table
Hi Andy,
At the time, I was running a Bitfolk VPS with 480MB RAM, but with rarely
more than 4 people online at the same time. The problem seemed to be less
related to the number of players and more to the size of the map over time =
-
the more people spread out and built things, the more had to be loaded in
memory while the server was running, as, for instance, just two people
standing at opposite ends of the world mean that two huge chunks of the
world need to be loaded at the same time. On a new, clean map, problems
were barely noticeable; after a month of play from just 4-6 people, the
entire VPS was barely responsive while Minecraft was running, and the
Minecraft server swamped the entire available RAM and swap even with just
one person online in a well-built area. I don't know enough about how
Multiplay set up their servers to fully know the hardware differences
involved, but running a huge, well-developed map on a 1GB RAM Multiplay
server presents no problems, while running the same map now on my Bitfolk
VPS at half the RAM would almost certainly have proved impossible.
The numbers provided for maximum players per RAM size struck me as a touch
inadequate, knowing how much RAM the same map had required when running on
my VPS, which is why we chose to to go for 1GB instead of 600MB. While
they're not cheap, and it's certainly possible you could undercut them with
more information on the technical requirements (I suspect you're right abou=
t
IOPS), the differences in noticeable performance are quite staggering, whic=
h
suggests that the hardware requirements for a well-developed map are likely
a little on the ridiculous side.
I'd be willing to help out with some interesting diagnostic testing on a
server if it'd help establish these sorts of requirements more concretely.
I know I'd personally rather have a Minecraft server running on a Bitfolk
VPS than a Multiplay one - for all their slickness, I miss being able to
roll a new Bukkit build when it's released and test experimental plugins,
rather than waiting for someone to pull their finger out and install the
latest Recommended Build.
Ta,
Tom
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Andy Smith <andy@???> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for your reply, I was hoping you would chip in given your
> experience here.
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 09:18:32PM +0100, Tom Crosby wrote:
> > Honestly, you're really going to struggle to run anything for more than=
a
> > couple of people, and once you've done a decent bit of exploring and
> > building it's going to become unplayable unless you've really opted for=
a
> > reasonably huge amount of RAM - and then you're looking at quite an
> > expensive VPS for the purposes of running one game. I ran a server for =
a
> > handful of people for quite some time on a Bitfolk VPS
>
> Can you say how much RAM your VPS has, and how many Minecraft
> players you could comfortably have online before performance became
> unacceptable?
>
> > it was painful enough to convince us to fork out a little bit for
> > a Multiplay server instead.
>
> Looking at multiplaygameservers.com they seem to suggest that you
> should be able to fit the following amounts of players into these
> amounts of memory dedicated to the Minecraft server:
>
> Memory (MiB) | Max # of players
> -------------+-----------------
> 200 | 4
> 600 | 17
> 1024 | 35
> 2048 | 53
>
> Now, it does say that this is the absolute minimum memory, and that
> large maps may require more. Also bear in mind that they appear to
> be hosting off of SSDs which will likely be providing more IOPS than
> a BitFolk VPS.
>
> Can you say how much memory your Multiplay server has, and how many
> players you're able to support?
>
> It strikes me that 600MiB is not a huge amount of memory to dedicate
> to Minecraft and that 17 players may be plenty for some people. The
> IOPS may be an issue however.
>
> > sort of VPS setup that's likely to be affordable - you're much better o=
ff
> > getting something that's far less flexible but far more geared towards
> the
> > purpose.
>
> I've no idea how comparable a 720MiB VPS would be to a 600MiB
> Multiplay server, but the VPS will set you back =C2=A3137.88/year inc.
> VAT, whereas the Multiplay server would be =C2=A3153.00/year inc. VAT.[1]
>
> Conversely, for =C2=A3167.88/year inc VAT you can have a 960MiB VPS.
>
> I'd be interested in finding out what the IOPS requirements are for
> a Minecraft server. I suspect they are quite high otherwise Multiplay
> wouldn't be using SSDs.
>
> Multiplay's prices seem quite high given that what you appear to get
> is a VPS dedicated to Minecraft, backed by SSD. Possibly I'm
> missing something. If not then I'm confident that I could undercut
> them with servers I have taken out of service for being too slow for
> VPS hosting, but with disks replaced by an SSD or two.
>
> The problem is that I don't know what the shelf life of Minecraft
> is, and I haven't got time to be playing computer games to work out
> what I could host next, nor to be replicating Multiplay's quite
> slick interface. I'd do all the work and then most likely Minecraft
> would become old hat and no one would want to buy servers for it.
> i.e. I don't see a way for me to make a product out of this.
>
> There's spare memory capacity at the moment. If anyone would like
> to experiment with how usable a Minecraft server is on a BitFolk VPS
> at various levels of RAM then I'd be willing to let you do that
> for free provided you write up your findings.
>
> Such VPSes would be purely for testing Minecraft though and once I
> need to sell the resources I'd have to convert you to a paying
> customer or end the arrangement.
>
> Also at the moment I am exploring caching block devices with SSDs.
> Once I have a server in that configuration colocated then it would
> be worth repeating the experiments to see if/how that improves
> matters.
