BF4 on VDS

[axRhino]

I posted this:

The lag on our server is so bad that we can't keep players on it. Its utterly unplayable. We have removed maps that are known to have lag issues, cut our players down from 64 to 48 and paid for high priority CPU usage. Anything else we can do.

Normally I would mention the NFO performance guarantee here but we have been with you for some time and never seen an issue as bad as this. I also know we fighting issues which are more game related than server related but other servers and communities seem to be getting around these issues and keeping their servers active.

Without some help or improvement on this issue we are going to have to take our business elsewhere at least as far as BF4 is concerned..if for no other reason than to see if we can get better performance elsewhere.

Any insight or help is much appreciated.

And was told this by NFO:

CPU and memory usage appear pretty normal. I am not seeing anything specifically "wrong" generally we recommend against running BF4 on VDSs as they generally do not get handled well in a virtual environment.

Has anyone else seen or heard this from NFO and if so then I have to ask why NFO would even let people host BF4 on a VDS?

At this point I'm tempted to ask for a refund of our associated costs (BF4 slots) under the this:

NFO guarantees the highest performance and has an ironclad SLA, so you don't have to worry about lag, and the price you order at now will be grandfathered in for as long as you keep that same configuration. We also have a (truly) free trial and loads of other features, that we talk about below!

[axRhino]

Followup:

We have never heard that VDS's were an issue and we didnt have any problem running BF3 on our VDS years ago. If its not going to run well then why even allow people to sign up for it if they are wasting their money and going to have bad performance?

If this is your recommendation then we will definitely close down our server and take our money elsewhere.

part of the advantage of purchasing a VDS is supposed to be the ability to add games. If NFO can't properly run a game within the VDS architecture then you probably shouldn't be offering them.

If we are not going to be able to run BF4 properly via our VDS system then I would formally as for a refund of the associated costs under the conditions you outline in the guarantee.

NFO

The VDS issue is generally for servers larger than 48 players and is only a recommendation. I have heard success stories as well on VDSs. I understand your frustration here with BF4 however there have been ongoing software issues with the game since launch. BF3 was the same way in the beginning and was eventually smoothed over.

So what are you telling me? its a BF4 issue? I should just wait it out? You didnt give any indication in your initial post that is was still an EA / Dice / BF4 issue. Instead you suggested we were running on hardware that isnt going to run the game well. In other words wasting our $$$.

Bottom line the game lags..is unplayable with more than 40 players and we are paying you (an official BF4 server host) to help ensure solid performance. If your not going to be able to support 64 man servers via the VDSs then stop renting them. We are wasting our money and time trying to make them work.

Reading this I must sound miffed..I guess I kinda am as I hate wasting time and money fighting a lossing battle but more than anything I'm confused as to where the actual issues with the game stand and what if anything can be done. I certainly dont want to waste more money on something that NFO admits is not going to work properly.

[Edge100x]

I have not seen enough data on BF4 and how it runs on VDSes here to be able to give you a complete answer on this. It's still early in the lifecycle of BF4 and most of the what we have recommended so far comes from experiences with BF3, which ran well on VDSes up to about 48 slots, and the fact that BF4 has similar performance to BF3 (using perhaps 20% more CPU power).

You might try using the multithreading option, as it will theoretically allow the server to perform a bit better, but I have not seen improvement through that yet myself.

[axRhino]

If ..."generally we recommend against running BF4 on VDSs as they generally do not get handled well in a virtual environment."

Then why continue to allow people to rent them?

Part of the reason we have a VDS is be able to add servers as games are released. If that hardware is not, or does not perform well for some games then it really limits how useful / flexible a VDS is.

[kraze]

If ..."generally we recommend against running BF4 on VDSs as they generally do not get handled well in a virtual environment."

Then why continue to allow people to rent them?

Part of the reason we have a VDS is be able to add servers as games are released. If that hardware is not, or does not perform well for some games then it really limits how useful / flexible a VDS is.

You're correct, we don't recommend people use VDS's for hosting BF3/BF4, this is normally because people don't want to run 30 or 40 slot servers. They want to run large 64, 70 slot servers. Even with the fastest hardware and heavy optimization server side, it normally doesn't work out for larger servers.

We allow people to run them out of demand and fairness, that plus our extensive testing for BF3 and limited in BF4 showed that they should run just fine as long as our slot caps are followed.

It's important not to forget about the current issues in BF4. Currently servers are still crashing and there are a few maps which are known to be causing issues. I know you mentioned you removed some maps but this is a full list of what we've determined as having issues.

