Server Decision

[JoeDamage 10]

Hi,

Our community has been running the Linux server for as long as its been around. At this stage, we've been waiting for a good few weeks for the Linux server to be functioning properly. We're reaching a critical point now, where we need to decide whether to continue to run the Linux server or whether we should abandon it completely, and spend the extra money and administrative hassle running a Windows server. My questions are the following:

1. Is BIS going to continue to support the Linux server?
   
2. Will it always be weeks behind the Windows server?
   
3. Will it always lack support for some features, like the features needed to implement MSO and other logging/persistance features?
   
4. Will a Windows server perform the same as the Linux sever on the same hardware?
   
5. Is WINE a viable option, or does it cause significant performance reduction? (I'm skeptical about using WINE, as I've tried to install as per the instructions around the forums, and haven't managed to get it working)
   

I realise that some of these questions might not have simple answers, in which case, general impressions/anecdotal experience is fine.

Regards

Joedamage

[Wulvgar 1]

1. No idea, but I'm guessing yes because the Linux community is just as big as windows

2. yes sometimes months, arma3 might change

3. if anything I can get better logging out of linux then windows

4. No, 28 years into supporting 1000's of servers in enterprise datacenters. UNIX wins every time. Windows 2008 is very impressive, but still memory hog

5. Dont need it

When comes to performance Linux servers out performs windows with less resources. However, this game seems to be more designed for Windows servers out the box.

I have a dedicated Linux server with only 2G of ram that can host 60 players with no lag. I've supported 60 even with only 1G of RAM just as a test.

If your not comfortable with Linux cmd line and tuning then I would go with Windows.

[JoeDamage 10]

Ah.. interesting. I'm fairly familiar with Linux, no problems there... my community is keen to play using the multi-session operations.. so the ability to save the state of a game is also becoming a factor. Is this something thats available in any form for Linux? Or will it ever be?

[Tankbuster 1746]

this game seems to be more designed for Windows servers out the box.

.

This does seem to be the case. My old hosting provider who only had Linux boxes told me that the Linux server executable was a poorly ported hunk of code. From the horses mouth, so to speak. I've had Windows servers ever since and no complaints.

[Wulvgar 1]

This does seem to be the case. My old hosting provider who only had Linux boxes told me that the Linux server executable was a poorly ported hunk of code. From the horses mouth, so to speak. I've had Windows servers ever since and no complaints.

Yeah I've seen very strange bugs that only seems to happen on linux servers. Nothing major just strange and funny sometimes

We currently running 1.62alpha and shocking stable, my server been up 24 + hrs no restarts yet.

Really hoping arma3 server supports Linux fully. So much cheaper to host one

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Ah.. interesting. I'm fairly familiar with Linux, no problems there... my community is keen to play using the multi-session operations.. so the ability to save the state of a game is also becoming a factor. Is this something thats available in any form for Linux? Or will it ever be?

HAHA man your reading my mind or something ?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?139054-ArmA2oa-Persistent-Database-for-Linux

No issues with any missions, mods, or scripts but I've asked the same question today. I thought for sure someone would have ported the persistent database features to linux, but I haven't found it.

[Tankbuster 1746]

Yeah I've seen very strange bugs that only seems to happen on linux servers. Nothing major just strange and funny sometimes

Yes, now that you mention it, we had weird stuff happening on our linux box that ran faultlessly on a Windows box.

[Overlord 0]

A couple of issues to consider on this topic: licence cost/fee Windows vs Linux, rate of security updates (and reboots thereafter), hardware (memory, cpu etc) wasted just to keep OS alive and hardware actually needed to run a specific server, remote access availability for server management.

I guess not many hosting company ever will give you root access to your rented nix server, but for private (owned) server I would go for nix.

[JayC 0]

1. who knows, but it's a good question

2. again who knows, I'd hate to see what not 'fully supported' means...

