Single Core VPS
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC40BgXanDqOYoVCYFDSTfHA
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Single Core VPS
Just wondering if the single core package would be able to run 20 slot public CS 1.6 server, plus a 12 slot private CS 1.6 server. Both are 1000 fps and on centOS 5.
Re: Single Core VPS
I don't think that would be a problem for the single core, CPU or memory-wise. The only real limitation that you might run into is bandwidth, if the servers were near-constantly full -- you'd have to monitor them to make see how much they're using through the control panel.
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
Perfect! Last concern I have is the high ping I get to Nuclear Fallout Chicago server's. I can provide a tracert if needed.
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
Tracert to NFO Chicago Server:
Tracing route to c-216-52-148-30.internap-chicago.nfoservers.com [216.52.148.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 10 ms 9 ms 18 ms 64.59.142.50
4 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms rc1no.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.76.46]
5 14 ms 13 ms 12 ms rc2so-tge0-1-1-0.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.71.109
]
6 26 ms 28 ms 26 ms rc2wh-tge0-2-1-0.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.77.226
]
7 29 ms 29 ms 30 ms rc4wt-pos14-0-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.130]
8 30 ms 31 ms 30 ms GigabitEthernet0-0-0.GW1.SEA7.ALTER.NET [157.130
.177.81]
9 30 ms 32 ms 31 ms 0.ge-0-0-0.XT1.SEA7.ALTER.NET [152.63.104.210]
10 68 ms 66 ms 77 ms 0.so-0-3-0.XT1.SCL2.ALTER.NET [152.63.0.249]
11 68 ms 68 ms 75 ms 0.so-6-0-0.BR1.SCL2.ALTER.NET [152.63.57.49]
12 67 ms 76 ms 71 ms 206.111.6.121.ptr.us.xo.net [206.111.6.121]
13 67 ms 67 ms 77 ms 207.88.12.189.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.189]
14 83 ms 83 ms 86 ms te-3-0-0.rar3.denver-co.us.xo.net [207.88.12.57]
15 85 ms 84 ms 92 ms te-4-1-0.rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net [207.88.12.21
]
16 85 ms 85 ms 84 ms 207.88.14.6.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.6]
17 85 ms 85 ms 86 ms 207.88.184.170.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.184.170]
18 83 ms 86 ms 85 ms border8.po1-bbnet1.chi.pnap.net [216.52.128.12]
19 91 ms 83 ms 83 ms c-216-52-148-30.internap-chicago.nfoservers.com
[216.52.148.30]
Tracert to other providers Chicago IP:
Tracing route to chicago.colocrossing.com [216.246.49.56]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 9 ms 12 ms 12 ms 64.59.142.50
4 11 ms 23 ms 19 ms rc1no.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.76.46]
5 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms rc2so-pos0-8-1-0.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.71.50]
6 31 ms 28 ms 29 ms rc1nr-tge0-9-0-0.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.77.26]
7 49 ms 48 ms 48 ms 66.163.77.246
8 49 ms 48 ms 47 ms equinix.xe-1-3-0.cr2.ord1.us.nlayer.net [206.223
.119.61]
9 49 ms 48 ms 48 ms po6.ar2.ord1.us.scnet.net [69.31.111.6]
10 127 ms 48 ms 50 ms 62.po2.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [75.102.3.230]
11 70 ms 51 ms 49 ms as36352.ge9-44.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [75.102.4.3
4]
12 52 ms 50 ms 50 ms unknown.chicago.colocrossing.com [216.246.109.24
2]
13 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms chicago.colocrossing.com [216.246.49.56]
Tracing route to c-216-52-148-30.internap-chicago.nfoservers.com [216.52.148.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 10 ms 9 ms 18 ms 64.59.142.50
4 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms rc1no.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.76.46]
5 14 ms 13 ms 12 ms rc2so-tge0-1-1-0.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.71.109
]
6 26 ms 28 ms 26 ms rc2wh-tge0-2-1-0.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.77.226
]
7 29 ms 29 ms 30 ms rc4wt-pos14-0-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.130]
8 30 ms 31 ms 30 ms GigabitEthernet0-0-0.GW1.SEA7.ALTER.NET [157.130
.177.81]
9 30 ms 32 ms 31 ms 0.ge-0-0-0.XT1.SEA7.ALTER.NET [152.63.104.210]
10 68 ms 66 ms 77 ms 0.so-0-3-0.XT1.SCL2.ALTER.NET [152.63.0.249]
11 68 ms 68 ms 75 ms 0.so-6-0-0.BR1.SCL2.ALTER.NET [152.63.57.49]
12 67 ms 76 ms 71 ms 206.111.6.121.ptr.us.xo.net [206.111.6.121]
13 67 ms 67 ms 77 ms 207.88.12.189.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.189]
14 83 ms 83 ms 86 ms te-3-0-0.rar3.denver-co.us.xo.net [207.88.12.57]
15 85 ms 84 ms 92 ms te-4-1-0.rar3.chicago-il.us.xo.net [207.88.12.21
]
