Considering a VDS, Have Questions

[Hikaru Zero]

Hi everyone ... it's been a long while since I've used NFO for a game server. In the past my CS:S team and I had an NFO server for a while ... this time I am coming to you as a player of a different game, Microsoft Freelancer (a mod of that game).

Our server community is currently trying to solve the problem of hosting our server/hardware. We have a machine we are currently using, but it is hosted in the basement of our server's manager and runs off of a standard home Comcast connection. He is trying to, over time, get it out of his basement and either into someone else's basement (someone who has more time to manage it) or onto some kind of hosting solution. However we are a small community and nobody else who plays on our server has come forward to offer their help, and the server requires technical know-how to install, configure, run, and manage.

I was looking at NFO's VDS rentals, and it looks like a VDS could be just what we need. There is only one problem -- we aren't rich, and can't really afford $60+ a month for the kind of package we require.

Our server runs a modification of Microsoft Freelancer and currently has/uses:

1 Dual-core E7600 CPU @ 3.6 GHz per core
2 GB of RAM (I think only ~1 GB used)
~100 GB of HD space
<250GB of bandwidth monthly

As you can see, our resource requirements are kind of split ... our requirements are heavy on the CPU usage, but light on bandwidth, memory, and HD space. During peak times we have around 60-70 players -- during low times we have between 5 and 20. During peak times, the 2 CPU cores are not quite enough, but all the other resources are more than enough. During low times, we need less than 1 CPU core.

I read this thread on the NFO forums regarding splitting resources -- that it's not very economically feasible for NFO to do this, and thus that we would have to order the $60 package (2 cores, 2 GB RAM, 200 GB HD space, and 2 TB of bandwidth/month). However as mentioned, we really just can't afford that per month, as we are a small community.

So here's my question ... how can NFO help? I notice that the date of the post above is from 4 years ago ... have things changed since then? Is NFO still incapable of providing a split VDS package, or one with shared CPU resources? Or can NFO now accommodate that going into the future, or is there something else NFO can offer us for cheaper that might be able to suit our needs?

Thanks for all your time & answers!

Regards,
Hikky Z

[Edge100x]

That post is actually just from last month! We still wouldn't be able to offer additional HT CPU cores separately at this time, as we aren't set up to do that (our new machines have more memory than CPU cores, so we have spare memory but not cores).

You might try the single-HT-core option during a free trial, as your current E7600 CPU is an older generation and it is possible that your game might run much better on the Nehalem+ CPUs that we use for our VDSes.

[Hikaru Zero]

Ahhhh oops! I'm dumb, I read "Feb 07" as "Feb 2007" My mistake! Thanks for the answer!

You might try the single-HT-core option during a free trial, as your current E7600 CPU is an older generation and it is possible that your game might run much better on the Nehalem+ CPUs that we use for our VDSes.

About this ... can you tell me what speed (or what range of speeds) CPU core we get with that, and what the caches are on the processors you use? I understand that cache size is rather important with regards to the demand this game places on the processors.

I am thinking that 1 CPU core definitely will not be enough ... as it is we start to see a drop in performance during peak times with our current CPU that has 2 cores. I am thinking perhaps 2 Nehalem+ CPU cores might be enough to sustain us during peak times, especially if they are faster than what are running now or have larger caches, however I don't think we are able to reliably raise $60 a month hehe. The problem is the price ... we need to operate on at least our current operating level, and I am certain with our current processor struggling during peak times that 1 Nehalem+ core will not be enough.

I don't suppose NFO would consider actually hosting a physical server for us? Our current server is in Peachtree City, not far from Atlanta. Or perhaps you could recommend a company that does something along those lines, if you don't? Any direction you could give toward a cheap solution would be helpful!

[Edge100x]

About this ... can you tell me what speed (or what range of speeds) CPU core we get with that, and what the caches are on the processors you use? I understand that cache size is rather important with regards to the demand this game places on the processors.

Though we're always evaluating new configurations and upgrading, most of our servers are currently on these: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47926

I am thinking that 1 CPU core definitely will not be enough ... as it is we start to see a drop in performance during peak times with our current CPU that has 2 cores. I am thinking perhaps 2 Nehalem+ CPU cores might be enough to sustain us during peak times, especially if they are faster than what are running now or have larger caches, however I don't think we are able to reliably raise $60 a month hehe. The problem is the price ... we need to operate on at least our current operating level, and I am certain with our current processor struggling during peak times that 1 Nehalem+ core will not be enough.

I understand. Over time, our VDS prices definitely trend downward, so you might try back later.

I don't suppose NFO would consider actually hosting a physical server for us? Our current server is in Peachtree City, not far from Atlanta. Or perhaps you could recommend a company that does something along those lines, if you don't? Any direction you could give toward a cheap solution would be helpful!

We don't do colocation here. I am not very familiar with other companies that do, so I can't really recommend one. You might try asking on a site like WebHostingTalk.com, though.

[Hikaru Zero]

Great, thanks for your time.

[Hikaru Zero]

Okay! New questions! Sorry for putting up with me -- I appreciate all your guys hard work.

Now I have a question about your virtualization environment/hypervisor. Here is the question: Can you virtualize two dedicated CPU cores into a single CPU/core as made available to an operating system (specifically, Windows Server 2003)? Not necessarily implying that that would combine the speeds of each core, I'm sure working in parallel they wouldn't be quite as fast as a single core with twice the speed.

I'm asking this because the Freelancer Server is restricted to run on a single core at any given time, being an old game. Apparently according to our current server host, the server set up where the server EXE process (flserver.exe) runs on one core while the operating system and administration tools run on another core. The server EXE process maxes out the one core on load, but the load isn't able to bleed over to the other core due to whatever limitation.

So ... yeah, can you virtualize 2 cores into 1? How about it guys?

[Edge100x]

It's not possible to combine cores like that, no.

The fact that the game is single-threaded might be good news for you, though. It might actually run well on a single-core VDS, in that case, at the 29.99 price point. The OS overhead should be relatively minimal.

[Hikaru Zero]

While I understand that the OS overhead may be fairly minimal, and that the admin tools have a little more overhead but also probably fairly small overhead, I don't think running everything on a single core would be as good as what we have now, and it is important for us to progress on the issue and not regress. Also in all honesty I am not sure 1GB of RAM is enough at peak times ... especially with the admin tools or any backup tools running in the background.

In any case ... if we did end up going with 1 core, what kind of core and what kind of speed could you offer? And if we managed to somehow work out the money issue and get 2 cores, what speed/architecture would they be?

[Edge100x]

I don't think running everything on a single core would be as good as what we have now

It might not, but it might. It's tough to say ahead of time, but you should be able to tell that during the free trial.

and it is important for us to progress on the issue and not regress. Also in all honesty I am not sure 1GB of RAM is enough at peak times ... especially with the admin tools or any backup tools running in the background.

Yes, if your game really does use 1 GB+ of RAM, that is likely going to be the main limiting factor. I must say that it's very unusual for a game server to use that much RAM -- we don't have any in our shared hosting system that do.

In any case ... if we did end up going with 1 core, what kind of core and what kind of speed could you offer?

This varies slightly depending on the location, but all our Nehalem/i7+, which is a fairly big step up from what you're running now in terms of architecture. The primary CPU type that we use is the one that I linked before.

And if we managed to somehow work out the money issue and get 2 cores, what speed/architecture would they be?

They would be the same as with a single core, but you would have two.