• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

RAM in a Gaming Server

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
how much upload bandwidth do you have? that will be the weak point.

if you are going to run 2 different games, then i would get a DC, like the 3800 and 2GB of ram. you may notice issues when one game is switching maps while the other is playing, that is why i would go 2GB of ram.

as far as hdds, i would put in 2 and put each game on seperate hdds. as long as you have new 7200rpm 8MB cache hdds you will be fine.
 
That party sounds a bit... nerdy? heh

I think I might get two drives like bob suggested, or possibly just use an old drive and buy a new one.

What do you mean by "DC", though?

Plus, rune, the BF2 server is run through a command console-type deal. Just like Call of Duty, CS:S, and CS 1.6.
 
Originally posted by: enzoslashslash
That party sounds a bit... nerdy? heh

I think I might get two drives like bob suggested, or possibly just use an old drive and buy a new one.

What do you mean by "DC", though?

Plus, rune, the BF2 server is run through a command console-type deal. Just like Call of Duty, CS:S, and CS 1.6.
Click to expand...

DC=Dual Core

imo, i would get 2 relatively new drives (within the last year) over an old hdd (3-4yrs old) as the newer ones are much faster. i have a couple 30GB 7200rpm maxtors and a 9GB 7200rpm seagate, obviously old, and when you run hdtach on them, the 9GB is soooo slow, followed by the 30GB maxtor, again very slow compared to a new hdd.

on my server rig that acts as a practice bf2 server, the os is on the old 9GB hdd, but the game is on a 60GB hitachi because it is the second fastest hdd i own. i have a webserver that pulls its info from a 120GB WD (with a ~38,000 picture website that has a mysql backend) that is also the backup hdd.
 
a decent 7200rpm hard drive will be fine, it's not a file or website server being made here, and dedicated game servers do not need to load the massive textures etc into memory like a client (player) does. dont waste money buying a second hard disk when you could sink it into a faster cpu, or maybe ram. if you've got spare hard disks to throw in, ok.

Just to reiterate, please stop making comments based on experience playing games. A dedicated server is a completely different task for the computer, for most games it doesnt even go through a GUI - never mind doing all the 3d geometry and pixel shaders - it's all text files and command line.

FWIW, using theoretical example for a very practical consideration: the only reason two 1ghz cpus might be better than (an otherwise identical) one 2ghz is if they essentially get double the bus, which afaik is only really true when having two physical proccessors. Note servers do *not* always strive to use 100% cpu like a client does, they will only use what they need and even win2k is just fine at managing them. A 2ghz proc would be better than two 1ghz procs however, because then each game can occasionally have peak usage above 1ghz - just aslong as both dont peak at the same time. This also allows for flexibility because you can budget for having (lets say each 16 slots plus margin for safety takes up 1ghz) one 32 man OR two 16 man OR 20+12 OR whatever totalling 32 or less, instead of being capped to 16 players per core.
- Obviously, if the game is actually good at utilising more than one core per process, then this doesnt apply. And, OK, the other occasional benefit to dual core is if you have seperate cores per process then it's a bit less likely that one game crapping out will also crap out the other.
 
Originally posted by: Crescent13
Originally posted by: enzoslashslash
Hello all and thanks for reading!

From my understanding, you can get better throughput with DDR2 memory, but the timings on DDR2 are looser than standard DDR memory. I would like fast loading times for maps and such (BF2, Source Engine), but I do not want any jittering mid-game. Does anyone have any firsthand experience with this and would like to recommend a brand/type of RAM?

By the way, I am getting a Pentium D Dual-Core and some 76gB Raptors, just keep that in mind 😉
Click to expand...


No, you ARE NOT GETTING A PENTIUM D, and YOU ARE NOT GETTING 74GB Raptors. Do you have ANY IDEA how ABSOLUTLY HORRIBLE intels perform in gaming?!?!?!? Get a new SATA II drive, not an old raptor. latency is directly related to throughput, and DDR2 performs horribly. If you get an intel (which I pray that I can convince you otherwise), you will have to get DDR2, it is the only thing that is compatible. AMD uses DDR, and also performs about 4x faster (i'm not streching that, the most expensive amd x2 is 4x more powerful than the most expensive pentium D). PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!!!! If you want more proof just give me some time to find some articles.

EDIT: oh yeah, and welcome to the forums!
Click to expand...

Um you do relize that the the gaming server is a console based program that does no graphical processing. I really like having Intel on the servers because the higher bandwith allows for nice client processing. My gaming server is a 560F with EM64T.

3.6GB P4 socket 775 w/ EM64T
1.5GB 533mhz DDR2
Dual 80GB on RAID
Server 2003 x86-64 Beta

 
Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
Originally posted by: Crescent13
Originally posted by: enzoslashslash
Hello all and thanks for reading!

From my understanding, you can get better throughput with DDR2 memory, but the timings on DDR2 are looser than standard DDR memory. I would like fast loading times for maps and such (BF2, Source Engine), but I do not want any jittering mid-game. Does anyone have any firsthand experience with this and would like to recommend a brand/type of RAM?

By the way, I am getting a Pentium D Dual-Core and some 76gB Raptors, just keep that in mind 😉
Click to expand...


