Server Performance

[CouchMonkey]

I was going to post this in the dedicated server thread but that thing is going all over the place.

I wanted to briefly talk about some server experiences I have. For background here are our server specs:

Dual AMD Opteron 265 (Dual Core) Processors(4 CPUs)
2GB PC3200 Registered ECC Memory
160 GB Hard Drive
100Mbit dedicated port
We own it, we don't share it.

Now, as I understand it, ArmA does not currently support multiple cores. So if the processing is dispersed, it will slow things down considerably. The problem as I see it is that unless you have some insane single core machine, there is no way fully experience what ArmA has to offer. With our server we can have multiple smaller servers running which can sustain about 20 or so comfortably but when we try to fit all of our members on on server (about 60) we get server side FPSs of about 10-20. I know it all depends on the mission itself and such.

For the mission we are running about 30 objectives with associated triggers. We also have slotted for about 30 players on each side. There is no AI. I am well aware that this in and of itself is taxing but should be well within the scope of advertised 100+ player warfare you all advertise. In addition we have top minds working on the mission file to increase performance so let’s keep the discussion to the hardware or game please.

My question is this. Are there any steps being taken to either:

A. Reduce the load out required by the server (reduce the system requirements of the server)
B. Creation of a dedicated server which can fully utilize multi-core technology.

I think you will find that more and more server providers are exclusively offering multi-core server because most servers out there can run perfectly fine on them. ArmA is a different beast all-together.

If you would like more information about our mission or our server please let me know.

Thanks for your time.

-CM

[CouchMonkey]

Update:

We had approximately 45 member on the server tonight. We made them log on in shifts.

1-10: 45 Server FPS
11-20: 33 Server FPS
21-30: 15 Server FPS
31-40: 7 Server FPS
41+: about 4 Server FPS

As you can see the more people who join the more lag there is.

Is BIS working on a better server file or working on ways to improve the netcode? I need something to tell my guys.

Thanks,
CM


Proof: http://www.armainteractive.com/images/other/Beta2.gif

[SWAT_BigBear]

100mbit port doesn't mean much, unless it's "un-metered", which could cost well over a grand a month depending on your host company.
The prob you just seen was the "metered" 100mbit port slows everyone down as more joined.

[CouchMonkey]

That's a good point, but I am getting about 1300 KBS down and 300KBS up according to the server monitor. Obviously that grows as more people join.

[SWAT_BigBear]

I was disappointed after purchasing the 100mbit port(just $25), just to find out they meter them to only keep a connection alive when ALOT of players join. Even though your server box is elite, it doesn't help. My provider, Server Beach, want's $1300 per month to unmeter the port, which would run any game, any amount of players! Our backbone is dual oc48 direct to Peer1. I've ran many test on a few rental boxes for performance/speeds, here is an example:
I ran this test (all game servers closed) to a local test site (blocks away) which gave over 9800kbps up, but the real test was from Virgina to Texas which gives a better "actual" speed-Results (http://swat-clan.net/xtra/st2.bmp)

When I have the 5 different games running (RvS & OFP) and say, 40 players in RvS, and 10 or so in OFP, those test #'s will be several thousand less! If I were to purchase the unmetered port...the test would show the higher kbps, as if the games were not running, and no one would ever say "lag" from the servers when they are all full.

[CouchMonkey]

Thanks for the input. I honestly don't know if we are running unmetered. I will post the question to my providor. If we are running metered, I will see if we can run unmetered for our next battleday and see what happens. I will post the result here when I get it.

Thanks

[CouchMonkey]

OK, so I figured out part of my problem. I had the firewall on http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

Let's see what the server does this weekend. I will keep you all updated.

