The Elders' House of Pain

Server Forum => General Server Information => Topic started by: TE | Hypo on July 01, 2008, 10:50:15 AM

Title: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: TE | Hypo on July 01, 2008, 10:50:15 AM
What are you guys using for your servers?  are they rented boxes provided by the ISP/Host? or did you guys purchase, build and place them somewhere?  What are the stats/age etc of the boxes?
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: WidowMaker on July 01, 2008, 11:46:42 AM
We have had the boxes for quite some time now, so the hardware is a little dated. But we rent the boxes from a gaming company, Leetservers.

We have 2 dedicated boxes. They are both the same specs

CPU: Intel Pentium D Dual core 3GHz
Ram: 1Gig
HD: Seagate 7200.9 SATA 80GB

Not much else. The important factor is the bandwidth. We have gotten offers to go to one box and actually pay less money. But I am a little skeptical running all of our servers off one box. The new box would be package 2 on this page
http://www.leetservers.com/dedicated.php

Widow

Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: V.I.P. on July 01, 2008, 12:40:00 PM
Well with the 1000gb of bandwidth offered, will it be a problem running on just one box?  This is just a personal inflection on the current issue, but I don't think the DOD server will stay up too long.  If that extra server is dropped do you think there would be a problem on just one box?  The reason I ask is because the server for a "larger" clan is only 50 dollars more and is a reasonable upgrade in hardware.
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: WidowMaker on July 01, 2008, 01:47:48 PM
The bandwidth is not the problem. the problem is Will over 100 slots be playable on one box with quad core and 4 gigs of ram
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: TE | Hypo on July 01, 2008, 01:57:32 PM
how many NIC's are in the server?  is there an actual OS on the servers?
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: Video_Master on July 01, 2008, 02:32:35 PM
Even 1 NIC is more then enough bandwidth to cover.  Also the servers are running Windows Server 2003.
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: TE | Hypo on July 01, 2008, 02:48:47 PM
Even 1 NIC is more then enough bandwidth to cover.  Also the servers are running Windows Server 2003.

Enterprise?  cuz Enterprise can handle more RAM than 4 gigs...
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: Video_Master on July 01, 2008, 02:53:22 PM
There is no need for more then 4 Gigs of ram.  Also we can't just buy ram for the machine.  I also highly doubt it is enterprise anyways as there is no need for that.
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: V.I.P. on July 01, 2008, 04:22:11 PM
Ok, well I'm guessing that two boxes is out of the question because that would be some serious dough.  Downsizing isn't really an option other than the DOD unless it stays populated.  So, we're pretty much stuck with what we have until something that catches someones eye comes along eh?
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: TE | Hypo on July 02, 2008, 07:14:33 AM
thats a pretty sweet deal you guys got there.  probably got the best connection/location too.   :blob:  (looking at their website.)

I like the ABOUT US page.  pulls no punches, no bullshit, we know our shit, we own our shit, you really want to work with us. 

nice pick!
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: addrockk on July 11, 2008, 06:09:44 AM
Also the servers are running Windows Server 2003.

Yuck. Who runs a server on windows... honestly?  ;-)

If both servers are really running on Pent D 3Ghz, with 1GiB of RAM, I think you will see a performance increase if you move to one quad core with 4 GiB. Pentium D isn't really a server chip... Xeon 5000 series maybe? Now that I look the quad core chip thats offered (Kentsfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2#Kentsfield)) is a desktop chip as well (but a decent one).

If you're running with one gig of ram on 2003, you gotta think that about half of that is gonna be chewed by the OS, so one server = one OS = less memory overhead altogether.

Plus the Core2's are gonna run at a much higher bus speed that the PentD's, so even non-multithreaded servers (srcds.exe isn't truly multithreaded, it just threads some network work) should run better than on a 3.0.

Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: WidowMaker on July 15, 2008, 05:35:57 AM
Reason we got Windows server are:

1. easier to manage.
2. Updates for the source engine usually are release for windows first.
3. Usually the updates work. Don't have to worry about some linux box running a custom distro or recompiled source code.
4. Source just runs better on windows.

With 2 pubs 20 slot cs:s and 24 slot TF2, Hlstats perl script, mysql, and the 14 slot private we use 680MB of RAM

Not too shabby if you ask me. Servers pretty much have the bare minimum on them so we have ram to use. The only time ram becomes a factor is on the second box with COD4 running, it is a RAM HOG!!!

Widow

Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: wonder. on July 15, 2008, 09:39:48 AM
well thats because its the best game out.
Title: Re: Hardware question for servers...
Post by: addrockk on July 29, 2008, 07:54:17 AM
Thats really low ram usage for a windows box actually doing anything. Not bad at all.

I forget your not running any MS apps on it though, like IIS, term. svc, etc. Helps alot I guess.

Plus now that I think of it, you can get TCP/IP Offload Engine drivers for windows boxes easier than you can other OSes, so your NICs will fly as well. Do you know if you're using TOE on those boxes?