No, you ARE NOT GETTING A PENTIUM D, and YOU ARE NOT GETTING 74GB Raptors. Do you have ANY IDEA how ABSOLUTLY HORRIBLE intels perform in gaming?!?!?!? Get a new SATA II drive, not an old raptor. latency is directly related to throughput, and DDR2 performs horribly. If you get an intel (which I pray that I can convince you otherwise), you will have to get DDR2, it is the only thing that is compatible. AMD uses DDR, and also performs about 4x faster (i'm not streching that, the most expensive amd x2 is 4x more powerful than the most expensive pentium D). PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!!!! If you want more proof just give me some time to find some articles.

EDIT: oh yeah, and welcome to the forums!
Click to expand...

Um you do relize that the the gaming server is a console based program that does no graphical processing. I really like having Intel on the servers because the higher bandwith allows for nice client processing. My gaming server is a 560F with EM64T.

3.6GB P4 socket 775 w/ EM64T
1.5GB 533mhz DDR2
Dual 80GB on RAID
Server 2003 x86-64 Beta
Click to expand...

what game and how many players? the op stated at max 32 for bf2 and maybe a 16man cs:s so hardware doesn't need to be that new for this requirement.
 
Originally posted by: enzoslashslash
I really don't expect more than 32 people on the BF2 server. I will probably be running either another 16 man CS:S server or CS 1.6 server. Hopefully this dual-core processor coupled with 2 gigs of ram will be sufficient. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Certainly sufficient.

My expriences are that a good single core can handle ~40-45 pretty well in BF2. 16 person CS is not terribly processor intensive.

In running servers, I've found the need for memory reduced over what is typically used for the client. 2 gigs is probably more than adequate, but a safe amount. I could run BFV servers fine with 256 Megs free when the client really wanted at least 512MB free (in addition to what was used by the OS).

I'd strongly suggest trying to test out the BF2 server on a single core processor you have around now to verify what kind of CPU usage it gives. You may not even need dual core, though DC is definitely a safe route.

For what you're planning on running a 3800+ should be adequate if you're going DC, more would be overkill for sure. It's even possible you could get up and going on single core, but to be safe the 3800+.
 
my internet?? I have dual 5mb lines into a zincome dual WAN router that runs full duplexed to a gig switch that is then full duplexed to the server.

5mbx2 > 100mbx2 > 1000mbx2
 
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
Originally posted by: Crescent13
Originally posted by: enzoslashslash
Hello all and thanks for reading!

From my understanding, you can get better throughput with DDR2 memory, but the timings on DDR2 are looser than standard DDR memory. I would like fast loading times for maps and such (BF2, Source Engine), but I do not want any jittering mid-game. Does anyone have any firsthand experience with this and would like to recommend a brand/type of RAM?

By the way, I am getting a Pentium D Dual-Core and some 76gB Raptors, just keep that in mind 😉
Click to expand...


No, you ARE NOT GETTING A PENTIUM D, and YOU ARE NOT GETTING 74GB Raptors. Do you have ANY IDEA how ABSOLUTLY HORRIBLE intels perform in gaming?!?!?!? Get a new SATA II drive, not an old raptor. latency is directly related to throughput, and DDR2 performs horribly. If you get an intel (which I pray that I can convince you otherwise), you will have to get DDR2, it is the only thing that is compatible. AMD uses DDR, and also performs about 4x faster (i'm not streching that, the most expensive amd x2 is 4x more powerful than the most expensive pentium D). PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!!!! If you want more proof just give me some time to find some articles.

EDIT: oh yeah, and welcome to the forums!
Click to expand...

Um you do relize that the the gaming server is a console based program that does no graphical processing. I really like having Intel on the servers because the higher bandwith allows for nice client processing. My gaming server is a 560F with EM64T.

3.6GB P4 socket 775 w/ EM64T
1.5GB 533mhz DDR2
Dual 80GB on RAID
Server 2003 x86-64 Beta
Click to expand...

what game and how many players? the op stated at max 32 for bf2 and maybe a 16man cs:s so hardware doesn't need to be that new for this requirement.
Click to expand...

I know, I am saying that is he is in wanting a dual core, an 8XX will be a very capable processor for less. I can run 2x32man servers full at about 50% cpu. I dont like to have it above 50 though. BTW, that is CS:S.

During the last lan event I ran 5x10 man and 1 24 man full for the whole 3 days and the cpu never crossed 50%.

 
BF2 is a whole 'nother game dark knightt 🙂

If you guys think its overkill, thats great news for me, I won't have to upgrade this beast very often 😀 Plus, I will probably run DHCP and maybe DNS on this rig, if possible.
 
Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
my internet?? I have dual 5mb lines into a zincome dual WAN router that runs full duplexed to a gig switch that is then full duplexed to the server.

5mbx2 > 100mbx2 > 1000mbx2
Click to expand...

no the op's...
 
Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
my internet?? I have dual 5mb lines into a zincome dual WAN router that runs full duplexed to a gig switch that is then full duplexed to the server.

5mbx2 > 100mbx2 > 1000mbx2
Click to expand...

what does something like that run? also, how does that work, do you have 2 external ips? are you using 1 ip per server?
 
Originally posted by: enzoslashslash
The best way to game is LAN 😉
Click to expand...

i have never been to a lan, can you really tell a difference compared to online servers from a ping of ~5 compared to ~75?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top