3. MSO issues are an MSO choice, not an issue with the Linux server... they choose a windows only solution, that one isn't on BIS. But from the looks of it, if you want PDB you're going to need to go Windows.

4. No, expect at least a 10-15% drop in performance under Windows, and remember that Windows is a serious resource hog.

5. WINE is not a good choice IMHO, you're going to see a serious performance hit with it as well.

It's sad that a lot of folks are having to ask these questions... BIS should be doing more to get a stable beta out for Linux.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------

A couple of issues to consider on this topic: licence cost/fee Windows vs Linux, rate of security updates (and reboots thereafter), hardware (memory, cpu etc) wasted just to keep OS alive and hardware actually needed to run a specific server, remote access availability for server management.

I guess not many hosting company ever will give you root access to your rented nix server, but for private (owned) server I would go for nix.

I'm not aware of any dedicated server provider that doesn't give you root on linux?

Even with the issue under 1.60 linux out performed windows by a wide margin.... with proper tuning on BIS's part, Linux should run circles around the windows server.

[=wfl= sgt bilko 10]

Kind of depends of what he means by dedicated server provider.

If you rent a physical or virtual box, you would expect full root access.

If you rent a game instance, you will not get root access (on some you will not even get SSH/FTP access but only a web interface).

[Lokyi 10]

Privately from BIS we've been told effectively that we'll get what we get. Linux isn't BIS' primary focus, which I can understand completely. It's the hosting and Linux distro issue that's the problem here, not necessarily the software.

I still maintain that I and probably many other teams would be happy to pay BIS for a Linux licensed server effectively, but the problem then is that there are half a dozen distro's that people are running, each with different capabilities and their own inherent problems. Which equals more potential software problems. Which equals more work. I can see why BIS maintains Windows as its primary platform.

It's unfortunate for those of us who ran 1.60 for so long with no dramas, but things change, life goes on.

In summary; don't hold your breath.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Lokyi

[JayC 0]

Privately from BIS we've been told effectively that we'll get what we get. Linux isn't BIS' primary focus, which I can understand completely. It's the hosting and Linux distro issue that's the problem here, not necessarily the software.

I still maintain that I and probably many other teams would be happy to pay BIS for a Linux licensed server effectively, but the problem then is that there are half a dozen distro's that people are running, each with different capabilities and their own inherent problems. Which equals more potential software problems. Which equals more work. I can see why BIS maintains Windows as its primary platform.

It's unfortunate for those of us who ran 1.60 for so long with no dramas, but things change, life goes on.

In summary; don't hold your breath.

First, I'd like to know how you guys are getting private information out of BIS when the rest of us can't get any updates on the linux server situation?

What? It's not hosting and the linux distro that is the issue... It is software BIS released that crashes on a regular basis with glibc errors on any distro, including the one they posted as using for their build system.

I for one won't pay a single red cent for BIS to support a feature of the product I've already purchased.

As for it's the dozen distro's that are the problem... no it's not.. BIS needs to build a stable work linux dedicated server and release a list of dependencies for that server... server admins in the community will quickly figure out how to get it working on our end no problem. Linux isn't a mystery to get working... the linux dedicated server has been running just fine on a dozen or more distros for years with no problems, we just need a stable build and we'll figure the rest out.

[zyklone 1]

The amount of actual C developers appears to be very small in BI..

Of those I think 1 guy knows anything about Linux.

The distros are not the problem. Just ignore the guys running ancient centos installs.

[JoeDamage 10]

It is a fact, that even after much pleading from our side, BIS has still not posted a sticky thread, something that comes from an official representative, that they can update every time there is a new development on the Linux server. (So we assume there isn't any progress or they're embarrassed about it) It is also a fact, that nowhere does BIS state that the Linux server is anything other than a first class citizen in their range of products. They have repeatedly stated that Linux is fully supported. At this stage of the game, it is simply sickening that they don't have a properly working Linux server, that they can't post more regular updates and that they insist on setting their dogs on anyone who mentions it.