[[ASW]AllShotUp]

I was disappointed after purchasing the 100mbit port(just $25), just to find out they meter them to only keep a connection alive when ALOT of players join. Even though your server box is elite, it doesn't help. My provider, Server Beach, want's $1300 per month to unmeter the port, which would run any game, any amount of players! Our backbone is dual oc48 direct to Peer1. I've ran many test on a few rental boxes for performance/speeds, here is an example:
I ran this test (all game servers closed) to a local test site (blocks away) which gave over 9800kbps up, but the real test was from Virgina to Texas which gives a better "actual" speed-Results (http://swat-clan.net/xtra/st2.bmp)

When I have the 5 different games running (RvS & OFP) and say, 40 players in RvS, and 10 or so in OFP, those test #'s will be several thousand less! If I were to purchase the unmetered port...the test would show the higher kbps, as if the games were not running, and no one would ever say "lag" from the servers when they are all full.
We run a 100mb metered port since which you are correct in saying, Unmetered is better but expensive. I am unsure how many game sites run like that though.

However I have no problem running 2 BF2142 servers and MS FLt SIM /PAC Fighters off of a 100mbps line.

We used Server Beach a couple years ago, great people but we did experiance lag even with a 100mbps port out just running BF42/DC however the best location we found with them was to have our server in VA, since it helped the people here in the US and Europe the best.

I would not go back to a 10mbps line - it would not be worth the hassle.

s/ ASU

[[ASW]AllShotUp]

OK, so I figured out part of my problem.  I had the firewall on  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

Let's see what the server does this weekend.  I will keep you all updated.
Are you running a seperate firewall on your box then what your provider has? Best is to open the ports needed for each game and leave it at that.

If you have a dual core and a windows machine...you might be able to just use one core for your ArmA by changing the AFFINITY.

Use your Task Manager - from RUN - type in taskmgr

Then when Task Manager opens - go to processes, and highlight ARMA - then right click on that and you should see a dropdown block that says SET AFFINITY - there you should be able to select core #1 or core #2.

Then you can use your TASK MANAGER to see what is your performance before and after besides hopping in the game and checking it there also.

BTW - that was the "fix" that was out for BF2 when they came out without dual core support.

[CouchMonkey]

Thanks.

I talked to my provider and I am running unmetered. I think the problem eas that all the traffic was being funneled through the firewall, since it does checks, it was ultimately slowing it down.

As for setting the affinity to a single core, that really isn’t an option. When you have over 40-50 people connecting, you will use more than one processor can handle. We have a quad processor machine. If you set the affinity to one core it run slower than crap for obvious reasons.

We made some other tweaks. I will find out Sunday (our next batttleday) and let you guys know what happens.

Thanks again for the suggestions.

-CM

[raedor]

Please stop double-posting, CouchMonkey http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[CouchMonkey]

I double posted? I am sorry, where is the other post? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

If you are referring to the server files post, that is a completely separate post. Which I am still waiting for an answer on http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[[ASW]AllShotUp]

Thanks.  

I talked to my provider and I am running unmetered.  I think the problem eas that all the traffic was being funneled through the firewall, since it does checks, it was ultimately slowing it down.

As for setting the affinity to a single core, that really isn’t an option.  When you have over 40-50 people connecting, you will use more than one processor can handle.  We have a quad processor machine.  If you set the affinity to one core it run slower than crap  for obvious reasons.  

We made some other tweaks.  I will find out Sunday (our next batttleday) and let you guys know what happens.

Thanks again for the suggestions.

-CM
Just so we are on the same page and in case terminology is different.

"Unmetered" usually means in amount of bandwidth used not speed. Hence an 10mbps "unmetered" conn. is still 10mbps - it is just you are not charged for an overage's since you do not have a limit.

We run a 100mbps conn, which means we are going out 10 X as fast as a 10mbps machine...You do not need to ask your server provider this unless you do not have "remote desktop" access.

Like any windows machine, you go to SYSTEM - read your CPU type and Memory, go to Device Mgr - look up all your onboard equipment, then go to network connections and read your bandwidth connection. It will say either 10 or 100mbps.

We do not even come close to using 2000gb per month and that is with running a BF2142 Tournament Server, MS Flt Sim 2004 / X server and a PAC Fighters server off the same box. Even our BF2142 and BF2 ranked servers never pulled that much with a good load. Since 2003 when we started running BF42 we never went over 2000gb...

