[cod] CoD4 server requirements: Please rate my hardware
Sido - Callofduty.pl
sido.cod at gmail.com
Thu Dec 6 17:00:09 EST 2007
COD4 lnux server requires more of memory than COD2 linux server. For COD4
linux server RAM is more important than CPU speed.
2007/12/6, Dallas Crandall <dallas at crd-dwc.com>:
>
> Someone in the list here had said that COD4 was better on CPU's & memory
> then COD2 was, so that would mean it takes less to make it run. The machines
> I have seen so far called out will run the server, however the number of
> slots will need to be determined after you set it up and as always the more
> you have in memory & cpu, the happier you will be.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* compudaze at gmail.com [mailto:compudaze at gmail.com]*On Behalf Of *Jared
> Bell
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:48 AM
> *To:* cod at icculus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cod] CoD4 server requirements: Please rate my hardware
>
>
>
> Gonna have a few people over on the lan this weekend. How many do you
> think i can host on a Athlon K8 800MHz with 768MB of ram?
>
>
>
> I'm hoping at least 8-10, but will 800mhz be fast enough even for a small
> local server?
>
> On Dec 6, 2007 1:24 PM, Alan Clegg <alan at clegg.com> wrote:
>
> Georgecooldude wrote:
>
> > What do you think would run on a 2.4ghz quad core xeon and 4-5gb ram?
> > 80gb 10,000rpm drive on 100mbit connection?
>
> Too many people ask this question for me not to put my nose directly
> into it... here goes.
>
> As with my day job, these questions can't really be answered without
> knowing a lot more about the environment. Yes, lots of things depend on
> CPU, disk, ram, etc. but your network connection is much more important.
>
> I have yet to see any true traffic analysis of a COD4 server, so I can't
> tell you how many instances you could run over a true 100mbit LAN
> connection.
>
> When people say "I have a 100mbit connection", that's all well and good,
> as that is what you have decided to pay for.
>
> I doubt, however, that your provider gives you that full 100mbit to the
> outside world.
>
> Take as an example, my house. I have a gigabit switch between some
> servers, 100mbit in most rooms, and 54mbit wireless. With all of the
> wonderful infrastructure, I still only have 4Mbit to the outside world
> (thanks, Timewarner for not offering FIOS). I guess that I could claim
> that my COD4 server has "GIGABIT CONNECTIVITY", as it is connected to
> the gig-e switch.... that does not mean that traffic coming out of my
> server to the outside world is anywhere near gig speeds.
>
> Even if your provider has multi-gig connections to the outside world,
> consider how many other people they have sold "100mbit" connections to?
>
> It doesn't take many people cranking full 100mbit flows to flood a gig
> network... See if you can get your provider to give you their
> oversubscribe numbers. How many 100mbit connections are they selling on
> that 10gig interconnect? Does it look possible?
>
> Then, you have to consider transit latency. Even if your provider has
> multi-gig connections to their provider, think about where the flows
> pass over exchange points. When I look at the output of traceroute, I
> see a couple of places that it is obvious that network traffic is
> hitting some sort of roadblock.
>
> From a couple of traceroutes:
>
> 5 tran-01-so-3-0-0-0.chrl.twtelecom.net (66.192.242.83) 11.216 ms
> 15.932 ms 12.966 ms
> 6 sl-gw25-atl-11-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.47.109) 43.524 ms 78.588
> ms 79.817 ms
>
> ----
>
> 5 66.192.240.22 (66.192.240.22) 12.108 ms 12.603 ms 11.341 ms
> 6 equinix.ash.cw.net (206.223.115.73) 22.974 ms 22.492 ms 21.183 ms
> 7 so-7-0-0-dcr2.amd.cw.net ( 195.2.10.250) 114.699 ms 112.953 ms
> 110.524 ms
> 8 so-4-0-0-ycr2.skt.cw.net ( 206.24.147.198) 130.159 ms
>
> ----
>
> 4 66-194-17-105.static.twtelecom.net (66.194.17.105 ) 4.379 ms 5.681
> ms 3.796 ms
> 5 66.192.251.27 (66.192.251.27) 65.738 ms 65.757 ms 65.204 ms
> 6 * * *
> 7 58.229.14.41 (58.229.14.41) 221.330 ms 220.193 ms 220.977 ms
> 8 58.229.12.30 (58.229.12.30) 224.661 ms 221.868 ms 216.257 ms
>
> So, from these few examples, you can see that network latency is
> introduced in places 2,3,5,10 hops away from you that neither you nor
> your provider have any control over, nor hopes of fixing.
>
> Now, what I came here to say: YOU CAN'T ASK THE QUESTION "HOW MANY
> PLAYERS CAN I SUPPORT" AND EXPECT A REALISTIC ANSWER, assuming that you
> are talking about player experience, or people playing on a LAN.
>
> BTW, I work for Internet Systems Consortium (www.isc.org) on the BIND
> and DHCP training and support team. We get questions all the time
> asking "how big a server do I need to serve X number of zones and to
> support Y number of recursive clients... I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION
> EITHER, and for mostly the same reasons.
>
> Thanks for your time and patience in reading this entire e-mail.
>
> {and if you've actually read this far, please quit asking about sizing
> servers, K? THX!}
>
> AlanC
>
>
>
--
www.callofduty.pl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/cod/attachments/20071206/e3ee67bb/attachment.htm>
More information about the Cod
mailing list