New fpsclassico 2023 servers

UnFreeZe Game Servers News forum.
User avatar
adminless
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5761
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 19:05
in-game nick: not available
Location: Spain

New fpsclassico 2023 servers

Post by adminless »

ok, after a few weeks of setting up everything I think that it's finally time to put together the usual servers info thread about the new servers that basically I just set with your funds. first things first before going in detail into each new server note that as you know the previous main server died, yes probably after a week I think they finally ended up fixing whatever it's that it was broken with that server (likely a rack/cabinet fault rather than really a hardware issue), but obviously at that point it was just too late for me and beside recovering all the data on those hard drives I cared about that server/provider no more. the rest of the "servers" kept functioning just fine but just as I quoted it unfortunately the way the previous servers were setup almost all the relevant/important services ran just on one server (the main one) while the others just brought traffic/ran less important/relevant services. usually that's a acceptable setup particularly considering the previous main server was brand new and kind of high end at the time of purchase so not only a server fault (hardware) was not foreseeable but extremely unlikely. unfortunately it just happened that turned out that the provider was clearly not that reliable, truth to be told, many of these small/budget providers are usually resellers of resellers and they typically cut corners to set some competitive deals and that in the long run shows. I mean, just before the main event, if you followed the news here you could have seen that the main server used to loss power like each 2-3 months and it took them like a year to (hopefully) get it finally fixed and that network issues were a lot more frequent that what they probably should. I just let that be as all in all they were not so critical issues so it was mostly tolerable though looking back those were clearly major warnings I should probably not have overlooked just like that.

all that has been addressed on this new servers setup so now instead of running pretty much just one main high-end server from a budget provider and a few other supporting (lowend/legacy) servers that can't really do much else I now run two actually capable mid-end servers at all times from direct subsidiaries of top-tier ISO 27001 certified providers along with a small supporting cloud based server ran by the operator of the previous main server datacenter that it's just enough to run this site and route some traffic all at the same combined 65 €/month budget.

let's get started with the now primary server card then:

Code: Select all

 23:20:23 up 17:18,  1 user,  load average: 0.94, 0.98, 1.00
CPU:
 core 0:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 core 1:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 core 2:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 core 3:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 core 4:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 core 5:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 core 6:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 core 7:
  thread 0:
   freq: 3399 MHz
  thread 1:
   freq: 3399 MHz
 freq: 3399.274 MHz
 temp: 51.2℃
M/B:
 temp (CPU): 48.0℃
 temp (PCH): 56.0℃
 temp (VRM): 63.0℃
 temp (M/B): 42.0℃
 fan (CPU): 1525 rpms
 fan (M/B): 0 rpms
 VCORE: 1.120 V
 VRAM: 1.200 V
 12VCC: 12.288 V
 5VCC: 5.040 V
 3VCC: 3.392 V
 3VSB: 3.376 V
 VBAT: 3.344 V
VRM:
 VDD: 1.092 V
 IDD: 43%
 VNB: 0.749 V
 INB: 22%
MEM:
 bios: 736.12 MiB
 used: 1096.32 MiB
SSD:
 temp: 36.0℃
 written: 1848.57 GiB
 workload: 7.38%
 health: PASSED
LAN:
 multicast: 125193
 rx_bytes: 5398635638
 rx_packets: 64897321
 tx_bytes: 9717984287
 tx_packets: 23955366
and basically that should be the card about the new primary server as can be seen while the previous main server could be overall a superior product when taking everything in consideration, I'd say that from the specific stand point of purely a game server this new primary server is at least on par with the previous if not even superior at some points. overall this server is very very similar to the previous one just one generation older (i.e. the previous one was a zen two machine while this is "just" a zen one) however there's a remarkable difference the previous one featured kind of a low power mobile setup/cpu (35W) while this one now features a fully fledged high power desktop setup/cpu (95W). that fact alone, despite the older generation, it just makes the new primary server a lot more powerful so that means that now I have the hell a lot of resources and cpu to spare on more servers or just other new servers for the time to come. obviously the rest of the specs are more discrete in particular the disk drive size as expected from a dedicated game server offer. the server was originally sold as a 2x120 GB software raid setup however one of the disks was literally death on arrival and the other on its way to the tomb after more than twelve years of heavy use that it had taken its toll on it. arguably one of the worst experiences I ever had with any server delivery and basically I was expecting just to have to migrate and discard this server asap as typically in these kind of issues you're just wasting your time (ex. previous main server that was down for a week of work). however this time the hardware support team did really impressed me and just after a quick contact barely thirty minutes later (or even less) they replaced the two completely broken and wasted drives by now a like new decent 250 GB drive which was even a much better deal than the one sold. zero bullshit, matter of facts, just on the same day by the afternoon in a few hours the server was up and running again after reinstall it and deploy it. obviously 250 GB is a very modest size just enough for that, to run game servers and some small downloads like the ones provided on this site (i.e. maps, game files etc), still the fact that it's a ssd instead of a classic magnetic drive again fells like a nice improvement over the previous setup at least for this specific use. matter of facts, server now boots and processes logs/data significantly faster than before beside the newly installed drive is even newer and in better condition than the ones of the previous one (i.e. than the use I gave to those after two years as they were brand new) so in that sense the data should even be safer now.

