running a game server?

[BDunkz]

1 minute ago, Mike_The_B0ss said:

a router

my other question, just any router will do?

[Akolyte]

Just now, BDunkz said:

not ryzen?

Up to you, I personally haven't used it so I don't know.  If you want more cores and more speed then yeah I guess.  I just like Intel for the stability, and because at the time that was the best.  You need to keep in mind this was before Ryzen was even out. 

[BDunkz]

Just now, Mike_The_B0ss said:

Up to you, I personally haven't used it so I don't know.  If you want more cores and more speed then yeah I guess.  I just like Intel for the stability, and because at the time that was the best.  You need to keep in mind this was before Ryzen was even out. 

can i split my server for both plex and game serves?

[Akolyte]

Just now, BDunkz said:

can i split my server for both plex and game serves?

Yes, that's what virtual machines are for.  I would advise running a router inside of a virtual machine as well.  You can run a DMZ from the router to a virtual router, which can be achieved by installing PFSense inside of a virtual machine.  And then you can route the docker containers through that, as well as the Plex server etc.  If you have the money then I would of course highly suggest getting good physical network equipment.  A good example of this is the Ubiquiti Security Gateway  or the Ubiquiti Edgerouter Lite (I'm posting these links because I see you're in Australia on your profile) 

 

You can then connect the server directly to this, and then also connect your current router to it.  It will make double NATs.  So a firewall behind your personal network, which protects it from threats to the server.  A good idea. So yeah, you can run a virtual machine for Plex on the server.  

The thing you need to keep in mind is what hypervisor you will use.  Microsoft Hyper-V is free with Windows Pro+, VMWare ESXI is worth looking into if you don't already know about, VirtualBox is less advanced but is easy-to-use and free, and Citrix XenServer is free but is pretty complex. 

 

Look into all of them, figure out what you want to do.  If you need to message me or post on the forum about any of these and I'm sure me and/or heaps of others will help you with any issues.  Good luck with your server. 

[RadiatingLight]

5 minutes ago, Mike_The_B0ss said:

Well ARK is a memory hog, on decently small servers it can use up to as much as 8GB of memory and does benefit from clock speed.  Rust does as well, both servers love processor and RAM. 

 

My advice for a CPU for the servers would be a core i7, ideally one that can run at 4GHZ+ on turbo.  RAM is more important, 16GB will do, but 32GB is optimal for both servers running at the same time to avoid page-file/swap-file overuse.  Linux is of course the cheapest option but also runs you back in terms of friendliness.  @sazrocks recommended Docker.  This is a good option if you want to isolate the servers, and make installation + configuration easier, however it will reduce performance of the servers by a small amount, and if you are running Windows it can make it a little more difficult because there will be no gui you can download (try not to use a gui  if possible)

 

So, to recap you should try to use an Intel core i5/i7, if you are on a budget a core i3 might be okay.  But try to keep 16/32GB of RAM.  A core i3 is sufficient for most game servers, and I'm sure ARK and Rust will be find it fine too.  I've run both Rust and Ark on a core i3 with 16GB of RAM, an i5 and 32GB, and an i7 32GB.  The core i7 was the only big improvement.  So a core i3 will do if you can't afford an i7.  

 

Hope this helps.  

for servers, more cores are vastly superior to more clocks. especially if you want more than one server.

Ex. - if a single server uses 4 threads, then running 3 or 4 servers on a core i7 would overload the cores, since it would need 12 or 16 threads.

however, on a Ryzen 7, OC'ed to 3.9Ghz, although it might not have the same single threaded performance of a 7700K (so a single server which uses 4 threads might do a bit worse), all 4 could get their own threads, so the load is spread out.

 

think of a 7700K at 5Ghz running a server for a game (server uses 4 threads) at 100% possible performance.

if the 7700K needs to run 2 servers, that's fine. it has 8 threads, so you'll still get 100% performance.

if the 7700K needs to run 4 servers, that's bad. 8 threads need to share the workload of 16. 50% performance.

 

however, a Ryzen 1700 at 4Ghz might have 85% single threaded performance.

if the 1700 needs to run a single server, then you get 85% performance - for a single server, theoretically, you would get better performance on a 7700K

if the 1700 needs to run 4 servers however, then you still  get 85% performance, since the 1700 has 16 threads.

 

NOTES:

This assumes every server only uses 4 threads. real servers are different. some use more cores, some use less

this absolutely disregards the effect of SMT / hyperthreading. a 7700K with 2 servers would still suffer a performance hit, since a single core has two threads. the same thing happens with the 1700 at 3 or more servers, since servers have to share a single core. (still okay, since hyperthreading is much better than 2 processes on a single core.)

[Akolyte]

1 minute ago, RadiatingLight said:

for servers, more cores are vastly superior to more clocks. especially if you want more than one server.

Ex. - if a single server uses 4 threads, then running 3 or 4 servers on a core i7 would overload the cores, since it would need 12 or 16 threads.

however, on a Ryzen 7, OC'ed to 3.9Ghz, although it might not have the same single threaded performance of a 7700K (so a single server which uses 4 threads might do a bit worse), all 4 could get their own threads, so the load is spread out.

 

think of a 7700K at 5Ghz running a server for a game (server uses 4 threads) at 100% possible performance.

if the 7700K needs to run 2 servers, that's fine. it has 8 threads, so you'll still get 100% performance.

if the 7700K needs to run 4 servers, that's bad. 8 threads need to share the workload of 16. 50% performance.