>
> Finally, I might be willing to provide a single BitFolk Minecraft
> server free of charge for use by BitFolk customers (only), if any of
> you would actually use it. I personally probably wouldn't have time
> and I'm aware that several of you are running your own Minecraft
> servers already, and realise you probably want to focus your
> Minecraft attentions there. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> [1] I gather from
> http://forums.multiplay.co.uk/feedback-bug-reports-etc/78738-vat
> that Multiplay are not providing customers with VAT invoices, so
> those outside the EU are paying VAT when they don't need to, and
> VAT registered customers may find it difficult to claim back the
> VAT. Not that I imagine there are many business users of a
> Minecraft server...
>
> --
> http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEAREDAAYFAk5lqoEACgkQIJm2TL8VSQt1twCdH/FrwqcIfcbJSiKZ8ChWVmXs
> 2cIAniLR2yFezMXz8uRQhF99fr3Kl2Yh
> =3DUbJX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
--001517741a5e80ac8004ac41f7ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>Hi Andy,</div><div><br></div><div>At the ti=
me, I was running a Bitfolk VPS with 480MB RAM, but with rarely more than 4=
people online at the same time. =C2=A0The problem seemed to be less relate=
d to the number of players and more to the size of the map over time - the =
more people spread out and built things, the more had to be loaded in memor=
y while the server was running, as, for instance, just two people standing =
at opposite ends of the world mean that two huge chunks of the world need t=
o be loaded at the same time. =C2=A0On a new, clean map, problems were bare=
ly noticeable; after a month of play from just 4-6 people, the entire VPS w=
as barely responsive while Minecraft was running, and the Minecraft server =
swamped the entire available RAM and swap even with just one person online =
in a well-built area. =C2=A0I don't know enough about how Multiplay set=
up their servers to fully know the hardware differences involved, but runn=
ing a huge, well-developed map on a 1GB RAM Multiplay server presents no pr=
oblems, while running the same map now on my Bitfolk VPS at half the RAM wo=
uld almost certainly have proved impossible.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The numbers provided for maximum players per RAM size s=
truck me as a touch inadequate, knowing how much RAM the same map had requi=
red when running on my VPS, which is why we chose to to go for 1GB instead =
of 600MB. =C2=A0While they're not cheap, and it's certainly possibl=
e you could undercut them with more information on the technical requiremen=
ts (I suspect you're right about IOPS), the differences in noticeable p=
erformance are quite staggering, which suggests that the hardware requireme=
nts for a well-developed map are likely a little on the ridiculous side.</d=
iv>
<div><br></div><div>I'd be willing to help out with some interesting di=
agnostic testing on a server if it'd help establish these sorts of requ=
irements more concretely. =C2=A0I know I'd personally rather have a Min=
ecraft server running on a Bitfolk VPS than a Multiplay one - for all their=
slickness, I miss being able to roll a new Bukkit build when it's rele=
ased and test experimental plugins, rather than waiting for someone to pull=
their finger out and install the latest Recommended Build.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Ta,</div><div><br></div><div>Tom</div><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div>
<div><br></div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div clas=
s=3D"h5">On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Andy Smith <span dir=3D"ltr"><<=
a href=3D"
mailto:andy@bitfolk.com" target=3D"_blank">andy@???</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5=
">
Hi Tom,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your reply, I was hoping you would chip in given your<br>
experience here.<br>
<div><br>
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 09:18:32PM +0100, Tom Crosby wrote:<br>
> Honestly, you're really going to struggle to run anything for more=
than a<br>
> couple of people, and once you've done a decent bit of exploring a=
nd<br>
> building it's going to become unplayable unless you've really =
opted for a<br>
> reasonably huge amount of RAM - and then you're looking at quite a=
n<br>
> expensive VPS for the purposes of running one game. I ran a server for=
a<br>
> handful of people for quite some time on a Bitfolk VPS<br>
<br>
</div>Can you say how much RAM your VPS has, and how many Minecraft<br>
players you could comfortably have online before performance became<br>
unacceptable?<br>
<div><br>
> it was painful enough to convince us to fork out a little bit for<br>
> a Multiplay server instead.<br>
<br>
</div>Looking at <a href=3D"
http://multiplaygameservers.com" target=3D"_bla=
nk">multiplaygameservers.com</a> they seem to suggest that you<br>
should be able to fit the following amounts of players into these<br>
amounts of memory dedicated to the Minecraft server:<br>
<br>
Memory (MiB) | Max # of players<br>
-------------+-----------------<br>
=C2=A0200 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | 4<br>
=C2=A0600 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | 17<br>
1024 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | 35<br>
2048 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | 53<br>
<br>
Now, it does say that this is the absolute minimum memory, and that<br>
large maps may require more. Also bear in mind that they appear to<br>
be hosting off of SSDs which will likely be providing more IOPS than<br>
a BitFolk VPS.<br>
<br>
Can you say how much memory your Multiplay server has, and how many<br>
players you're able to support?<br>
<br>
It strikes me that 600MiB is not a huge amount of memory to dedicate<br>
to Minecraft and that 17 players may be