There have been repeated attempts at getting through to them, both here in the forums, via PM, via contact form on the site and directly to certain role-players in Skype. Only after a dramatic moment a week or so back, did the CEO eventually come out and say something. He had to be pried from whatever he was doing to respond to his customers. And since then there has been absolute silence again. No updates, nothing.

For BIS to show us, that they're seriously going to continue to support the Linux server, they're going to need to up their game a bit... hire more people... get some feedback going...whatever... and stop kicking their loyal fans in the teeth everytime one mentions that they're angry. At this stage, BIS is defensive and angry at their fans for calling them on it, and I predict that the way this is going to end, is with them dropping the Linux server altogether. Its simply not worth the trouble.. otherwise they'd have taken their community seriously, and dealt with the situation cordially.

I've come to the conclusion, that despite all their promises, they're not actually going to keep them. I would suggest you all go looking for Windows servers instead. If past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour, then the Linux server will always be behind, and it will always be the bastard, unloved child of Arma. :icon_sad:

[krumpo 1]

I don't understand why a windows dedicated server would take priority over a linux one to be honest. It is without a shadow of a doubt the far superior server environment as far as bang for your buck goes. As previous posters have mentioned, it does more with less. I guess it all depends on what market BI is trying to woo. If they want to take a bigger bite out of BF3's market (disclaimer:I am an ex-BF3 player) they cannot afford to ignore the things that loyal fans really want.

[Overlord 0]

It's still a windows game, right? Then it should be safe for BIS to assume that players already have a running Windows PC. And shockingly, you can even run a server from the game. Secondly, there are probably more manpower available/ needed to develop the actual simulator for Windows than servers for both Windows and Nix together.

If you check ARMA 2 & OA - BETA PATCH TESTING thread regularly, you'll find two treads for new alphas the last seven days.

And to JayC wondering about private information, read the forth line in this post. Might be something?

Stay cool, the shooting is done inside arma2oa.exe :)

[JoeDamage 10]

It's still a windows game, right? Then it should be safe for BIS to assume that players already have a running Windows PC. And shockingly, you can even run a server from the game.

That is besides the point.. as in, not really relevant to the discussion. Client and server software are two different kettle of fish. As has been pointed out many times... BIS say they are committed to supporting a Linux server and Linux servers are cheaper to run and there are many already in existence.. (although my guess is the number is dropping every day).

Secondly, there are probably more manpower available/ needed to develop the actual simulator for Windows than servers for both Windows and Nix together.

Also not really the issue.

If you check ARMA 2 & OA - BETA PATCH TESTING thread regularly, you'll find two treads for new alphas the last seven days.

And to JayC wondering about private information, read the forth line in this post. Might be something?

Stay cool, the shooting is done inside arma2oa.exe :)

Did you read that thread? Its still not working. I know from personal experience.. every release I've run so far has been thoroughly unstable in one way or another. So lets not try to pretend its working.

[Tankbuster 1746]

That is besides the point.. as in, not really relevant to the discussion.

It's only irrelevant in that it's an inconvenient truth you refuse to see.

Also not really the issue.

Again, only because you choose to see it that way. They can't just magic up expert manpower at the blink of an eye.

Perhaps it's just the medium of the internet and I'm not trying to bait you, but you do come across as a bit blinkered.

[JoeDamage 10]

It's only irrelevant in that it's an inconvenient truth you refuse to see.

Again, only because you choose to see it that way. They can't just magic up expert manpower at the blink of an eye.

Perhaps it's just the medium of the internet and I'm not trying to bait you, but you do come across as a bit blinkered.