16 85 ms 85 ms 84 ms 207.88.14.6.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.6]
17 85 ms 85 ms 86 ms 207.88.184.170.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.184.170]
18 83 ms 86 ms 85 ms border8.po1-bbnet1.chi.pnap.net [216.52.128.12]
19 91 ms 83 ms 83 ms c-216-52-148-30.internap-chicago.nfoservers.com
[216.52.148.30]
Tracert to other providers Chicago IP:
Tracing route to chicago.colocrossing.com [216.246.49.56]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 9 ms 12 ms 12 ms 64.59.142.50
4 11 ms 23 ms 19 ms rc1no.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.76.46]
5 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms rc2so-pos0-8-1-0.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.71.50]
6 31 ms 28 ms 29 ms rc1nr-tge0-9-0-0.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.77.26]
7 49 ms 48 ms 48 ms 66.163.77.246
8 49 ms 48 ms 47 ms equinix.xe-1-3-0.cr2.ord1.us.nlayer.net [206.223
.119.61]
9 49 ms 48 ms 48 ms po6.ar2.ord1.us.scnet.net [69.31.111.6]
10 127 ms 48 ms 50 ms 62.po2.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [75.102.3.230]
11 70 ms 51 ms 49 ms as36352.ge9-44.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [75.102.4.3
4]
12 52 ms 50 ms 50 ms unknown.chicago.colocrossing.com [216.246.109.24
2]
13 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms chicago.colocrossing.com [216.246.49.56]
Re: Single Core VPS
Right now Shaw is having some routing problems to InterNAP in Chicago. Fundamentally these problems are on their end, but InterNAP is currently working on resolving them from this side through more direct peerings.
I've been told by one of their high-level engineers that, if all goes well, the fiber run this requires should be completed sometime this week or early next week, soon after which they will have a maintenance event to make the final adjustments. So, within one to two weeks, Shaw pings should improve to the point that they meet or beat every provider in Chicago again (and pings to other destinations should also improve).
I've been told by one of their high-level engineers that, if all goes well, the fiber run this requires should be completed sometime this week or early next week, soon after which they will have a maintenance event to make the final adjustments. So, within one to two weeks, Shaw pings should improve to the point that they meet or beat every provider in Chicago again (and pings to other destinations should also improve).
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
So for sure the pings will be fixed in a week to two weeks? I wanna get a VPS setup ASAP, but I wanted to make sure the ping problem was gonna be fixed fairly soon. I ping great to the Seattle location, but still no VPS's there yet. I get descent ping to Chicago anyways, but I still can't wait for VPS's to come to Seattle
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
Also, how many CS 1.6 slots could the single core support at 1000 fps? Just incase I decided to bump the slots on the public server.
Re: Single Core VPS
That is plan, and I expect for it to succeed. If it doesn't work for some reason, we'll be taking a look at other possible means of working around the Shaw issue, because so many of our customers use it.rustydusty1717 wrote:So for sure the pings will be fixed in a week to two weeks?
We have direct peering to Shaw ourselves in Seattle, which is why your ping is so low there . Consequently, in a trace, you should see it go straight from Shaw's network to ours. That's the sort of thing that InterNAP is setting up in Chicago.I wanna get a VPS setup ASAP, but I wanted to make sure the ping problem was gonna be fixed fairly soon. I ping great to the Seattle location, but still no VPS's there yet. I get descent ping to Chicago anyways, but I still can't wait for VPS's to come to Seattle
We will likely be adding VDS services in Seattle soon, but I can't give a firm timetable on it yet.
It's hard to say exactly how many slots it would take to run into the CPU usage limit, since it depends so greatly on the plugins being run; with a vanilla server, I'd say it could easily support the full 32 slots, but if you plan to run GunGame or another intensive mod, your performance may vary.Also, how many CS 1.6 slots could the single core support at 1000 fps? Just incase I decided to bump the slots on the public server.
In general, I'd expect for you to run into the allocated bandwidth amount before the CPU usage/memory usage, with CS 1.6 servers. When exactly you'd hit it depends on the average player usage and how much action is going on in the server when it's full, as well as rate and plugin settings.
