Running a Server and Playing on The Same Computer

[Spartanfrog]

There are other problems besides hardware. Sure, today's hardware COULD allow a user to play and host on the same computer, however the server would lack the benefit of optimization which is available to dedicated machines. Another problem for a hosting and playing, is keeping the server online 24/7. You do not have to by any means; you might want to just host a server for an hour for a couple friends.

I do not think we are arguing the same concept here. You are arguing that it possible and I whole heartedly agree. It is plausible to run and play a server on the same time. Is it a good option for most users? Nope, here's why:

Home networks are not designed for optimal latency
Throttled Connections
Lack of optimization
Most likely, server not up 24/7

Sure you could take away the first two saying that it is a separate item. Then take away optimization as you could say it is not especially important. Also even take away the 24/7 if you would like. But then what are you left with? A server with high ping, a server with already decreased performance (No matter what your hardware, it would still decline while playing and hosting), and one that's not even always on! Would you want a server like that? There comes a point where it just is not worth it. It could be perfect for a group of buddies to screw around on but for people wanting to start a clan or etc, it's not a viable option.

Now as for what hardware would be required to host, I just generally use a Pentium 4 3.0 ghz as a generic unit. Squeezing in, you could probably get 60 100 tickrate servers MAX. Leave a little room for mods and etc, I would say maybe 45 100 tickrate slots in use without lag. Then use cpubenchmark.net to look up comparable reports to your processor.

To sum it up, yes it is definitely possible. Is it practical? Not for most users.

[willpower101]

Ok, I see a lot more of what you are saying now. I can't argue latency on home networks. Regardless of upload speeds involved I know it will never match that of a commercial connection. But again that's nothing to do with playing on the serving machine. People here tend to offer up the idea that playing and serving -- on the same -- from a home connection is altogether not a good idea. Yet people seem to think it's FINE to setup a server on a linux box and play from another... at home. But what I'm taking from it is that serving from home in general is what should be avoided, not just playing on the same box. [edit: one of the suggestions of the op even says to run a listen server, which involves running it off your home connection...]

Now I do understand your point about how running the client will inevitably slow down a system no matter what the speed. But Optimization I don't quite get. That's my fault because I would need to read more about what all goes into it. My point is, I would think that with srcds not really requiring that much power, there reaches a point with high end consumer level hardware (quad i7's? better than some servers?) that it becomes irrelevant? (As is 24/7. I think the uptime on my htpc was 194 days last I checked and my main rig reboots maybe once every couple weeks. I know not everyone runs their computers like this, but it definitely not difficult or that unusual.)



So.. Assuming we could eliminate network problems by moving a bunch of computers to a commercial fiber like (school, work, etc) to compare them. I setup one p4 like you say, and for a single server. Then incrementally setup computers with stronger processors and FSB in them. At what point do economies of scale kick in?

Just because you can emulate super mario bros at 1000 fps doesn't meant hat it runs better on a core 2 quad vs. a PIII 800. The later is the point where the maximum performance is reached in the game and anything over that isn't actually taken advantage of. Would this not work similar for srcds or can it always perform better? I would assume you reach an optimal potential for one instance of the server before the added power of the host system just allows you to add more instances? (correct me if I'm way off here) Couldn't you just use this power to run a client?

---

[whoops, guess it auto combines posts]
I'm posting this completely separately because it's actually a question of it's own. Amusing that I 100% understand the bandwidth limits and potential problems surrounding a consumer internet connection: Which would be better?

A. Srcds running on a 1.8ghz pentium D with 2gb's 800mhz ram. Client running on my other computer.

B. Srcds running on a 3.4ghz c2 Quad with 8gb's 1300mhz ram. Client running from same computer.

That's a BIG difference in processing speed and memory. So you are saying that running srcds alone on box A. would definitely provide better performance than running it on box B. with a the client? I ask seriously because I'm about to set this up.

[loopyman]

I really don't want to jump into this... but...

Hosting and playing on the same computer can work out, it can be problematic with cases whereas your game / video drivers locks up crashing your computer causing your server to empty. You your self will have amazing registry and latency and others will not giving you a slightly unfair advantage. You can also run into major issues if you don't have rate settings and don't have download redirects ( fast downloads ) when players connect to download a large map they can eat up that little 5meg connection with their 50meg and cause major latency issues with players in the game server.

In most cases, I don't recommend hosting from home or hosting and playing on the same computer.

Although it can be done, its not recommended.
Although towing a travel home with a 4banger is possible, its not recommended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyXgMal3C1U

[Spartanfrog]

I'm sorry for not explaining my optimization comment. What I meant was that dedicated servers can be optimized to remove unnecessary services and other crap from running. As for your choice between hosting and playing on a more powerful computer than a stand alone server, I would still use the stand alone. You could run a linux box with a recompiled kernel.

[willpower101]

Well, I have it all setup, It's amazing how fast people will find you and join. Seeing 70 ping from a guy in Chicago. Could be better. 340 from a guy in austrailia. (i'm not familiar with overseas pings. but I know that's crazy high normally)

Also I was surprised at the lack of info on configuring the server + client.