MP_ Resort - Hainan Resort
MP_Journey - Golmud Railway
MP_Damage - Lancang Dam
MP_Naval - Paracel Storm
MP_Prison - Operation Locker

If you're running any of those maps try removing them from your cycle.

Lately we've also been seen issues with PB causing servers to experience hitches and rubberbanding. If you haven't I'd recommend you update PB by issuing punkBuster.pb_sv_command "pb_sv_update" to the server and then issuing punkBuster.pb_sv_command "pb_sv_restart" a few minutes later.

[J-English]

running BF4 on a vds isnt that bad,I dont mind running BF4 on our VDS.
we run few others on a same vds with no problems now.

Even tho our BF4 server is not popular compared to our other gameservers.

Keep it 48 ,should be all good.
BF4 is no way stable anyway

[[LoD]xCael]

Lately we've also been seen issues with PB causing servers to experience hitches and rubberbanding. If you haven't I'd recommend you update PB by issuing punkBuster.pb_sv_command "pb_sv_update" to the server and then issuing punkBuster.pb_sv_command "pb_sv_restart" a few minutes later.

Is there a PB commend to see what version of PB is running on the server?

[kraze]

Lately we've also been seen issues with PB causing servers to experience hitches and rubberbanding. If you haven't I'd recommend you update PB by issuing punkBuster.pb_sv_command "pb_sv_update" to the server and then issuing punkBuster.pb_sv_command "pb_sv_restart" a few minutes later.

Is there a PB commend to see what version of PB is running on the server?

Through the rcon tool, !pb pv_sv_ver should do this.

[dogma04]

We have a VPS, the six core option. We run Battlefield 4 on it just fine. Well, as fine as anyone runs BF4. Monday-Thursday we run 4 40m servers. 36players, 2cmmdr, 2spectators.

On Friday-Saturday we run a 70m server. And make sure you listen to what the NFO guys are telling you. The server runs great throughout the week. But on the weekend, if we want to run the 70m server we have to shut all the others off. Even it it's a lowly 10m server, it impacts the performance of the 70m server. This is because BF4 is a resource hog. I don't know what kind of performance you would get if you ran the 70m all the time, but TBH that was never our intention.

I did about a week of back and forth w/ the NFO guys before we pulled the trigger on our VPS. We started w/ the 4 core, and as they warned it didn't have enough juice to push the 70m server. Even when it was running by itself. We bumped up to the 6 core and it runs fine. But remember, we only keep it at that number for about 12-16 hours for weekly events we have.

Remember, these are virtualized servers so there is some performance overhead. Plus BF4 was coded by drunken monkeys and released 3 months too early. So keep that in mind. Every issue we have since moving to the 6 core can be tracked to BF4, or an admin forgetting to turn off the small servers when we run the big one. Not to NFO's HW. I, for one, greatly appreciate the ability to rent these things. Because for large groups that need multiple smaller servers they are hands down the best deal.

[FAST]

If you want large servers either get pay per slot or a full machine.

Bf4/bf3/red orchestra/rising storm are games that cannot run properly on VDS unless the player count is 48 below and how many cpus you are using. They take a lot of resources specially in the VDS environment.

[axRhino]

We have a VPS, the six core option. We run Battlefield 4 on it just fine. Well, as fine as anyone runs BF4. Monday-Thursday we run 4 40m servers. 36players, 2cmmdr, 2spectators.

On Friday-Saturday we run a 70m server. And make sure you listen to what the NFO guys are telling you. The server runs great throughout the week. But on the weekend, if we want to run the 70m server we have to shut all the others off. Even it it's a lowly 10m server, it impacts the performance of the 70m server. This is because BF4 is a resource hog. I don't know what kind of performance you would get if you ran the 70m all the time, but TBH that was never our intention.

I did about a week of back and forth w/ the NFO guys before we pulled the trigger on our VPS. We started w/ the 4 core, and as they warned it didn't have enough juice to push the 70m server. Even when it was running by itself. We bumped up to the 6 core and it runs fine. But remember, we only keep it at that number for about 12-16 hours for weekly events we have.

Remember, these are virtualized servers so there is some performance overhead. Plus BF4 was coded by drunken monkeys and released 3 months too early. So keep that in mind. Every issue we have since moving to the 6 core can be tracked to BF4, or an admin forgetting to turn off the small servers when we run the big one. Not to NFO's HW. I, for one, greatly appreciate the ability to rent these things. Because for large groups that need multiple smaller servers they are hands down the best deal.

Can certainly understand the logic in how your approaching it but with an Arma 3 server (unpopulated), a CoD2 server (5-12 players) and a BF4 running on a quad core VDS with CPU priority going to BF4 we never saw CPU loads over 45% when we would fill up. However we did see lag, rubberbanding, crash issues, etc.

