Recommended Server Specs

[kommander3x 10]

Hey Everyone-

What are the recommended specs for a dedi server running Arma 3? Say around 64 players.

What about running a vanilla version of Arma 3 and then another instance with a modded mission file for Wasteland?

What about running other server instances like: no more room in hell, minecraft and ts on the same box?

What are some of you other guys doing as far as this?

Does anyone know if the specs would change much once Arma 3 is out of beta?

Input on this would be appreciated.

Thanks

Kommander3x

[Hatchet_Harry 1]

Hello Kommander:

The server specs are depending on the mod.

I am running virtual Machines with the following specs:

- 4 vCPU: on 3,4 GHz The Machine is using 4.5 Ghz (ESX Server CPU: i7 2600)

- RAM: 4GB

- HDD: Currently normal SATA HDD - The HDD's are my Bottleneck atm. They are running into IO Problems. Consider to use SSD Storage for the Arma Folder and the logfiles.

- Network: i ran the Servers on 100 Mbit and 1 GBit.

Usage: Max 20 Mbit with VON and TS on the same Connection. I dont asked for 1 Gbit. My Hoster is the coolest guy ever.

This Server is running for 40 Players with 150 vehicles stable. (GoT Wasteland)

Keep in mind: Wasteland is a really cool mod, but it is a performance slut!!

Keep in mind: Dont use AMD CPU's. Many ppl complained about performance. (I dont tested them)

Keep in mind: Other mods need less performance.

Keep in mind: CPU is the most critical ressource! If you dont have enough CPU, you will have desync problems and many more effects.

Keep in mind: Terox wrote a awesome tut. It is the dedicated server sticky thread.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Hatchet_Harry

[terox 316]

ArmA3 is cpu intensive

You will need a good quad core I7 or Xeon equivalent to run multiple instances

(Not sure if an I5 would cope with your requirements)

and ideally situated in a data centre so you don't have any bandwidth issues

We have a dual Xeon X5570's (Getting a bit old now) and this has no problems running multiple A3 / A2 servers for 2 communities at the same time, plus Teamspeak and a b unch of other apps and whatever other games we feel like hosting.

I have no idea how many playable slots you could get away with for a simple pvp server (More than a coop that's for sure)

I feel (and am sure some will disagree), that if you are running missions with AI, such as a coop, you need to cap the player slots to somewhere around 40-50.

We would expect improvements in the networking systems via future official patches, so i would suspect, the performance we are seeing at the moment will be improved in the future.

Hope that helps

[BadHabitz 235]

Out of curiosity, what do you think of this CPU for a server?

[kommander3x 10]

This is some great info. I appreciate you guys taking the time to share the info.

I know Harry says they have SATA i/o issues. Any thoughts on striped SATA drives for this situation? I know on my own gaming PC, my striped 7200 2TB drives are performing as well as my SSDs (non raid) when reading or writing, so I would guess that to be about the same server wise. What about raid 10 if I'm actually concerned with stability?

CPU wise, it seems that most of the common Xeons today would work. Do you guys have recommendations on hosts within the Chicago region? Obviously I can Google this stuff until I'm blue in the face, but hearing about current situations on a game I'm interested in running seems much more relevant compared to generalizations on other games.

[Hatchet_Harry 1]

SATA Raid VS SSD:

Depends on the Disks http://www.overclockers.com/hdd-vs-ssd/

Consumer Disks: 4 x SATA Raid 10 - COST: Raid Controller, 4x HDD - Capacity HUGE (40 € / month)

Consumer SSD: 1x SSD - COST: SSD - Capacity SMALL (10 € / month)

(My Decision) Ram: COST: 10 € / month - RamDisk Tool (25 € Once) - Capacity Medium - insane fast but unsecure

Current Arma Folder Size: ~ 9 GB

My Disk Decision is: I will run Arma in Ram. I know about the data security concerns, but i dont care. Because: Its just for free gameservers (no critical data). The Ram will be backed up differential every 10 minutes.

I tested it: The performance was awesome. If the Machine crashes and the Ram is not stored to Disk: You will loose the Data. I was able to manage the IO peeks. My Sata Disks were bored.