It's really simple:

Add a non-standard hostport and tv_port on boot
also either on boot or in the server cfg file specify your hostip which is your WAN ip
Leave the IP alone. It will autoconfigure to localhost, but you can change it to you local ip if you wish.
Forward your to ports internally.
Follow standard port range config on http://www.portforward.com for your router

Example config:
srcds.exe -console -game cstrike +hostport 27016 +tv_port 27021 -maxplayers 32 +map cs_office +log on
[btw those pluses are important!]

server.cfg
//IP 192.168.4.99 //allowing this to auto config will default to localhost which is fine, otherwise, use your internal ip
hostip 68.53.67.219 //IMPORTANT your STATIC wan ip OR your static Dynamic Dns service address!
hostport 27016 // The port of the server (default is 27015) can be anything other than default (for connecting locally.)
//This is redundant btw. But it allows you to change it on a whim and re - exec server.cfg
hostname "Willpower101" // Name of server
sv_lan 0 // Change it to 1 if you want a LAN only Server
sv_region 255 // Europe = 3 (google this)



Anyway. I forgot about ONE thing that @loopyman pointed out and it is a serious problem. Video card snags that hang the system.
They don't happen often, but I've already had one lag out today, and while it didn't kill the server, it froze up the cpu for about 30 seconds before my client booted me and everyone lagged bad. This will be the number one reason I switch this over to another computer (probably linux as suggested.)

---

next objective is to mess with the config file, install gungame, maybe a web panel (are those any good?), and offload any downloading to my website.

[Spartanfrog]

Just curious, could you try just -port instead of -hostport? Also, look at brainless.us for a very good and free panel.

[Beaverbeliever]

This might be a poor analogy, but if a computer is a lake, different lakes differ in depth and size, but a ripple on one side of the lake can effect the whole lake. However, if it is a different lake altogether, you shouldn't see that ripple at all. I think that is the best analogy to fit the situation.

[willpower101]

(05-21-2010, 11:40 AM)Spartanfrog Wrote:  Just curious, could you try just -port instead of -hostport? Also, look at brainless.us for a very good and free panel.

Just tested, Yes, It appears that commenting out hostport in the server.cfg and changing +hostport 27016 to -port 27016 in the startup flags works now that I have the hostip set to wan, ip autoconfig'd to localhost, and ports correctly configured.

However running "port" in the server window returns unknown command.
Running "hostport" returns = "27016" <def. "32">
So i guess -port actually changes the cvar hostport.

Also running hostport in game returns 17999 of course.

[Darksoul]

(05-21-2010, 07:47 AM)Spartanfrog Wrote:  There are other problems besides hardware. Sure, today's hardware COULD allow a user to play and host on the same computer, however the server would lack the benefit of optimization which is available to dedicated machines. Another problem for a hosting and playing, is keeping the server online 24/7. You do not have to by any means; you might want to just host a server for an hour for a couple friends.

I do not think we are arguing the same concept here. You are arguing that it possible and I whole heartedly agree. It is plausible to run and play a server on the same time. Is it a good option for most users? Nope, here's why:

Home networks are not designed for optimal latency
Throttled Connections
Lack of optimization
Most likely, server not up 24/7

Sure you could take away the first two saying that it is a separate item. Then take away optimization as you could say it is not especially important. Also even take away the 24/7 if you would like. But then what are you left with? A server with high ping, a server with already decreased performance (No matter what your hardware, it would still decline while playing and hosting), and one that's not even always on! Would you want a server like that? There comes a point where it just is not worth it. It could be perfect for a group of buddies to screw around on but for people wanting to start a clan or etc, it's not a viable option.

Now as for what hardware would be required to host, I just generally use a Pentium 4 3.0 ghz as a generic unit. Squeezing in, you could probably get 60 100 tickrate servers MAX. Leave a little room for mods and etc, I would say maybe 45 100 tickrate slots in use without lag. Then use cpubenchmark.net to look up comparable reports to your processor.

To sum it up, yes it is definitely possible. Is it practical? Not for most users.

Home networks are not designed for optimal latency
Throttled Connections
Lack of optimization
Most likely, server not up 24/7

My server is up 24/7, I have no idea what you mean by throttled connections or lack of optimization.

As for home networks, that's also not a valid point. A average every day router would be perfectly suited for hosting gameservers. Latency might rise depending on how good the router is and how many players your hosting. But that is easily solved by installing a custom router like pfsense or untangle (I use untangle myself, even though it does mean a higher ping then pfsense - purely because of the security it offers.)

I've come to the conclusion that the reason everyone is so against hosting from home is because they want the GSP they run to make money. I have no idea why people are against hosting on the same computer you game on either, if you have the hardware to handle it and the right knowledge about processor affinity it will be 100% fine.

Feel free to argue against what I am saying but please don't do so blindly - I would appreciate it if you had valid data to back up what you are saying.

That said, I have hosted in the past a full 32 slot Garry's Mod server on the same computer I gamed on for over three months with no issues with lag or even any noticeable downtime. If your out of the loop Garry's Mod is one of the most CPU intensive games out there.

