Posts: 42
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
05-06-2008, 06:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2008, 06:04 PM by Svuppe.)
Hi all.
For a few months, I've been running a public TF2 server on a laptop, I have lying around. Just for fun. But lately it has become quite popular, and here the other day when I needed the laptop for something else, people got quite upset when I closed down the server.
So now I think I am ready to build a true dedicated TF2 server, but I don't want to put too much money into it. My laptop is a Pentium M 2.0 GHz with slow HD and slow 1 GB ram. Running WinXP, it could handle a single 16 slot TF2 server. Increasing to 20 slots, would introduce severe lag when it was just about full.
What kind of hardware should I look at? I would like to run a single 20 or perhaps 24 slot TF2 server and a webserver to allow for fast download of custom maps. And that's it. No more.
I'd like it to be relatively cheap, preferebly low power consumption, but without sacrificing the user experience for the players. So what kind of hardware would be "good enough" for this job?
I am thinking a low-end Core2Duo myself, but I don't know how low I can go before things go wrong. Or if another processor type would be better for low power usage.
Posts: 5,178
Threads: 65
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
22
First off, what internet connection do you have.. before you get into buying stuff and your connection simply can't handle ^_^
Posts: 42
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Ah yes. Should have mentioned that in the first post. I have a 4/4 Mbit/s line (and static IP of course).
In addition to the server, it will also handle my personal internet needs. The TF2 server communcation is given highest priority in the QoS engine of my router, and this works very well. I have tried to make massive up/downloads, and none of the players on my temporary server noticed anything.
The current temporary server barely reaches 1 Mbit/s when it is full, so I don't believe my 4 Mbit line should be a problem, even if I go up to 24 slots.
Posts: 2,270
Threads: 45
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
11
Yeah its plenty. A Core2Duo 1. something would be perfectly fine for what you need.
realchamp Wrote:Hazz Wrote:Has someone helped you on these forums? If so, help someone else
Mooga Wrote:OrangeBox is a WHORE.
Posts: 5,178
Threads: 65
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
22
Depending on what happens in the server, you should be able to get 24, but when it gets real busy at some times you might start to experience some lag. 20 players should be safe.
Also running a fast download server from the same connection as the gameserver is running is NOT smart at all, it will either suck up all bandwidth from the gameserver or it will be just as slow as the normal server download method. the sv_downloadurl really has to be in a different place.
Posts: 42
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Drocona Wrote:Also running a fast download server from the same connection as the gameserver is running is NOT smart at all, it will either suck up all bandwidth from the gameserver or it will be just as slow as the normal server download method.
Now this is interesting. On my temporary server, I initially just had the normal method. This was very slow, and I mean VERY slow. Nothing that could be explained by my bandwidth limit. Then I installed a very small and simple freeware webserver on the same machine, and download speeds were increased many times (but I don't remember any exact numbers now). That is why I thought this was the way to go.
Are there some configuration options, which adjusts the normal download speed? Something that could explain this? I would prefer that I could just increase the normal download speed, instead of having to maintain a webserver too.
Posts: 5,178
Threads: 65
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
22
The downloading speed is directly related to your set sv_maxrate for the server.
where 1000 = 1KB/s
sv_downloadurl was made to be able to redirect any download activity to a different server so the servers connection/load would stay clean and dedicated to running the gameserver only.
Posts: 708
Threads: 69
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
10
Just get a cheap £3 a month web hosting package and put all your downloads on there.
Posts: 42
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Ahaaa, so the sv_maxrate applies to both the actual game data stream AND downloads. I didn't know that. So in order to have faster downloads without another server, I would just have to increase sv_maxrate. Could that lead to other problems? Some players taking too much bandwidth when not actually required, or something?
Posts: 5,178
Threads: 65
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation:
22
Well again that depends on the amount of players and available bandwidth.
with 4mbit and 24 players for example:
4000 * 128 / 24 = ~21000 maxrate per slot
In theory that would be the max, however in reality maybe 4-5 of your slots will reach that max at some rare occasions so you should be able to set it at 25000, which means 25KB/s download rate.
Also good to know, the CSS source engine is maxed at 30KB/s, the Orange Source Engine has it's max at 100KB/s
Posts: 42
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Yes, I see. However, I don't think that is the most efficient use of the bandwidth.
In my case I don't change the additional downloads often, so most players already have the files. Maybe one or two players are in need of downloading. Let's say that the other players are using half of the 4 Mbit. Then the two downloaders should be able to get about 1 Mbit each. This won't happen with sv_maxrate set to 25000.
Instead, if I have a webserver on the same PC, the other players use their two Mbit, and the two downloaders get all of the remaining bandwidth. This only works because of the QoS engine (and proper configuration of it) in my router. I know this isn't optimal, and not the intended use of sv_downloadurl, but I don't see why it shouldn't be better than just sv_maxrate 25000.
Anyway, back to my original question: I have been looking at a lot of hardware lately, and come to the conclusion that a PC with a Core2Duo E7200 is the best price/performance tradeoff. I can get an E2200 a tiny bit cheaper, but I believe the E7200 should be able to deliver quite a bit more performance for the very little added cost.
Or am I mistaken?
Posts: 2,270
Threads: 45
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
11
Definitly get the E7200 once it comes out.
realchamp Wrote:Hazz Wrote:Has someone helped you on these forums? If so, help someone else
Mooga Wrote:OrangeBox is a WHORE.
Posts: 42
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Indeed I will. Except it is already out here in Denmark. I am going to pick one up on the way home from work today.
Posts: 2,270
Threads: 45
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
11
Lucky. Here in the usa it comes out in uhhh three days. I cant wait 
realchamp Wrote:Hazz Wrote:Has someone helped you on these forums? If so, help someone else
Mooga Wrote:OrangeBox is a WHORE.
Posts: 20
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
0
Fastdownload:
Even if you are forced to run it on the same machine,. This wont save and speeds, but you will be downloading smaller files. So it will save bandwidth and essentially it will download the map quicker (Smaller files @ same speed = faster)
|
