Teori om serverhårdvara, hur ser det ut nu?

Trädvy Permalänk
Medlem
Plats
Stenungsund
Registrerad
Sep 2009

Teori om serverhårdvara, hur ser det ut nu?

Tjo, råkade komma över denna artikeln när jag hade en liten nopstalgi tripp och besökte en gammal hl2 mods hemsida!

Citat:

The battle between AMD and Intel has, as of late, become a particularly fierce one. Many gamers swear by AMD, and thus end up choosing an AMD-based server to host game daemons on. If you don't already know, the key difference between AMD and Intel is both the clock speed, and how much is done per clock cycle. The best analogy I've ever heard is that an Intel processor is like having 10 buckets constantly being filled with water and dumped into an empty lakebed at a time, at approximately three times per minute. AMD is similar, but the men moving the buckets are only 2/3 the speed of Intel's buckets, but their buckets are much larger, almost 2/3 larger. In real terms, Intel does better handling lots of smaller calculations, and AMD prefers fewer, larger calculations.

When it comes to gaming, these "bigger buckets" if you will are very effective; the majority of the physics computations in a multiplayer game are done on the client and securely synced to a server. This is not unreasonable as well, as in single player you rely only on your own machine. When you pick a gaming computer, the generally ideal setup is a single AMD Athlon 64 CPU with plenty of ram and of course, a massive graphics card, (with the GPU handling many of the physics calculations as well, taking a bit of stress off the CPU; a benefit a server does not have.) This is excellent, and exactly what is needed. As far as a client versus server goes, as you can imagine, these are big numbers and difficult calculations, which AMD eats right up, while the server generally handles more little numbers, such as data transfer over the network interface, and very minor calculations involved in syncing the virtual worlds of all the players.

Simply enough, an Intel processor is the best choice for a game server in general. Xeons are preferred over Pentiums, and Pentiums are preferred over Celeron. Dual core and Dual Xeon servers become another debate. To double the essential number of players gaming on one physical server, you can have a dual core, or dual processor server, having one server application running on each respective processor. AMD does outperform Intel in the dual core range, but I would personally not suggest using a dual core processor. Instead, Dual Xeons are an expensive, but effective option. Generally, a single Xeon processor is costlier than a Pentium, and performs better to match. They are specifically engineered to excel in multitasking environments, particularly across multiple processor environments.

Another big piece that can add to your cost is HyperThreading. If you have the funding and options, and you go for one processor with one core, by all means go for HyperThreading. Intel in a gameserver environment can give nearly a 50% performance boost depending on the scenario, and hyper threading can almost be another 50% increase on top of that. Because of how the Source Dedicated server is designed, at any given time there will be a BARE MINIMUM or however many players are on your server, one socket and thread for each. Depending on the game though, there can be as many as five threads per client, which can add up. HyperThreading can do some very clever things with this. When running multiple daemons on one CPU, it can reduce the load.

In short, my view of the ideal gameserver hardware, price with performance, would be an Intel 3.2ghz HyperThreaded, with 2gb of DRR, (obviously preferably DDR2,) 333mhz+ ram. As SRCDS actually does use a fairly large amount of File IO, I would suggest at least a SATA drive, or any drive that transfers faster than an IDE, and spins at 10,000 RPM or more. Of course, depending on the drive, SCSI is preferred.

Källa.

Nu står det dock inte när artikeln var publicerad men skulle gissa någon gång vid 2007-2008. Det jag funderar dock över är i hur sanningsenligt kan detta reflekteras till dagens hårdvara?
Antar att mängden alternativ/lösningar har ökat väldigt mycket genom åren, så det kanske inte är lika lätt att svara korrekt?

Trädvy Permalänk
Medlem
Plats
Sundsvall
Registrerad
Jul 2009

Är inte direkt aktuellt längre.

i prestanda så ligger både Xeon och Opteron relativt lika, knappast märkbart i större skala.
varför man väljer det ena eller det andra är mer funktioner och för vilka syften dom lämpar sig.

Extremt stora kluster kör gärna AMD för att dom är extremt bra på skala ut när det kommer till antalet processorer per maskin
(20+)

Trädvy Permalänk
Medlem
Plats
127.0.0.1
Registrerad
Jun 2004

Helt beroende på lasten hur man designar.

Ska man köra extremt stora beräkningar där det blir mycket CPU tid och lite I/O så funkar det ju bra med många CPU/Cores per chassie.
Kör man mycket File I/O så kan det räcka med ett fåtal Cores innan man har fyllt I/O bussarna

Ofta hamnar man någonstans i mitten och då är det istället minnet som kan bli begränsande faktor (tex virtualiseringsservrar där jag inte har minsta problem att gluffsa 256GB)

Arbetsdator: HFX Mini. Core-i5 2405S, Radeon 6570, Asus P8P67-M . Skärm: Dell 2407
HTPC: HFX Classic, E8500, Radeon 3450, P5K/EPU, Floppydtv-s2
Hyper-V Server: E6750 8GB minne 2X3TB Raid1 samt 2X1TB raid 1

Trädvy Permalänk
Medlem
Plats
Stenungsund
Registrerad
Sep 2009

Jaha ok, aa då fick jag änna det jag ville ha svarat på