But anyway, I would appreciate it if you could explain this to me more in detail:

Home networks are not designed for optimal latency
Throttled Connections
Lack of optimization

Because I'm just not seeing how any of those apply.

[Spartanfrog]

I don't think you read thoroughly what I posted. First, I am talking about the AVERAGE home user. The AVERAGE home user will not be able to setup a custom router, even if it is very easy to do so, because of lack of skills/time/etc. Don't assume that since you are able to do something that everyone will be able to. I doubt many people would like to leave their computers on 24/7.

I have no clue why you have not heard of speed throttling. Many ISP's limit traffic when it hits a certain point. At least it is in the USA. I have no clue about foreign countries. Here's one article of many for reference:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/04/06/court-fcc-cannot-stop-comcast-internet-throttling

Secondly, the average upload speed in American households is 1.1 Mbps. Not enough for very many servers. Again, in case you don't believe me, here is my source (page 3):
http://cwafiles.org/speedmatters/state_reports_2009/CWA_Report_on_Internet_Speeds_2009.pdf?nocdn=1

As for the optimizing comment, please read one of my previous posts.

(05-21-2010, 08:49 AM)Spartanfrog Wrote:  I'm sorry for not explaining my optimization comment. What I meant was that dedicated servers can be optimized to remove unnecessary services and other crap from running. As for your choice between hosting and playing on a more powerful computer than a stand alone server, I would still use the stand alone. You could run a linux box with a recompiled kernel.

Is optimizing necessary? Not at all. Is it beneficial? Of course.

As for home networks, I'm sorry if I mislead you but what I meant to imply was home connections; though general home networking equipment pales in comparison to professional series, it is more than adequate for small servers. There is no way a home connection can compete with the giant backbones present in Datacenters. Maybe if you have a dedicated T1 or whatever but once again, the AVERAGE user will not have access to that.

Finally, your little quip about this community caring more about GSP profits than helping users could not be farther from the truth and is not appreciated. Many users sacrifice tons of their own time to help people trying to run servers. We are just trying to save people from wasting their time. Once again, i will reiterate what I said previously: It is possible but for the average user, it is not worth the hassle.

[Darksoul]

Alright, I might have gone overboard with the GSP comment - I apologize about that.

I have a fiber to the home connection.. and had this before going with a business internet (residential fiber), latency was very low in US west, 50-60 in central and around 80-90 in the east.

Now yes, not everyone has the option for that.. but for those who do "home networks" is not a argument .

But, with your argument on routers - as I said, running a gameserver on a average router is usually fine.

Throttling is only a issue if your with a crap ISP. And if I am not mistaken wasn't there a court ruling against throttling by now?. Could be wrong though. Either way ISP's that throttle are thieves as far as I am concerned.

Comcast now supplies around 3Mbps upload on average, residential fiber upload average is 5Mbps but you can get up to 25Mbps as well in some areas... that said yeah, I'm sure there are several places in the US that have bad upload rates.. and in that situation it is better to go with a GSP or datacenter.

I have never optimized my windows OS and have never had issues with hosting servers, which is why I wasn't really sure why you brought it up.

It's not really a hassle to host from home or even on the same computer as long as you know which ports to open and how to setup a srcds server . The problem is the majority of people that try doing it this way are kids, and.. yeah .

Anyway sorry if I acted like an ass, my bad.

[Spartanfrog]

If you have a fiber connection, you are very lucky . I wish I could have that. About Optimization, I don't think it would be possible for you to run a 1000 FPS server while playing at the same time. That was the only benefit I was talking about.

[Arjen]

(05-21-2010, 02:17 PM)Beaverbeliever Wrote:  This might be a poor analogy, but if a computer is a lake, different lakes differ in depth and size, but a ripple on one side of the lake can effect the whole lake. However, if it is a different lake altogether, you shouldn't see that ripple at all. I think that is the best analogy to fit the situation.

Haha nice one ...

[loopyman]

I Wrote:Hosting and playing on the same computer can work out, it can be problematic with cases whereas your game / video drivers locks up crashing your computer causing your server to empty. You your self will have amazing registry and latency and others will not giving you a slightly unfair advantage. You can also run into major issues if you don't have rate settings and don't have download redirects ( fast downloads ) when players connect to download a large map they can eat up that little 5meg connection with their 50meg and cause major latency issues with players in the game server.

[Darksoul]

(05-24-2010, 05:39 AM)loopyman Wrote:  

I Wrote:Hosting and playing on the same computer can work out, it can be problematic with cases whereas your game / video drivers locks up crashing your computer causing your server to empty. You your self will have amazing registry and latency and others will not giving you a slightly unfair advantage. You can also run into major issues if you don't have rate settings and don't have download redirects ( fast downloads ) when players connect to download a large map they can eat up that little 5meg connection with their 50meg and cause major latency issues with players in the game server.

We have successfully established that I have run a 32 slot server (usually full) on the same computer I played on for over three months.

Therefore... what are you trying to tell me with the above?.