#In regards to Community Servers

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

scenic thistle
#

Automod owned my original post cause I edit too much, also not sure if we're meant to create new posts or comment to the pinned thread--

In the FAQ it's mentioned that community server hosting is planned after early access. In the face of rising server costs, DDoS attacks, and more, why not push to have this available now?

We spoke a bit in general about it (Oki), and you mentioned concerns of server modding & disconnection of xp/stats, and plans for server hosting to be from rental providers, as well as a self-hosted option.

In terms of self-hosted options, you also mentioned having a manual whitelist of IPs as part of the EULA contract. Just as a quick note on this -- an EULA I strongly encourage, but a manually approved server IP list would not scale well when you think about maintenance and up-keep and overall demand. Most administrators would also fully expect XP/Stats to be isolated to our own servers - so no issue there for us.

In terms of concerns of modding, I think encouraging modding would be beneficial to the community if the servers could tag themselves as such, these private mods should not affect official servers by any means and may enhance the game for some. Curious to your thoughts here.

But in our discussion we didn't hear much about why the decision to wait for this availability, in face of the challenges ahead that you say could determine the games entire future. So to reiterate, why wait until after Early Access for private server administration?

narrow thorn
#

@scenic thistle As much as I wish we could go release with community hosted servers, it's pretty risky for us, as the release is the first impressions and that time, we just can't risk relying on community hosted servers to pass the first initial load.

As soon as things are calmer, I will start introducing ways to host your own server or rent from selected server hosting companies.

#

It will be expensive but I don't want to risk the launch time so we can keep the first impressions good as most game's features are determined at their launch and server stabilities.

slate locust
#

That's fair. Having only official servers for launch is probably a lot easier to handle as well in case things go wrong for any reason.

sacred veldt
narrow thorn
#

My current plan is,

  1. Server provider, the admins have no access to game files, they can have progressions.
  2. Server provider, the admins can connect their own database and make it that, if you play on any server that admin is hosting, you will have same stats in those servers.
  3. Self hosting (This will be complicated), we will some sort of do agreement on user saying 'We will whitelist 3-4-X number of IPs on server browser, you have no right to misuse it etc) and let them host but progression won't be applied, they will have to connect their own database.
slate locust
#

Yeah. I'll honestly be fine with that setup overall. While having global progression is nice, just having a way to keep progression saved in a self hosted environment would be completely alright as well. I'd be up for signing an agreement for that, since server providers are kind of sketchy for me. I like having more control overall.

narrow thorn
#

I will provide more in-depth information and create new channel later on to announce all the details, however I can give some right here.

#

Game server uses
• Max 3.5GB - 4GB memory. (127vs127 64vs64 32vs32 16vs16 8vs8) - It's fixed
• 2 GB disk space - It's fixed
• Windows OS (Sadly Linux is not well supported but you can use KVM VM)

---- 127 vs 127 / 60 Hz ----

• 2 threads - 3.6Ghz peak
• 120Mbit/s peak (middle of round, everyone is at one place, vehicles, voice chat etc all)

Estimated monthly usage is ~25TB

---- 64 vs 64 / 60 Hz ----

• 1.5 threads - 3.4Ghz peak-3.6Ghz peak (extreme cases)
•40-50Mbit/s peak (middle of round, everyone is at one place, vehicles, voice chat etc all)

Estimated monthly usage is unknown(never tested)

---- 32 vs 32 / 60 Hz ----

• 1-1.5 thread - 3.2Ghz
•10-20Mbit/s peak (middle of round, everyone is at one place, vehicles, voice chat etc all)

Estimated monthly usage is unknown(never tested)

The bandwidth and CPU usage (frequency) is increasing **exponentially **as player count increases.

slate locust
#

What'll try to do first is running it with wine on a docker container. If I can get that to work, it'll make managing the servers a lot easier on my side.

#

My plan is to host about 3x of the 128 player servers at most.

#

But it's good to know. I'm good on bandwidth I'd wager. So it's just a question if I can get it running on linux properly.

narrow thorn
#

For our side, we will use KVM VM

slate locust
#

But from what you said. Does that mean that a 254 player server uses a lot more bandwidth than two 128 player servers?

narrow thorn
#

4x

slate locust
#

I see what you mean then.

narrow thorn
#

254 is 120mbits
128 is 40mbits

#

it's not linear

slate locust
#

That is much lower. Even 254 doesn't use as much bandwidth as I'd expect.

narrow thorn
#

I had to optimize a lot

#

like really alot

slate locust
#

I bet lol

narrow thorn
#

we started with 180mbits

#

later it dropped to 160mbits

#

now it's 120mbits

slate locust
#

Good to know. Is there any overhead using windows in a KVM environment?

