BF4 48 Slot Server Solution

[[Love]DemonMaker]

First, thanks for taking the time to read this post.

I am currently in search of a nice BF4 server. I am debating between the two options and would love some admin input on the subject. I am trying to decided on whether I should run a Managed VDS or a regular game server for BF4.

I plan on only running 1, 48 player slot server nothing else, (no TS server etc..) Money is less important than a fast/lag free experience for all connecting players. That being said, I'm shying away from getting a full dedicated server for just 1, 48 slot game server, as it seems like overkill; but please feel free to give you input on that train of thought.

Also I noticed a post on twitter about upgrading your networks to Dual 10Gb Internap Links. However I didn't see Los-Angeles on that list; Unfortunately this is where my ping times from Japan are the lowest and also where 80% of my clan lads/friends are from. Tokyo JCOM:to LA - 113ms vs Seattle - 142, both InterNap. I don't know the true impact of having the Dual 10Gb links vs single on location performance so I'm just curious if that's something to think about.

The two options I am looking at are below, I would like any advice or suggestions you have to offer.
Again, i am looking for Butter smooth performance over $ spent within reason.

Option 1 Regular Game Server:
BattleField 4 Ranked
48 Player Slots
Los-Angeles InterNap
*Higher CPU Priority: if Recommend
Around 60$ a month

Option 2
Managed Game Server VDS
4 Core Package
48 Player slots (Cap Limit)
Los-Angeles InterNap
Windows OS
Around 90$ a month

Which do you think is the better option? Is it worth the extra money? Even if were talking about a small difference in performance or possible slow down I'm willing to pay-up. Is the 4 Core package good enough? Should i go 6? or down to 3?

Sorry for all the questions and the long post, but I'd really appreciate the feed back.

Thanks,

[Love]DemonMaker

[.=QUACK=.Major.Pain]

Just curious, are your LA pings also better than the new European location?

[soja]

Regular game servers are not virtualized, which will result in better performance.

The extra 10Gb link only offers better protection against some types of (D)DoS attacks, and will not have a performance impact on day-to-day server performance. Speaking from experience, NFO does not come close to saturating their links at any location, otherwise they would upgrade as needed.

for BF3/4, You typically need 2 cores, one will be topped out, the other will handle a little spillover. The 3 core vds would be better for a single 48 slot server.


I would recommend Option 1, without high priority. From what I have gathered, NFO underloads their machines, so High CPU priority wouldn't help you much. You also get better performance by NOT being in a virtualized environment.

Hope this helps!

[Edge100x]

soja's absolutely right. Option #1 would be best for you, because it will offer the highest performance at the lowest price. You should not need the high priority option, and the bandwidth amount only comes into play with the largest DDoS attacks. LA is a much smaller location than Chicago and is much less commonly attacked.

[[Love]DemonMaker]

Awesome,

Thanks for all the great information! Looks like ill be going with Option 1 then.

.=QUACK=.Major.Pain -- I can't find the IP information for the new European locations?

Thanks again,

DemonMaker

[.=QUACK=.Major.Pain]

Staff would have to tell you the European ips.
But it's available on the order forms.

[Edge100x]

If you select the location and configuration you're looking for on the order page, an example server will pop up if a renter with that server type and location has checked the box to be shown in a public list. Otherwise, you might try playing on a different server type, or running network-level tests to the example IP address we give on the Network/locations page.