So see what you are running and if you do not need it - save your money. BTW - 10mbps "unmetered" is usually around $275.00 US extra versus a 100mbps link out for $20.00

As far as "Quad Cores', I thought you had "dual core", my bad for not reading correctly. However the procedure I gave you was an actual fix from EA"s Tech Dept. last year for server and client machines when we had a problem with BF2 and "dual core" before they released a patch.

[CouchMonkey]

Well, I talked to my provider and they do not meter it in any way. I don’t know what to say. Also when I take a look at the task manager it says 100.

In any event, I cannot set the server affinity to one core because that core gets maxed out at the level I am running. If I have 40 people on I run at around 30% processor when the affinity is not set and I max out the processor when it is set. Believe it or not, the server run a lot slower than if I didn’t set the affinity.

I have run a BF2 server before on a multi core system. It didn’t take nearly the amount of processing power ArmA does. I had a 64 slot server and was able to set the affinity no problem. But I can’t get 40 people on in ArmA without maxing out one processor.

Long and short of it is, setting the affinity to one core is not an option.

[SWAT_BigBear]

AllShotUp @<hidden> Jan. 09 2007,01:15)]We used Server Beach a couple years ago, great people but we did experiance lag even with a 100mbps port out just running BF42/DC however the best location we found with them was to have our server in VA, since it helped the people here in the US and Europe the best.
Since that time, they built DataCenter2 which qualified for direct to Peer1 and skipping the Cisco networks. That alone dropped 4-6 hops to every member of our group.
They have several DataCenters, but most arer for web hosting..i,e L.A./Dallas/ Virginia #1 datacenters.
You would be suprised at the larger companies that rent from SB. They do not support gaming, just the boxes on their fat pipe. At 1 point, I was going for a 2nd box in L.A. for my guys on the west coast, but I was refered back to Datacenter2 for gaming.

CouchMonkey....
Since you have 4 cores, have you tried to pin ArmA to 2 of them and pin other apps to the others?

[[ASW]AllShotUp]

AllShotUp @<hidden> Jan. 09 2007,01:15)]We used Server Beach a couple years ago, great people but we did experiance lag even with a 100mbps port out just running BF42/DC however the best location we found with them was to have our server in VA, since it helped the people here in the US and Europe the best.
Since that time, they built DataCenter2 which qualified for direct to Peer1 and skipping the Cisco networks. That alone dropped 4-6 hops to every member of our group.
They have several DataCenters, but most arer for web hosting..i,e L.A./Dallas/ Virginia #1 datacenters.
You would be suprised at the larger companies that rent from SB. They do not support gaming, just the boxes on their fat pipe. At 1 point, I was going for a 2nd box in L.A. for my guys on the west coast, but I was refered back to Datacenter2 for gaming.

CouchMonkey....
Since you have 4 cores, have you tried to pin ArmA to 2 of them and pin other apps to the others?
Good Point Big_Bear, Server Beach got bought out a year or two ago by Peer1, which I believe is a Canadian company. Good service etc even before they got bought out. Alot of the lag problems was traced out to crossing over the different lines that were owned by Cogent and other companies.

We have no problem using them since they gave fine service, but at the time we were going through an upgrade of our servers, we went to a different provider with better specs at a lower cost. Most of our traffic comes out of central and eastern North America (Can / US ) and Western Europe.

In fact we are getting ready to go through another upgrade again. So we are exploring all our options now for what is most cost effective.

s/ ASU

[CouchMonkey]

CouchMonkey....
Since you have 4 cores, have you tried to pin ArmA to 2 of them and pin other apps to the others?
Great question Bear. Yes we have. In reality it ran about as fast as no affinity, yet we were still getting about 7 or so server FPS.

So far running on all 4 cores is still faster. But not very.

[Sickboy]

Great question Bear.  Yes we have.  In reality it ran about as fast as no affinity, yet we were still getting about 7 or so server FPS.  