as for the network is pretty much the same if not better setup. the offer itself is also a top-tier premium 1 gbit however the bandwidth seems to be (generally) much better on this spot than on the previous one where outside of the top destinations there was locations where the bandwidth was more limited from what I could test. I mean, that was a common (verified) complain on the previous setup ("slow" downloads) hopefully that seems improved now. the only real downsides of the offer (in comparison) are lack of any real IPv6 support and sub-par location but when you take everything in consideration those are kind of minor details. although not really supported IPv6 still works all the same and sure although the Frankfurt location could arguably be better (i.e. optimal) this Dusseldorf location is by no means any worse. I know for many Dusseldorf can probably look just like any other random spot lost in the map to run a server but truth to be told after operated the server the location is a lot more competitive and versatile that I would have anticipated. Dusseldorf sits itself as the main network center of the most populous state in Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia) and acts as a major hub between the two biggest network spots in Europe, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, with important international network points of presence as well. matter of facts, netcologne (that is a major German isp) clients are now pretty much on a lan with this server so as usual the final result will obviously vary for each specific connection but overall on average final in-game ping should be the same or just about the same (i.e. -/+ 1-3 msecs of difference) if not better specially considering the whole true multi homed/location server setup now.

let's move on to the new cloud based web services server card then: and that's the card about the new web services cloud server where this site runs now. overall a pretty solid machine obviously it doesn't come close to a true dedicated server but pretty much like it particularly when you compare it to small low-end/legacy dedicated servers like the ones used on the previous setup. on top of now hosting this site on this machine for high availability this server now also takes on the role of traffic routing that the previous secondary server mainly had. as noted on the card despite being a cloud (i.e. shared/virtualized) based server it's not a burstable/best-effort instance (i.e. oversold) as typically is the case with most entry-level cloud products on that range but instead a quality dedicated pinned resources guaranteed pretty much comparable to any other small low-end/legacy dedicated server if not better. matter of facts, as usual with cloud based virtualized solutions the exact hardware details of the underline infrastructure where it will ultimately this run are not known (and can't even really be know as they can perfectly be heterogeneous, change over the time etc which is what implies high-availability so the specific products linked are just for "reference") but I can at least tell that when it comes to processing power (i.e. cpu/memory) this instance beats any of the servers I run and have ran around here so whatever hardware this ultimately runs on I can assure you it's top-notch. I mean, I just deployed this site here and it has run with zero issues ever since and the site is now even significantly more responsive and faster than before when I privately virtualized it myself on the former main (premium) dedicated server. that should probably tell all that needs to be told about it, additionally again the fact of the nvme storage, even if virtualized/cloud based, instead of the old magnetic disks is another nice improvement that also significantly adds up.

as for the network it's limited to 200 mbps still that's more than enough for the use being of serving this site and routing game server traffic. the location is probably the flagship feature of this product, as hinted before this is run exactly on the same site as the previous main server (i.e. interwerk, Frankfurt) only that this time instead of being provided by a reseller directly by the own datacenter operators themselves so even in the event somebody getting sub-par ping at some of the new servers they can always just connect through this route to guarantee a sensible latency in tune with the previous one. on the downside being smaller this provider probably won't match the likes of amazon, google, azure or just of the two other top-tier used providers in terms of reliability so apparently they don't count with a ISO 27001 certification for guarantee (to a high degree) continuity of service still again as some datacenter operators is a important improvement on that aspect over the previous main provider were discontinuity of service (at some point) was basically expected instead.

last but not least let's finish with the new secondary server card then:

Code: Select all

 17:21:39 up 1 day, 11:18,  2 users,  load average: 4.95, 5.18, 4.35
CPU:
 core 0:
   freq: 2793 MHz
 core 1:
   freq: 2793 MHz
 core 2:
   freq: 2793 MHz
 core 3:
   freq: 2793 MHz
 core 4:
   freq: 2793 MHz
 core 5:
   freq: 2793 MHz
 freq: 2793.167 MHz
 temp: 58.1℃
GPU:
 freq: 494.04 MHz
M/B:
 temp (CPU): 58.0℃
 temp (GPU): 77.8℃
 temp (N/B): 41.2℃
 temp (S/B): 39.3℃
 fan (CPU): 7595 rpms
 fan (M/B): 8232 rpms
 VCPU: 1.120 V
 VRAM: 1.498 V
 3VCC: 3.301 V
 3VSB: 3.288 V
 VBAT: 3.000 V
MEM:
 bios: 659.02 MiB
 used: 1181.43 MiB
 Status: No errors detected
HDD1:
 temp: 35.0℃
 written: 1.07 TiB
 read: 0.02 TiB
 workload: 66.80%
 rate: 149.97 MiB/s
 health: PASSED
HDD2:
 temp: 38.0℃
 written: 84.61 TiB
 read: 71.81 TiB
 workload: 3.49%
 rate: 155.86 MiB/s
 health: PASSED
LAN:
 multicast: 98156
 rx_bytes: 6.108 GB
 rx_packets: 61.784 Mp
 tx_bytes: 7.120 GB
 tx_packets: 23.931 Mp
that's the card of this new secondary server. I know it totally might not look like it but this server is actually key to the project. matter of facts, had not been because of this server and probably this would have gone out of business. I mean, of course, needless to say that I would obviously still have grabbed another deal anyways and end up making it work but clearly it wouldn't have been as "smooth" (giving the circumstances), not that "fast" (again giving the circumstances) and definitely not that cost efficient. it would have been a big mess and it would have definitively had a major impact on the community. as noted on the card at that price tag the server is obviously a legacy server, however it's not any kind of legacy server, that's a server that around ten years ago would be virtually top of the line and would easily sell by two-three (or even more) times that money. as I started saying it might not look like it but fast forward ten years later that still makes this server a very capable mid-end box and definitively at that price tag one of the best deals around when taking everything in consideration. again the server is as well very similar to the primary server only one (or two) generations older (i.e. one is AM4 socket based and the other AM3) still it holds out very well to the current times. truth to be told, performance wise is virtually on par with the former main server where a great deal of chip power was reserved for gpu processing as well as being designed for power efficiency (i.e. aka saving) so this is now a perfect home for all the rest of the services that previously ran there. similar to the primary server interestingly this server sold as a 16 GB RAM DDR3 ECC and a 2 x 1.000 GB SATA Software RAID 1 setup however instead of the ecc ram (which I couldn't care less about) they delivered two like new two terabyte 24x7 enterprise class hard disks in perfect condition that I definitively care a lot more about and that overall increase the value of the deal greatly at least for the case being. once again that's another nice improvement over the previous main server whose hard disks were kind of weak (i.e. just regular everyday hdds) and probably were another concerning point of failure in the long run. despite having some teras of use already these are much better options in any possible way now (i.e. reliability, performance, life expectancy etc).

another key part of this server is the legacy low-end integrated gpu on the northbridge. sure for other than regular office use and running old games like these here under standard hd low quality settings that igpu is pretty much useless by today standards (I mean, it's not even a old agp card, let alone a basic pcie one, but really a legacy pci one instead) but the thing is that's exactly just what's needed here. on this aspect the old main server clearly outperformed this secondary one by a huge margin at least under the normal usual settings however just after a few adjustments and optimizations it ended up performing all the same if not better even on that aspect. overall, the machine is just capable of running Quake III Arena under the default UnFreeZe hd settings at 85 fps or at 25 fps for the 2k mp2/mp4 video renders converted at around 1:5.5-1:6.5 real-time ratios all the same which is just what's needed. another strong point here is the provider, this comes just from the business servers branch of the same group as the well known international internet provider 1&1 so the quality should come with it. I mean, I just ordered this a Saturday eight in the morning, they (over)delivered it by nine in the morning and by nine and a half in the morning the server was up and running the emergency local physical backup as-is, no bullshit. on the downside you have the network, the port is capped just at 100 mbit (though unmetered at least) as back in the day still that's more than enough for the use that it's gonna have the server and the location (Berlin) it might not be as competitive though I must also say that even on that aspect it impressed me and the latency there it's a lot better than anticipated. I mean, you have people playing at the secondary UnFreeZe server on a daily basis with the same or almost same ping as on any of the other servers if not better. obviously at that price tag you can't expect to have it all and main it still this is just the perfect fit for a reliable secondary and backup server to use.

for the system I deployed all the same up-to-date images on all of them with no virtualization involved whatsoever this time so I assume that unless something breaks these should go at least for another couple of years. and well I think that this should be all about these new fpsclassico 2023 servers report at least by now so now you know what has been done with your funds. hopefully the only good about the failure was the timing that happened just one week before renewal which means that only 1 week worth of service (the week of failure around 15 euros) has been lost beside a extra month I took from the old legacy server (i.e. 6 euros) to keep the data redundant some more time just to be safe so virtually no money got lost (21 euros is typically not even the cost of delivering just one server to put it in perspective) and the total costs of the new servers remained pretty much the same (1.84 euros less per month in total in fact), no big deal. matter of facts, after have finally used the new servers for some time now I can tell that when it comes to economy and performance per cost metrics these new servers clearly outperform there the previous ones by a big margin (+65% improvement) in that aspect so they are clearly a much better deal in comparison.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top

Return to “News”