Well, let me explain then. The issue has nothing to do with it being a Windows game vs a Linux server, because the two are essentially different pieces of software. The Windows server is not the same as the Windows game itself... it may share some components, in the same way as the Linux server uses those components, but they're still 'server' vs 'client'. In that sense, there is no need to completely re-engineer the entire 'Windows Game' to create a Linux server. The Linux server, is a port of the Windows server. If you mean that everything is written for Windows, then the server is clumsily ported to Linux, and that for this reason I shouldn't expect a Linux server, then remember that BIS has made the commitment to fully support the Linux server... so any other discussion is pretty moot. The failure of BIS to meet their committment means that many communities (including the one I admin for) have to reconsider whether using the Linux server is a good idea given that it will always be released weeks later, and at this stage, in a broken form. (Hence this thread)

"Secondly, there are probably more manpower available/ needed to develop the actual simulator for Windows than servers for both Windows and Nix together."

Arma would be a pretty dodgy singleplayer game, at best, without the server, so the server is critical to it's success. Therefore the man-power needs to be there to make sure the server software is written properly. Its not really an option. The reason why this comment is irrelevent, is that as a business, BIS should know how to allot it's resources... nobody jumped a Linux server on them.. its been around for years.. when they decided to make the changes they did in the latest releases, they should have been able to foresee that porting it to Linux would be an issue. We're talking months of knowing this, not days. If the Linux server was part of their planning process, and not just something they hoped would compile at the end of the changes, then there wouldn't be this issue. I realise that BIS can't just "magic up expert manpower", but to allow BIS to make commitments based on which we spend money, and then have them fail to follow through means that as customers we're not holding companies accountable... and non-acountable companies can ride roughshod over their customers... and I'm sure nobody wants that. Putting a bit of pressure on them to get it right is how they know we care.

[Tankbuster 1746]

So, a Linux server for BI games has the pros that it's cheap to run, uses less resources, they've "promised" to support it and it makes you feel quite nerdy.

The cons are that it hasn't actually existed from some weeks.

So, now, to that decision you mentioned in the title of the thread. It would seem to be fairly straight forward.

[JoeDamage 10]

So, a Linux server for BI games has the pros that it's cheap to run, uses less resources, they've "promised" to support it and it makes you feel quite nerdy.

The cons are that it hasn't actually existed from some weeks.

So, now, to that decision you mentioned in the title of the thread. It would seem to be fairly straight forward.

Pretty much... when I started the thread, I thought it was still an option.

[krumpo 1]

Pretty much... when I started the thread, I thought it was still an option.

Is it currently impossible to setup a linux server that supports an up to date client? I am in the process of setting one up right now, am I wasting my time?

[Tankbuster 1746]

Pretty much... when I started the thread, I thought it was still an option.

It's not the answer you wanted, but for now, it seems it's the one you're going to get.

Which is a shame, because most shared hosting providers use Linux as an OS. Although these servers are usually sold by the slot and you don't have a great deal of control or access to them, they are good for small clan servers. I know, I used to run one.

I've seen some big linux servers around before though, sometimes 50 plus players, but of course, they've gone now.

And we all know what will happen 2 days after you sign a 6 month contract on a windows server. Dwarden will rock up in a big fanfare with a stable Linux server, claiming BI has listened to all your input, gloss over the fact it's weeks late, then pout and accuse you of being ungrateful.

[JoeDamage 10]

^^ word

[krumpo 1]

It's not the answer you wanted, but for now, it seems it's the one you're going to get.

Which is a shame, because most shared hosting providers use Linux as an OS. Although these servers are usually sold by the slot and you don't have a great deal of control or access to them, they are good for small clan servers. I know, I used to run one.

I've seen some big linux servers around before though, sometimes 50 plus players, but of course, they've gone now.

And we all know what will happen 2 days after you sign a 6 month contract on a windows server. Dwarden will rock up in a big fanfare with a stable Linux server, claiming BI has listened to all your input, gloss over the fact it's weeks late, then pout and accuse you of being ungrateful.

It's a shame that BI is taking this stance. Especially since they claim linux support for the game. At least give us some transparency so we can make proper decisions. I just wasted a few days of my time trying to setup a linux server with the stable and alpha releases without success.