So far running on all 4 cores is still faster.  But not very.
What happens if you let those 41 players join in a Player versus Player map (no ai, no scripts, just plain, default player versus player)?

Is there any difference, and how big is the difference?

Then you could also make a coop map with let&#39;s say:
45 player slots
then different versions with added:
25 ai
50 ai
100 ai
200 ai
(just placed in the editor doing nothing)
and check what your server fps is then.... by doing this you can figure out what the strain is of the amount of players, what the strain is of the amount of ai with this amount of players and if it got something to do with a ratio between player and ai numbers, or possibly that the engine is not yet optimized proper enough or that it&#39;s simply not possible to play with 41 players in the configuration of the maps http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

I think our server, same cpu configuration, got 7 server fps with ~500 fighting units on the screen with 2 civilian players overwatching it... but I dont remember the exact results http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

BTW, quad server or not, ArmA only supports using 1 core at this time, which basicly means that it doesn&#39;t matter if you put the process on 1 cpu or 4 cpu&#39;s, it will always only use 1 of them, and if you select more cpu&#39;s... it&#39;s possible that it starts switching the process between the cpu&#39;s which could result in slower operation in some cases..

[CouchMonkey]

yes, I know that ArmA only supports one processor/core. What I am saying is that with 40+ real people and not AI, it more than maxes out the processor. Distributing the load actually increases performance but as you know, it is not ideal.

As fro the AIs, I will definitely check that out. Great suggestion.

[CouchMonkey]

Alright. So here is what I did.

1. I took our custom mission and enabled the AI. We have about 40 slots per side.
2. Started up the mission as a civilian (we have three sides, Russian, US, and Civvies).
3. The server hung tough at around 25% processor (~1 full core), 300 MB memory used, and 47 server FPS.
4. I have the AI move around a bit (they aren’t scripted because they are just placeholder slots). The server bumped up some, but hung at around 40 FPS.

So, from what I can tell it has to do with the number of connections and not the mission file.

As I said above, I had the firewall turned on so it was funneling the traffic. I will see what it does this weekend after turning it off and report back here.

Note: Most servers that you rent slots from (i.e. 64 slot BF2 servers) do not have the firewalls on at all.

[Sickboy]

Quote[/b] ]Distributing the load actually increases performance but as you know, it is not ideal.It&#39;s simply not possible to &#39;balance&#39; the load, as it will simply only use 1 of the 4cpu&#39;s... it can&#39;t use more than &#39;100%&#39; of &#39;1 cpu&#39;, so in any situation it should be evenly fast...

The only reason why it can be faster when you select all cpu&#39;s compared to selecting 1 cpu, is when other programs start to use that specific cpu to do their tasks...
what I would do is keep 1 cpu free for all other tasks, and host servers on the other 3 cpu&#39;s with priority &#39;above-normal&#39; this will rule out any other process trying to make use of those cpu&#39;s, and they will usually be scheduled on the free cpu then http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif You can then aswell leave some game processes running on the free cpu, but not in higher priority or your whole system starts lagging under load http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif


Anyway, as said, it can easily be a problem about the AI/Player ratio... so per example: 1 player 500 ai is fine,  2 players 250 ai is fine, 3 players 200 ai is fine, 10 players 100 ai is fine, 20 players 50 ai is fine, etc. etc. etc.

Besides, as said, make a BARE new mission and test in there, DO NOT test in your current framework as there are way too many variables to rely on; when ur testing you want to rule out as many variables as possible if you wish to find the cause soon http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

So simply build a test mission with 45 player slots in 4 versions:
- No AI
- 50 AI
- 100 AI
- 200 AI
or something similair, then run every mission once and see what the server fps does...

If you still have a good server fps with 100 and 200 ai, with ~40 players, ... then it doesnt seem to have to do with amount of players/ai or the ratio between them, but with the scripting/setup of your mission http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
It is important that there are ~ the same amount of players on the servers while testing, so I hope you can lock ur m8s in for about 30 minutes &#39;for the better&#39; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

When you have these test results, you can base ur next steps on that and draw conclussions http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif


BTW, I think it is important that no player has desync created by his connection (I say &#39;by his connection&#39; because the server is generating desync itself when the server fps goes lower than 15&#33http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif... If there are players with connection problems (not generally &#39;higher&#39; pings, but really desync), then this will lag the server aswell afaik...

