What OS?

[frupert]

Hi,

Im planning on hosting a few CSS servers for some clients with some spare servers i have around, they are all servers that are plenty capable of olding game servers. The question is what OS would be best for hosting multiple servers on one machine? I have Windows Server 2003 but i dont want to activate until im sure its best for this server otherwise i can use the license for other servers...

So what would be best? Choices are:

- Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition 32-bit
- CentOS 32-bit
- CentOS 64-bit

Or is there other OS'es anyone can reccomend? Would like to stick with one of these though because i like to keep all my servers fairly the same in my datacentre....

[Drocona]

Depends on how much you think the license is worth

I say SRCDS runs best on windows, however knowing how much one of those licenses cost I'd go with Linux cause it's free (and the difference is hardly noticeable if at all)

[doggy93]

I also wonder alot about this, and would like alot more of opinions
I'm currently running my server on Windows XP, but have heard that Linux is better?
Also what kind of Linux? ( Ubuntu, CentOS etc )

[bobsrc]

I always go with CentOS 5 or Debian 4 64bit for my dedicated box simply because it is Linux and we all have our reasons to dislike Microsoft, but yeah, in the case with srcds there are actually some slight advantages with Windows (at least in performance). Nevertheless, I still use Linux as my machine is powerful enough and Linux is just so much cooler, free and generally considered to be a better server OS.

I have heard that Ubuntu is great for those Windows-trained monkeys who like user-friendliness at the cost of control and power so that they don't have to actually learn things to use Linux. I recommend CentOS, Debian, Fedora or maybe even Slackware if you are a real haxx dude and want to enjoy learning the Linux command prompt.

[frupert]

Well im kinda leaning towards Linux because then i can use 64-bit and crank the amount of RAM maybe to 8GB whereas with windows it doesn't make a huge difference past 2GB because of the 4GB limit...

[toxicdav3]

frupert Wrote:because of the 4GB limit...

try and get Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit or enterprise 32bit, you can go up to 32 GB.

[frupert]

toxicdav3 Wrote:

frupert Wrote:because of the 4GB limit...

try and get Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit or enterprise 32bit, you can go up to 32 GB.

4GB is the physical adressing limit of 32-bit OS'es, you need more than one processor to go that high in RAM... Also i have 32-bit licenses but not 64-bit and they are too expensive to be part of the equation.

[HBS|Ryan]

frupert Wrote:

toxicdav3 Wrote:

frupert Wrote:because of the 4GB limit...

try and get Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit or enterprise 32bit, you can go up to 32 GB.

4GB is the physical adressing limit of 32-bit OS'es, you need more than one processor to go that high in RAM... Also i have 32-bit licenses but not 64-bit and they are too expensive to be part of the equation.

personally i like linux. mainly for this reason:

Uptime: 08:41:04 up 56 days, 14:44, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.07, 0.06

and this

08:47:53 stats
08:47:53 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
42.33 0.00 0.00 227 1 992.06 10
08:47:53 stats
08:47:53 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
39.75 0.00 0.00 227 1 992.06 10
08:47:54 stats
08:47:54 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
39.75 0.00 0.00 227 1 992.06 10
08:47:54 stats
08:47:54 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
39.75 0.00 0.00 227 1 992.06 10
08:47:54 stats
08:47:54 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
39.75 0.00 0.00 227 1 992.06 10
08:47:54 stats
08:47:54 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
39.75 0.00 0.00 227 1 992.06 10
08:47:54 stats
08:47:54 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players
39.75 0.00 0.00 227 1 992.06 10

[Niche25]

I highly recommend Ubuntu 7.10 Server (not desktop but its good as well). I've ran my servers on Windows 2003, Windows 2008, Ubuntu 7.10 Desktop & Ubuntu 7.10 Server and out of all of those I have been able to squeeze the most performance out of the Ubuntu 7.10 Server.

My Ubuntu 7.10 Server performance stats are as follows:

Tick 67 - 100 ALWAYS
FPS - 800 - 1000 ALWAYS

I run MAP, MMS, MS, Mattie Event Scripts.

Server Specs:

Dual Xeon w/ HT
2GB Ram
15k SAS HDD[/align]
40,000Kb/s Down | 850Kb/s - 1000Kb/s Up

[doggy93]

I have a pretty old rig, Intel Pentium 4 and 1GB of old RAM and 3 MB/s of upload speed.
I was using it with XP Professional and it was sorta good, but when it was full ( 10Slot 100Tick ) the FPS lowered from 450 - 500 to 90 -150 FPS
In other words, VERY unstable. So I wanted to try Linux Ubuntu, I'm actually not sure wether it was the Desktop version or Server version...
But the FPS weren't even close to 300 FPS when it was empty.

But I'm going to try Debian and maybe even Fedora.

[itsbmw]

I run Around 900-1000 FPS constant on my 2 12 slot private servers on my ubuntu desktop box.
Specs:
Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz With HT
1 GB RAM (Just ordered 1 more GB its OTW)
250 GB SATA 7200 RPM.
25000 Kb/s Down | 1,500-2,500Kb/s UP

[doggy93]

Hmm, it's the same spec's as me... Still you run 2 900 - 1000 FPS servers!?!
Then what the hell am I doing wrong? :S

[vigor]

Go with what you know, if you're uncomfortable in linux definitely go with Windows.

[skeletor]

As vigor says, go with what you know. you can really mess up linux based servers, and if you don't know how to fix it.. that would mean downtime.. and thats bad. Windows is easy to manage, and with our core2quad that we have testing 2008 right now, it will run constantly 900-1000fps. That and we are kind of forced to use windows at the moment with tcadmin, although we would probably run a mixture.

[ClanWoof]

How many slots will the Q6600 hold around? Right now I have dual quads but might not be worth it if the q6600 can hold abunch