Please post the specs of your server so we can make a list of recommended hardware requirements. EDIT: And in light of Trickster's post, give suitable server configs too
There are no recommended levels imo. Either way, my server is an i7-920. The old one I worked on for 2 years was a Xeon 2.66ghz (can't remember the exact level). But either way, it's impossible to have a baseline. That Xeon which was about 4 years old and worth next to nothing now performs better than my i7 can. Minimum server specs are pointless simply because, if someone wants to actually host an empires server, they're going to need to have some prior source game experience. Just post that you need a top-end server to run 64 players, and it's more likely that they'll have more success at 32 players.
Given Empires' lack of multithreading, the best server to run it on is an overclocked single or duel core. Memory is not really an issue, and networking is probably similar to other Source games.
When we get it released on steam we need to make sure people dont put up shit servers and think the game is still laggy like they did with almost every big release.
You should man, I think it's extremely important that people don't get extreme lag. They will uninstall the game after joining 1 bad server if its there first time playing or first time playing since its original super laggy release. Maybe server owners will need to describe there specs of the servers to get there server client. Like you can make one for shittier servers that just has a limit on tanks and people or something.
Build a benchmark into the server to determine if it's capable? Otherwise it's a whitelist. Also....an old Xeon shouldn't be outperforming a i7 unless it's a single threaded app or something. Besides, the 920 can easily hit 3 GHz on air.
Why is an i7 in a server rack anyway? Why aren't you using a Nehalem based Xeon? They run a bit cooler last I looked, and if you're using a blade setup... And yes, I've OCed chips in a server rack. Not hard when cooled right.
Because this server is cheaper than a Xeon. And likewise, it's also much cheaper if I don't shell out for KVM over IP as well. It's rented, not bought. In the US, it's cheaper to buy a server and pay for the space and bandwidth. In Europe, it's MUCH cheaper to rent. This server, i7-920, 8gb DDR3, 100mbps, 3tb bandwidth, 2tb in RAID 0/1 (need to set that up at some point actually), for around £50/month. Which we split between 5 people.
I'd be willing to chip in with some people or buy a server for a month or two (depending on cost). I don't have time/knowledge to set one up but I think having multiple 64 player servers with admins will be important for release. Maybe we can get 3-4 official servers up that we know can handle the load + decent number of active admins.
I could literally host 3-4 servers on my box. They'll all perform just as well because Empires isn't multithreaded. But, my box is in France, so we do need some shit US-side. Also, where is Simon and what have you done with him?
Ahh, ok - makes sense. Shared hosting is always a step behind hardware wise, unless you shell out a lot more. And yeah, the advantage is you can host 3-4 Emp servers and be find, barring possible bandwidth issues.
eh? when have i not helped out nigger? i've done a bunch of script work/testing I think having 4 euro 4 US offical 64 player servers that were smooth + admined would be really positive for release. If we have lots of people hosting random ass servers that they use for CSS people will get turned off because of server issues.
Possibly but I couldn't scroll down anymore without switching to 1200x1920 to get it all in the shot. Anyway, sign into steam next time you get chance and I'll see if we can work out something.
25 - 32 players per team doesn't play well unless you're on a map like midbridge, plunge or one of the massive custom maps that still isn't part of the installers. Why not double the number of servers and drop slots to 32? Exactly. P.S. So called "official" servers worked real well when 2.2 came out... /sarcasm
