If you don't already have a player base then I would recomend getting 1 cheap server to start with (if we a GSP most offer trade up programs) then build a player base and move to bigger boxes as and when you can/need to.

 

50 players on a new server is hard to start. Just look at all the empty servers already around.

i know we have around 20-40 players atm

[Face]

Arma 3 client/servers love powerful CPUs with high clock speed and can't effectively use more than 2 threads at once, so go with the 4 core Xeon CPU. Regarding hyperthreading do not put your server on a hyperthreaded (logical) core, as one hyperthreaded core is not the equivalent to one physical core.

 

How HT works (abridged version): Each core of a CPU is able to handle one thread at any one instant, but certain inefficiencies such as a thread needing to wait for another thread (on another core) to finish executing before it can continue. This waiting time is wasted time on a CPU without hyperthreading, but HT lets a second thread execute on the same core while that original thread is temporarily on hold.

 

It's kind of like eating a large hamburger held on one hand (physical core), and getting thirsty halfway through eating it, then using your second hand (logical HT core) to pick up your drink for a quick sip while you temporarily lower your burger. You're doing two different tasks, but not at the same time. You can't eat at the exact same instant that you're taking a sip. If you happen to never get thirsty while eating your burger, that drink won't be touched until you've finished eating.

 

Hope you understand the analogy.

 

Also regarding Intel vs AMD, current Intel CPUs are able to do more work per GHz than AMD CPUs, so you can't make direct comparisons based on speed. The way AMD counts cores is also different, each core is paired up into "modules" that act like individual hyperthreaded cores. So the actual number of physical cores is more like half of the stated number.

[Dwarfer]

FYI,

 

32GB vs 64GB vs 128GB

 

Does not make any diff.. A3 only uses about 2GB so even with OS and 3 servers 8GB fits OK.. however 16GB would be better for "swap" reasons especially if your on a windows box.

[hakimos00]

 

 

It's kind of like eating a large hamburger held on one hand (physical core), and getting thirsty halfway through eating it, then using your second hand (logical HT core) to pick up your drink for a quick sip while you temporarily lower your burger. You're doing two different tasks, but not at the same time. You can't eat at the exact same instant that you're taking a sip. If you happen to never get thirsty while eating your burger, that drink won't be touched until you've finished eating.

 

Hope you understand the analogy.

Thx i understand that & its a nice analogy :p 

Hyperthreating maybe im going to use that for headlessclient :)

[hakimos00]

FYI,

 

32GB vs 64GB vs 128GB

 

Does not make any diff.. A3 only uses about 2GB so even with OS and 3 servers 8GB fits OK.. however 16GB would be better for "swap" reasons especially if your on a windows box.

i know that :p i need memory for my 2 website & forum :)

[Face]

@hakimos00 It's best to avoid HT cores altogether and stick to physical cores. If another process requires the physical core, whatever is on the HT core will have to wait.

 

Generally, the added performance of a single hyperthreaded core is about 20% that of a single physical core. I'll have to check up on that number though. The point is, a hyperthreaded core is not equal to one physical core.

 

Early versions of Windows such as XP weren't built to support HT, so it would treat physical cores the same as HT cores. This lead to worse performance because a physical+HT core shares CPU resources, and it can't actually do two things at once. Later versions of Windows were designed to support HT, so they solved the performance issue by assigning physical cores first, then only HT cores once all physical ones were occupied.

[hakimos00]

ok im going to stick with physical cores & no need for headless client :)

 

any advice about this config: ?

 

-Intel Xeon E5-1650v2

-6c/12t 3,5 GHz+/3,9 GHz+

-128Go ram :(

-3 ssd

for 2 server arma 3 with 40 players & ai mission

price arround 200 euro

 

or if u have a best provider with a nice price :) i take it :p

[dennis_stk]

The Problem is that the E5-1650v2 on Server never run in boost. You also will have "only" 3,5 GHz.

[hakimos00]

The Problem is that the E5-1650v2 on Server never run in boost. You also will have "only" 3,5 GHz.

and whats the problem with that ? i need more than 3.5 ghz ?

 

i have those config too:

 

cpu E5-1410v2 with 2.8 GHZ

or 2xCPU E5-2620v2 with 2.1 GHz each

[1Man]

I use OVH and its 109 a month then if you want windows it's an extra 25 a month. Had them for over 6months and not one problem mine is hosted out of the BHS data enter in Canada

[dennis_stk]

Arma need a powerfull GHz Core.

I have a E5 1620 V2 @3,70 GHz 64GB RAM. And ther is no way to host 2 Epoch Server. The Server FPS in Epoch make what they want. You can try to outsource most things on another Server to get a little more Server FPS. Thats the way we do but the solution is it not.