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
Once VPS's are offered in Seattle, would I be able to get everything migrated over, including the IP's? The public server will be just a 24/7 Dust2 server with AMXX and a few addon plugins. Nothing too crazy. The private won't be used all that much. Putting the bandwidth aside, the single core could handle up to 32 slots, roughly? Just wanna get a rough idea, incase I need to add more slots to the public server down the road.Edge100x wrote:That is plan, and I expect for it to succeed. If it doesn't work for some reason, we'll be taking a look at other possible means of working around the Shaw issue, because so many of our customers use it.rustydusty1717 wrote:So for sure the pings will be fixed in a week to two weeks?We have direct peering to Shaw ourselves in Seattle, which is why your ping is so low there . Consequently, in a trace, you should see it go straight from Shaw's network to ours. That's the sort of thing that InterNAP is setting up in Chicago.I wanna get a VPS setup ASAP, but I wanted to make sure the ping problem was gonna be fixed fairly soon. I ping great to the Seattle location, but still no VPS's there yet. I get descent ping to Chicago anyways, but I still can't wait for VPS's to come to Seattle
We will likely be adding VDS services in Seattle soon, but I can't give a firm timetable on it yet.
It's hard to say exactly how many slots it would take to run into the CPU usage limit, since it depends so greatly on the plugins being run; with a vanilla server, I'd say it could easily support the full 32 slots, but if you plan to run GunGame or another intensive mod, your performance may vary.Also, how many CS 1.6 slots could the single core support at 1000 fps? Just incase I decided to bump the slots on the public server.
In general, I'd expect for you to run into the allocated bandwidth amount before the CPU usage/memory usage, with CS 1.6 servers. When exactly you'd hit it depends on the average player usage and how much action is going on in the server when it's full, as well as rate and plugin settings.
Re: Single Core VPS
I could help you migrate the files, but IPs are tied to locations (due to the way routing on the internet works) -- so you'd have to use a new set of IPs if you switched.Once VPS's are offered in Seattle, would I be able to get everything migrated over, including the IP's?
With that configuration, I wouldn't expect you to have a problem running at least 32 slots. These new CPU cores are remarkably fast, and that basic setup should be light on CPU resources.The public server will be just a 24/7 Dust2 server with AMXX and a few addon plugins. Nothing too crazy. The private won't be used all that much. Putting the bandwidth aside, the single core could handle up to 32 slots, roughly? Just wanna get a rough idea, incase I need to add more slots to the public server down the road.
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
Perfect! One last question. What would you suggest for sys_ticrate and -pingboost to get a steady 900-1000 FPS? I've been using -pingboost 3 +sys_ticrate 1000 on centOS 5 and it is very unstable. I'm sure the kernel isn't right either though. Does your VPS's running centOS 5 have a better kernel to support 1000 fps?
Re: Single Core VPS
You need to use a sys_ticrate setting at least 20-30% higher than the desired FPS. I recommend following these instructions to get the smoothest performance: http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewto ... =47&t=4078
The CentOS 5.4 kernel is an updated and patched version of the Linux 2.6.18 kernel, and it's not too well-configured for game servers. I would recommend using our Gentoo kernel instead.
The CentOS 5.4 kernel is an updated and patched version of the Linux 2.6.18 kernel, and it's not too well-configured for game servers. I would recommend using our Gentoo kernel instead.
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
-pingboost 3 +sys_ticrate 1500
Would that work then? Also, I ordered my VPS last night, and I noticed it was using 300 mb of ram with nothing running, so I did a fresh install of CentOS 5 and it's still not finished. Was roughly 10 hours ago I started it.
Would that work then? Also, I ordered my VPS last night, and I noticed it was using 300 mb of ram with nothing running, so I did a fresh install of CentOS 5 and it's still not finished. Was roughly 10 hours ago I started it.
Re: Single Core VPS
That would work better, aye. I'd still recommend the method given in my post, though, as -pingboost 3 is not very good.rustydusty1717 wrote:-pingboost 3 +sys_ticrate 1500
Would that work then?
Did you try stopping Gnome? If you're not using it, I'd recommend shutting it off: http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewto ... =46&t=4117Also, I ordered my VPS last night, and I noticed it was using 300 mb of ram with nothing running
I can check on that for you. Please shoot me an email at support@nfoservers.com about that problem, since it's something on our end.so I did a fresh install of CentOS 5 and it's still not finished. Was roughly 10 hours ago I started it.
-
- This is my homepage
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:15 pm
Re: Single Core VPS
I'm trying to stop Gnome, but I'm un-sure of what you mean by hitting Control-X. I figured the rest out, but not sure of that part. I'm using ponderosa to connect to SSH, if that matters.