#

Like background processes and stuff of the sort?

narrow thorn
#

Not really

#

They are pretty much same, our reason is, we are going to install some stuff to Linux kernel for networking and package handling, the Windows too slow for handling alot requests

slate locust
#

I see. My reason for trying linux first is simply because I'm a lot more comfortable with it overall and my ability to actually manage it. Never had to use windows servers for more than a few hours.

narrow thorn
#

Pretty much opposite, I have been in windows environment for a long time

#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

slate locust
#

Understandable. I'll figure out if I can get it working, then do the switch to windows if not possible.

#

Just gonna try my luck first.

narrow thorn
#

It should be fine honestly, but we don't know the behavior in long run

#

Its just risky

slate locust
#

What are you going to use as a database server?

narrow thorn
#

Currently we are using mysql but for connecting database to your server, I will write an api that you will able to change it.

#

So you can either write/read from disk

#

Use memory as database if you want

#

The api will be interested in you providing the data, how you do it is your responsibility

#

Or from where*

slate locust
#

That's fair.

#

I'm honestly fine with mysql though I'll probably try using mariadb first and see how it handles it.

#

Should work out of the box though.

narrow thorn
#

The way you guys handle it is up to you, i will provide templates as base

#

Later, you can add your vip slots, and connect it with database and have in game vip etc

#

So while hosting, you guys can make some profit so you guys can keep it up

slate locust
#

That's fair. And it's more than enough to properly manage things.

arctic turret
#

Something like 7d2d . net but owned by you guys

slate locust
#

That'll be one of the options. Just not directly from him, he'll partner with hosting providers and allow people to rent servers from them as an option.

narrow thorn
fiery moon
#

i had similar thoughts about the community servers’ benefit to the game’s upkeep costs. I’m sure they can consider cutting official servers after the first month or so of community servers being made available.

strange sundial
#

So annoying I could host a 250player server, on my machine, if it wasn't for my upload mbps >.<

slate locust
strange sundial
#

yeah, but expensive

slate locust
#

oof

strange sundial
#

I could get 1Gbps, but.. Even then, I'm not sure on the upload speed, as UK ISP's are tight buggers for that

slate locust
#

I've two fiber links. So I can dedicate one just for the server and leave the other as redundancy.

strange sundial
#

I don't even get 10% of my download now

slate locust
#

Which is probably not enough for a 250 player server.

#

Besides being kind of unstable.

strange sundial
#

I get 550mbps down & 35mbps up

#

less than 10%

slate locust
#

Big oof.

#

How much do you pay for that?

strange sundial
#

It's all rolled into a big package, TV, Landline & Net

#

In certain areas' I can get 1Gbps for £50 pm

slate locust
#

ISPs and their bundles. I got lucky since in my city we've like 6-7 different ISPs with fiber connections.

#

So the prices are very nice.

#

Over here 1Gbps both ways will probably be around that much as well.

strange sundial
#

I'm actually on the fastest non-fiber connection in the UK

#

British Telecom, who own Open Reach, their 'fiber' is still only 76mbps down iirc

slate locust
#

'fiber'

strange sundial
#

Yeah, its laughable

slate locust
#

Love when they advertise fiber but then lay down copper to the house.

strange sundial
#

They use to advertise thier 'Lightning fast connection' that was 65mbps down, while I was on 400mbps down

slate locust
#

Ouch.

#

You can barely watch videos with that little download speed.

strange sundial
#

I know, this is why I stuck with mine, I'd trade 200mbps of my download, for more upload

slate locust
#

Over here I get about half my download as upload. Full gigabit link wasn't really needed, so I didn't bother. But I might upgrade once the server software is out, I'll have to figure out how much bandwidth I'll actually need.

strange sundial
#

That's the funny thing, I have unlimited bandwidth >.<

slate locust
#

250 players is fun, but it does get tiring after a while because of how overly chaotic it is. So I was thinking of like two 128 player servers. Maybe 3.

slate locust
#

And I host other servers for some friends, so I just need to be careful not to overload my actual line.

#

Your ISP must be trolling though.

worthy pollen
narrow thorn
grim bough
#

u get same up as down