The cost of renting a BF$ opps BF4 server alone is rediculous at $80 to 100 a month...at least for us. Especially when the game and the servers have so many issues. Its my understanding that EA/ Dice dont even allow servers on dedicated standalone boxes. Maybe its time to dump this, let EA / Dice iron this out and come back into the game when its fixed and they aren't so high on making money of server rental.

You might try using the multithreading option, as it will theoretically allow the server to perform a bit better, but I have not seen improvement through that yet myself.

How?

[axRhino]

Just as a suggestion (NFO) you might want to make the BF3 / BF4 / RO2 warning popup a little more pronounced on the order page. It would probably save everyone involved a lot of time and money.

That and just cap the order page at 48 slots. No point in paying NFO or EA for slots that are only going to be a waste of money right?

[underclocked]

Just as a suggestion (NFO) you might want to make the BF3 / BF4 / RO2 warning popup a little more pronounced on the order page. It would probably save everyone involved a lot of time and money.

That and just cap the order page at 48 slots. No point in paying NFO or EA for slots that are only going to be a waste of money right?

I'm surprised that it even lets you order +48 slots for a VDS - I thought the order page specifically said not to do that.

We are on the fence too with this "highest performance guarantee." I mentioned performance in a help ticket and the blame was put on EA/DICE. So we pay a fortune for a broken game, pay a fortune for broken servers, and the response is "Sorry Mr. consumer. But please, just keep consuming."

I would never blame NFO for the launch of this horrible game, but in reality they are charging for a service that isn't working. Personally I don't care how other providers are running. If you are selling game servers at $100+ per month and they don't work, there should be some sort of refund or at least a future credit applied.

[axRhino]

Funny that the VDS issue was never mentioned when I first complained about our performance in a help ticket.

Tue, Nov 5 2013 8:45am
We have our admins reporting that our server lags horribly whenever we reach 40+ players.I know lots of players and communities are complaining about lag in BF4 but what we are seeing appears to be on a different scale than what is being reported in official BF4 discussions or in map specific discussions.

Is there anything we can do to mitigate this issue?
Tue, Nov 5 2013 8:50am - answered by Siren
Have you tried turning off the other servers running on your VDS when your BF4 server starts to get more players in it to see if that makes a difference?
Tue, Nov 5 2013 10:32am
Iwill monitor that but shouldnt a quad core be more than sufficient to handle 1 BF4, 1 Arma 3 and on CoD2 server?
Tue, Nov 5 2013 10:37am - answered by Siren
Generally yes, but BF4 is fairly machine intensive so I'd like to have you try that just for testing so we have more to go on to troubleshoot.
Tue, Nov 5 2013 10:50am
Any specific stats I can monitor. CPU usage, memory ?
Tue, Nov 5 2013 10:52am - answered by Charlie
BF4 is surprisingly light on memory usage, CPU will be where all the resource usage comes from, and will be the metric you'll want to monitor.

[Edge100x]

axRhino, I don't think that's funny, but it's certainly something that can be overlooked.

Its my understanding that EA/ Dice dont even allow servers on dedicated standalone boxes.

If that were the case, you also wouldn't be able to run them on the VDS .

Upgrading to a dedicated machine is something that you might consider, especially if you're running ArmA3 (which is very piggy).

We are on the fence too with this "highest performance guarantee." I mentioned performance in a help ticket and the blame was put on EA/DICE.

I have not seen your support request, but please keep in mind that the performance guarantee says that we offer the highest performance available. It is not a guarantee that servers will always run flawlessly, because we simply can't guarantee that -- we don't maintain the server code.

In the case of a VDS, I do not know another provider that offers VDSes with BF4, so there isn't anyone to compare us to, and the bar is low. Still, if there were, our offering would be the fastest possible.

It seems as though many customers are indeed able to run 48-slot servers successfully on VDSes, and the recommendation is appropriate overall.

Just as a suggestion (NFO) you might want to make the BF3 / BF4 / RO2 warning popup a little more pronounced on the order page. It would probably save everyone involved a lot of time and money.

That and just cap the order page at 48 slots. No point in paying NFO or EA for slots that are only going to be a waste of money right?

We appreciate the feedback. I don't have plans to change the warning to be more pronounced right now because it's already difficult to miss. In terms of the hard order page cap, we've considered that, but we generally prefer to err on the side of allowing customer discretion. This game's use of commander and spectator slots also complicates the matter of what cap to set.

How?

The multithreading option is on the "Managed panel" page.