Re: [bitfolk] The perils of opening tcp/22 to the Internet

Top Page

Reply to this message
Author: Ian
Date:  
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] The perils of opening tcp/22 to the Internet
for a well-developed map are likely a little on the ridiculous side.</d=
iv>


<div><br></div><div>I&#39;d be willing to help out with some interesting di=
agnostic testing on a server if it&#39;d help establish these sorts of requ=
irements more concretely. =C2=A0I know I&#39;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&#39;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">&lt;<=
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>
&gt; Honestly, you&#39;re really going to struggle to run anything for more=
than a<br>
&gt; couple of people, and once you&#39;ve done a decent bit of exploring a=
nd<br>
&gt; building it&#39;s going to become unplayable unless you&#39;ve really =
opted for a<br>
&gt; reasonably huge amount of RAM - and then you&#39;re looking at quite a=
n<br>
&gt; expensive VPS for the purposes of running one game. I ran a server for=
a<br>
&gt; 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>
&gt; it was painful enough to convince us to fork out a little bit for<br>
&gt; 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