dimon 28 Posted November 12, 2015 Tell me the best configuration for the server ArmA3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
terox 316 Posted November 12, 2015 there isnt a "Best one". There is no easy answer that fits all It's what works for your server in the environment you have set it up in and you have given us diddly squat info on what that is, so how long is your piece of string Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dimon 28 Posted November 12, 2015 server for the greatest number of players, the greatest number of units - simple question. Primarily interested in the CPU for the server. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SavageCDN 231 Posted November 12, 2015 The highest GHz you can get would be the simple answer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richie 330 Posted November 12, 2015 More cores and the highest frequency you can, 16GB Ram is plenty, personally i saw no difference between SSD and Sata3, even in raid. 50 Mbit @ 10TB xfer is more than enough bandwidth, we ran 3 servers from 1 machine and never exceeded 20 mbit out Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dimon 28 Posted November 12, 2015 Sorry, guys. My first post need a extra explaintation. I have mean what to prefer: the top desktop CPU overclocked to max GHz possible, or server CPU with more than desktop cores and L3 cache. In other words what is priority GHz or number of cores? Our current server can't assure fine FPS for 180 players in PvP battle on large maps like Altis. Now we gathering money for new server and looking for best choice. There must be a smart decision because cost of hardware is high and we have no right for an mistake. For example we have a choice between Intel Core i7-5820K overclocked to 4.1Ghz, or may be Intel Core i7-6700K overclocked 4.7GHz, or Intel Xeon E3-1270v3 @ 3.9Ghz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tankbuster 1733 Posted November 12, 2015 No For example we have a choice between Intel Core i7-5820K overclocked to 4.1Ghz, or may be Intel Core i7-6700K overclocked 4.7GHz, or Intel Xeon E3-1270v3 @ 3.9Ghz. Not the Xeon! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
astrell 3 Posted November 12, 2015 Take the skylake 6700k and winserv 2012 r2 Pimp it as far you can go and trimm the outgoing transfer as low as possible without destroying the game experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dimon 28 Posted November 13, 2015 Is your answer based on experience or it an assumption? By the way, thanks to all for your answers. It is very useful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tankbuster 1733 Posted November 13, 2015 Is your answer based on experience or it an assumption? By the way, thanks to all for your answers. It is very useful. If you're asking me and referencing my comment about "No Xeon", it was based on advice from other server operators and was confirmed in my own experience running both Xeon and i7 based serves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
terox 316 Posted November 14, 2015 @Tankbuster Why not Xeon's ? Afaik, intel I7 doesnt support dual socket Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tankbuster 1733 Posted November 14, 2015 @Tankbuster Why not Xeon's ? Afaik, intel I7 doesnt support dual socket Dual socket doesn't bring much to the A3 server party - You want a few cores running as hard and as fast as possible. I've run identical missions on Xeons and I7s and ALWAYS had better performance server side, on the i7s. Don't take just my word for it, ask HUD-Dorph, he'll back me up on this one. My domi edit idles (empty of players but persistent mission running) on a Xeon (the same one dimon mentions above) at 35 ish and drops further as players join. On an i7 4770, it idles at 50 and doesn't go below 40 until you get more than 10 players in. Also, Xeons are a lot more expensive. I can't give technical or empirical data or explanations for this, only my experience. I guess it's something to do with the Xeon being a great webserver and designed to take a little bit of data in, crunch it up, move a bunch of data around internally, then spit out a little bit of data back to a single client. Arma isn't like that - it's masses of data in, crunching data on a single physical core, using little memory, then laying out loads of data to loads of clients. As you can tell, the technicalities of this aren't my forte, I can only tell you what works for me - and it aint Xeons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
terox 316 Posted November 15, 2015 Thanks for the feedback. We use Xeons to run multiple servers of the same box, 2 hex cores to be precise. I didnt realise I7's out performed them for Arma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Llano 11 Posted November 15, 2015 Thanks for the feedback. We use Xeons to run multiple servers of the same box, 2 hex cores to be precise. I didnt realise I7's out performed them for Arma Arma doesn't care about the number of cores. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
terox 316 Posted November 16, 2015 Arma doesn't care about the number of cores. I dont think you read my reply throughly, so let me explain. We run multiple servers on the 1 box, more than a quad core by itself could cope with. This isnt possible with an I7, they dont support multi socket mboards and rackspace costs money, so it makes sense to do it that way Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tankbuster 1733 Posted November 16, 2015 Is this a Xeon you're talking about Terox? If so, which one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
terox 316 Posted November 17, 2015 Is this a Xeon you're talking about Terox? If so, which one? They are getting a bit old now, 2 x X5675 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