Boot Time: Incredible Slow, because i you have to copy the Disk Backup in the RAM. Wayne... i dont want to reboot the whole server often.

I dont know, if i am happy with the third solution. The longterm test will show it.

IO Problems:

I just see on my ESX: The latency is to high.

The Host is running some other machines too. The Arma Servers are consuming the most disk performance.

[comp_uter15776 1]

We actually run ArmA 3 on linux here, despite there being no native server files. We use WINE and emulate it that way. Performance is great, too. Our specs are:

2x 2TB HDDs (some RAID format, I forget. I think it's 0)

8 core Xeon

32GB RAM

Unmetered Gigabit line

We have a different one for services that utilises SSDs as they would be more intensive on read/write.

[fred41 42]

... a lot of RAM can really speedup your Arma 3 server if you use it in an optimal way.

If you have enough RAM to hold a copy of your whole addon folder in a RAM disk (current DEV branch ~ 9.5GB ), there is no need for a SSD or a fast RAID anymore.

As example:

Rename your "Addons" folder to "Addons_hdd", copy the content to a folder in your RAM Disk (z:\Addons) and make a link in Arma root folder,

pointing to the data in RAM disk (mklink /D Addons z:\Addons).

You just have to ensure the whole folder is copied to RAM disk at system start (via scheduled batch/cmd file) and written back if a STEAM update was applied.

Hatchet_Harry, there is no risk at all, the data in addon folder are only readed (not modified).

Regards,

Fred41

SATA Raid VS SSD:

Depends on the Disks http://www.overclockers.com/hdd-vs-ssd/

Consumer Disks: 4 x SATA Raid 10 - COST: Raid Controller, 4x HDD - Capacity HUGE (40 € / month)

Consumer SSD: 1x SSD - COST: SSD - Capacity SMALL (10 € / month)

(My Decision) Ram: COST: 10 € / month - RamDisk Tool (25 € Once) - Capacity Medium - insane fast but unsecure

Current Arma Folder Size: ~ 9 GB

My Disk Decision is: I will run Arma in Ram. I know about the data security concerns, but i dont care. Because: Its just for free gameservers (no critical data). The Ram will be backed up differential every 10 minutes.

I tested it: The performance was awesome. If the Machine crashes and the Ram is not stored to Disk: You will loose the Data. I was able to manage the IO peeks. My Sata Disks were bored.

Boot Time: Incredible Slow, because i you have to copy the Disk Backup in the RAM. Wayne... i dont want to reboot the whole server often.

I dont know, if i am happy with the third solution. The longterm test will show it.

IO Problems:

I just see on my ESX: The latency is to high.

The Host is running some other machines too. The Arma Servers are consuming the most disk performance.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Fred41

[Hatchet_Harry 1]

The ramdisk tool dumps the whole ramdisk to HDD and stores the changes. I dont have to worry about it. I will update the directly on the disk.

The Server utilizes the memory page sharing feature of the ESXi 5x.

My main datasecurity concerns are:

- Logs and iniDB

- Servercrashes + automized restart

The testserver is designed to do the needed things automatically, (for example) when i want to make kids during a server crash. I dont want to stop really important things for gameservers :)

Later i want to figure out the possible reason. So i need the dumped logs. I dont want to have log writing IO on my HDD. Just if Arma thinks "now i have to write 100 times attribute height unknown". This my main problem with arma logs. They produce IO peaks ... laggs, resyncs and problems on other servers.

[fred41 42]

... yes, your setup seems to be a good solution.

I think, the IO peaks related to log-file writing are mainly a problem, if you have the log files on the same drive as your frequently readed "Addons" folder.

In this case, you have massive reads and writes concurrently!!!

But, if you have your whole "Addons" folder in a RAM disk (ultra fast, separate drive), then you could keep your log files and maybe your iniDB on persistent HDD.

This way you have both, insane performance and highest data security.

Greets,

Fred41

The ramdisk tool dumps the whole ramdisk to HDD and stores the changes. I dont have to worry about it. I will update the directly on the disk.