 

however, a Ryzen 1700 at 4Ghz might have 85% single threaded performance.

if the 1700 needs to run a single server, then you get 85% performance - for a single server, theoretically, you would get better performance on a 7700K

if the 1700 needs to run 4 servers however, then you still  get 85% performance, since the 1700 has 16 threads.

 

NOTES:

This assumes every server only uses 4 threads. real servers are different. some use more cores, some use less

this absolutely disregards the effect of SMT / hyperthreading. a 7700K with 2 servers would still suffer a performance hit, since a single core has two threads. the same thing happens with the 1700 at 3 or more servers, since servers have to share a single core. (still okay, since hyperthreading is much better than 2 processes on a single core.)

Good post, I agree and even learn't a couple things. So thanks. 

I was simply stating the results from my own experience, which was that clock speed had a big improvement to the server performance as compared to more cores. Of course, that server is dedicated and isn't used for a lot of servers at the same time and just for a couple large servers. I'm not sure if the OP is planning on running many servers at the same time, but if they are this post will be useful. 

 

Thumbs up! 

[TheCherryKing]

AMD Eypc would be a very good CPU for this use case.

[BDunkz]

1 minute ago, TheCherryKing said:

AMD Eypc would be a very good CPU for this use case.

why? (price as well)

[TheCherryKing]

Just now, BDunkz said:

why? (price as well)

This is a server after all. Ryzen or an Intel Core processor is not designed for server use. They get much hotter and are not optimized to run 24/7.

[Cruorzy]

50 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

AMD Eypc would be a very good CPU for this use case.

To be honest his needs are specific and can be easly done with a Intel i or Amd Ryzen... Yes Epyc is a server CPU but that does not mean it is for everyone.

 

1 hour ago, Mike_The_B0ss said:

Yes, that's what virtual machines are for.  I would advise running a router inside of a virtual machine as well.  You can run a DMZ from the router to a virtual router, which can be achieved by installing PFSense inside of a virtual machine

Are you able to run PFsense in a Docker container? how would i set this up? Are there any good docker images already? Would love to know

[TheCherryKing]

Just now, Cruorzy said:

To be honest his needs are specific and can be easly done with a Intel i or Amd Ryzen... Yes Epyc is a server CPU but that does not mean it is for everyone.

 

Are you able to run PFsense in a Docker container? how would i set this up? Are there any good docker images already? Would love to know

The same thing could be said for Ryzen and Intel Core. Those are desktop CPU's that aren't meant for everyone. I never said that this build would be impossible with Desktop-grade CPU's. I am simply saying it is not a good idea.

[Akolyte]

3 minutes ago, Cruorzy said:

To be honest his needs are specific and can be easly done with a Intel i or Amd Ryzen... Yes Epyc is a server CPU but that does not mean it is for everyone.

 

Are you able to run PFsense in a Docker container? how would i set this up? Are there any good docker images already? Would love to know

Yes, apparently you can.  Found a couple docker images on Google for PFSense, and ELK which is a stack used for running PFSense. I assume it gives it the ability to handle all the network traffic?  But I wouldn't think a docker container for PFSense would be a good idea, at least not yet. 

 

[Cruorzy]

1 minute ago, Mike_The_B0ss said:

Yes, apparently you can.  Found a couple docker images on Google for PFSense, and ELK which is a stack used for running PFSense. I assume it gives it the ability to handle all the network traffic?  But I wouldn't think a docker container for PFSense would be a good idea, at least not yet. 

Hmm well, if it goes down it is not as much as a problem for me, what do you suggest? Windows with Something like VirtualBox with a dedicated VM for PFsense and then docker images?

[Akolyte]

Just now, Cruorzy said:

Hmm well, if it goes down it is not as much as a problem for me, what do you suggest? Windows with Something like VirtualBox with a dedicated VM for PFsense and then docker images?

Yeah, just make an internal network with Virtual Box and have the second adapter go to WAN, you can have a third for DMZ and a couple more internals for VLANs if you want. And then route all the VMs and Docker containers through the internal networks. It's essentially ghetto VMNets.  

[RadiatingLight]

1 hour ago, Mike_The_B0ss said:

Good post, I agree and even learn't a couple things. So thanks. 

I was simply stating the results from my own experience, which was that clock speed had a big improvement to the server performance as compared to more cores. Of course, that server is dedicated and isn't used for a lot of servers at the same time and just for a couple large servers. I'm not sure if the OP is planning on running many servers at the same time, but if they are this post will be useful. 

 

Thumbs up! 

Yep.

For a single server (minecraft, for example, which can only use 2 or 3 cores max.) an i7 is better. however OP said that 

1 hour ago, BDunkz said:

i wouldnt mind running 5 servers eventully, is that possible?

so it's pretty safe to assume he needs more cores.

ryzen 7 would be perfect.

threadripper would be perfect-er, but costs too much.

[Cruorzy]

6 minutes ago, Mike_The_B0ss said:

Yeah, just make an internal network with Virtual Box and have the second adapter go to WAN, you can have a third for DMZ and a couple more internals for VLANs if you want. And then route all the VMs and Docker containers through the internal networks. It's essentially ghetto VMNets.  

Awesome did not think of that, is this also possible on linux fully? Im not sure of something like Virtualbox can run on it.

[Akolyte]

19 hours ago, Cruorzy said:

Awesome did not think of that, is this also possible on linux fully? Im not sure of something like Virtualbox can run on it.

Yeah it's possible on Linux.  Just keep in mind you can't run Windows containers on Linux.  I generally prefer VMWare because it's a more advanced hyperVisor, you could also use KVM. 

 

Good luck with your network.