The Server utilizes the memory page sharing feature of the ESXi 5x.

My main datasecurity concerns are:

- Logs and iniDB

- Servercrashes + automized restart

The testserver is designed to do the needed things automatically, (for example) when i want to make kids during a server crash. I dont want to stop really important things for gameservers :)

Later i want to figure out the possible reason. So i need the dumped logs. I dont want to have log writing IO on my HDD. Just if Arma thinks "now i have to write 100 times attribute height unknown". This my main problem with arma logs. They produce IO peaks ... laggs, resyncs and problems on other servers.

[galzohar 31]

For ramdisk you should really only need the addons folder, that's where all the mid-game loading is done as far as I'm aware. But a server really shouldn't have to load much from the HDD during a game. Other than visuals, just about everything is already loaded when the mission starts. Of course, starting a mission (especially for the first time after server restart) will be faster with ramdisk (or SSD to a lesser degree).

[fred41 42]

You are right, the highest IO load, will be always observed at mission start.

If you check the real IO behavoir of Arma3Server.exe while running a mission, then you will notice,

that a lot of data are still readed frequently (noncached) from the Addons folder.

To verify this, you can use the following tool:

http://live.sysinternals.com/Procmon.exe

By filtering for Arma3Server.exe and only file access, you get a clear notion of DS file-access pattern.

Conclusion for me is, it can make a big difference, not only on mission start, where your data are physically located .

Especially the FPS drops caused by IO peaks, can be significantly reduced, by moving the Addons folder to a physical ultra high speed drive (RAM-disk).

All you need is RAM :)

Greets,

Fred41

For ramdisk you should really only need the addons folder, that's where all the mid-game loading is done as far as I'm aware. But a server really shouldn't have to load much from the HDD during a game. Other than visuals, just about everything is already loaded when the mission starts. Of course, starting a mission (especially for the first time after server restart) will be faster with ramdisk (or SSD to a lesser degree).

[kyle77745 10]

Out of Curiosity, does anyone have any updated server specs? My group: 48th Mechanized infantry, are looking to build our own dedicated server, and I noticed that this post is showing its age.

[James Sullivan 5]

Hi guys, what do you think about this server configuration ? (It's for my team, the server should run with ALiVE, CSE and other addons (like uniforms, vehicles, weapons...)

- CPU : Core i3 - 2 x 3.3 GHz

- RAM : 16Go

- HDD : 2 x 1To (HDD) or 128Go (SSD)

- Network : 100 Mbps - 1 Gbps

[joschaap 1]

i think i overdid my 'test' server abit :o

http://i.imgur.com/2iG44O6.jpg (217 kB)

running this server: http://www.got2dayz.nl/?page_id=666

[loud 11]

We are now running on a hexacore Xeon x5650 2.66Ghz with 16GB of ram. We will be moving to two Xeon x5672 3.2Ghz quadcores soon as the other cpu speed is too slow and gives us too low FPS with 60 players.

[astrell 3]

@LouD

I´m using an Intel Xeon E3 1245v2, 4x3,8Ghz / 8MB SmartCache ( And pretty happy about it :o )

Your CPU have 12MB Smartcache but less CPU freq.

Do you prefer CPUs with bigger smartcache over CPU with greater Ghz number? Do you have some benches?

[loud 11]

@LouD

I´m using an Intel Xeon E3 1245v2, 4x3,8Ghz / 8MB SmartCache ( And pretty happy about it :o )

Your CPU have 12MB Smartcache but less CPU freq.

Do you prefer CPUs with bigger smartcache over CPU with greater Ghz number? Do you have some benches?

I think it's mostly the CPU speed frequency which matters. With 60 players our server (hexacore x5650) runs at only 10 fps. Which is far too low.

[jetfox 1]

We are now running on a hexacore Xeon x5650 2.66Ghz with 16GB of ram. We will be moving to two Xeon x5672 3.2Ghz quadcores soon as the other cpu speed is too slow and gives us too low FPS with 60 players.

Overclock the x5650 to 3.5ghz on air easily ;)

[loud 11]

We now run 2x x5672 at 3.4 Ghz. One runs the server and one runs the headless client.

A3Wastland with 60 players will run at 15 to 20 fps depending on the amount of objects ingame.

[lodac 10]

We now run 2x x5672 at 3.4 Ghz. One runs the server and one runs the headless client.

A3Wastland with 60 players will run at 15 to 20 fps depending on the amount of objects ingame.

We run E3-1271 V3's and we see 20fps with 75 players.

[brightcandle 114]

I did a lot of testing of this in Alpha before I selected the hardware for Tier1Ops.eu. I tested across a variety of CPUs from AMD and Intel and the end result was you want the fastest Intel CPU you can get your hands on. The game doesn't care for cores at all, a basic 2 core chip is just as good as a 4 core or more at the moment. Something like a top clock Haswell i5 will bring you the best performance. RAM wise the dedicated server doesn't use much, it can usually run within 1-2GB. The extra RAM helps cache the drive but IO isn't a big concern normally for arma servers.

Don't worry about I7's or Xeon's or dual CPU servers or any of that jazz, if you want to run one game then a dual core i3 or a quad core i5 with the highest clock speed you can afford to run within your power constraints of the environment its in. This is the post I made back in April 2013 about what I built http://tier1ops.eu/servers.

Years ago the limits we found were even on that hardware we couldn't really go past 40 players with 150 AI to maintain a server FPS above 40. Things presumably have improved a little since then with all the optimisation being done but most communities I know are having serious problems with frame rate with these big games anyway (we have problems with small games!). Not sure what the absolute limits are now.

Even today with Charlie Foxtrot Ops I keep a good eye on the CPU usage of the server and its still sub 2 cores. We get much better performance on Intel than AMD and it loves clock speed. If another community was considering temporary Amazon virtual servers like we use (lots of performance not a lot of cost for just game time) then you want at least a C3.large, but you wont see any benefit from a C3.xlarge unless you run a headless client as well where the xlarge becomes useful. Bigger than that is really only for multiple servers and then you are into IO constraints and impact between servers so its better to run servers on different machines. The C4.large is presumably a bit faster due to the Haswell CPUs in it verses the Sandy/Ivy bridge of the c3.large, but the impact as far as I can tell is only moderate. Don't try and use anything else, you want the CPU compute optimised machines for Arma 3 dedicated servers.

[Theo1143 18]

I know this is a old topic, but better asked here then open another topic somewhere else.

I'm considering hosting mine own invade and annex server.

Since i still have a old laptop who might do the trick, why not?

So here i'm, i got a laptop whit 3.3 Ghz a intel 5 whit 16 gb ram, running OS on a SSD from around 500GB.

Would this be do able for a 30 - 50 man server?

 

(To be honest all i see on official host is 3.4 Ghz tops whit old HDD, which makes you better use a 2.4 ghz whit a SSD!

Don't fall for the sell techniek, you never get where you pay for...

Beside that that is the box i'm speaking off so that means 3 more servers on there atleast.)

[terox 316]

SSD has no bearing on the running of an A3 server, the HDD is mainly used for accessing graphical data like textures etc on clients and as the server runs 0 graphics, the only improvement you will see is faster server startup time. I would spend the money on a decent Western Digi enterprise disk with a lot of storage, the fastest quad core you can get your hands on and enough ram to support the game and all the other apps you want to run

 

For 30 -50 players you are going to need that installed on a fast connection up and down, typical home connections can support a handful of players at most

[Viscosity_Ani 0]

Hi I was wondering which of the following specs would work Best:

 

Gaming VDS3
Windows Server 2008R2
6GB Ram
200GB HDD
4 Virtual 3.4+Ghz Processors
1TB Bandwidth
1 Dedicated IP Address

 

Gaming VDS2

Windows Server 2008R2
4GB Ram
100GB HDD
2 Virtual 3.4Ghz Processors
1TB Bandwidth
1 Dedicated IP Address

 

Or

 

Gaming VDS1

Windows Server 2008R2
2GB Ram
50GB HDD
1 Virtual 3.4Ghz Processor
500GB Bandwidth
1 Dedicated IP Address