[[ASW]AllShotUp]

Hey CouchMonkey -

What kinda load are those other CPU&#39;s pulling when the 1 core is at 25%? I am curious for future reference on an upgraded box we are going to be switching into soon.

s/ ASU

[CouchMonkey]

Sickboy,

What I am saying is that during the battledays we have no AI, therefore no lag couple be caused by them.

However I see you point about the testing. I can say that we had about 20 people on the other night testing out a particular part of our mission. It dealt with chase cams for the admins to monitor the members to watch out for cheaters and to watch the general course of battle.

The mission contained 20 slots (all human), minor camera scripts, no weapons, no add-ons, and the stock Sarhani map.

The server was cruising at about 22% and about 30-35 Server FPS. It is only slightly better than if I had our full custom mission with 20 players on.

Oh, just a heads up, the mission listed above is one piece we merge together (thank you BIS for allowing the merging of missions).

Anywho I will try to follow your suggestions sickboy and return my findings. Again, I believe it has more to do with humans connecting that the ancillary factors such as the mission or AI.

Also, your comments about not being able to spread the load between servers is false. I constantly see spikes where the load shifts from server to server. The spikes are not uniform so it is not just transferring 100% to the various processors. However it is not smooth either so it isn’t delegating the load very well. I know it sounds weird, but that is what I see ( look at that damn task manager all day long http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif ).

Finally When I did set the affinity to one processor I moved all of the other applications to the other cores. It made no difference, the baseline for my server is a constant 4% without my ArmA servers running so divide that by 4 and it isn’t using that much of one core anyway.

Shotup: It depends on what you mean:

1. If you mean when I am running army with the affinity set to 1 core, it bumps my other cores to 2-4%.
2. If you mean when I do not have the affinity set, it fluxuates quite a lot. Usually there is one core that takes the brunt of the processing power and the other ones fluxuate quite heavily.
3. I you mean outside of battledays when we have our three servers running (main pub server, and 2 army training servers), then it varies to how many people are connected but the baseline is 4% processor and about a gig of ram being used idling.

I would definately reccomend a multicore server if you plan on running several smaller servers. However the purpose of this thread is to figure out if multicore servers are best for large scaled combat simulations.

[AUS_Twisted]

Then you could also make a coop map with let&#39;s say:
45 player slots
then different versions with added:
25 ai
50 ai
100 ai
200 ai
(just placed in the editor doing nothing)
Having AI doing nothing wont cause much FPS loss on the server, it&#39;s when you give them commands to move somewhere then the AI group leaders give orders to there solders to do this and that which causes problems.

Having 100&#39;s of dead units all over the island like BIS&#39;s CTI makes things far worse aswell, I cant believe BIS have not added a delete dead unit script after 5 - 10 mins on that CTI mission. It&#39;s pretty much useless at the moment.

[Deady]

It just goes to show how difficult efficient scripting is in OFP/Arma.

If BIS struggle, feel for the community modders http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[[ASW]AllShotUp]

Thanks Couch Monkey for the info - yeah we are going to switch into a multi-core, raid 1 machines here in the next few days.

We finished some network tests last night from Europe and the Mideast, since we have a lot of members in those areas so we believe we are all set now...hopefully... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Aussie]

We have in our OFP server 2 dual core 275 series CPU&#39;S running 64bit server 2003 with 2x 80 gig Hdds running raid 0 with 4gig RAM

I have 2 demos running on CPU0 1 per each core and on the other CPU I have full game spread across both cores on CPU1. I have set this up with Deamon tools. I have stopped all uneccesary services except bare esentials and the TS server is bound to CPU0 core 2.

From what I have found over the years with OFP and watching task manager, it gets back to a couple of things.

1st- how well the mission is made i.e cleanup scripts This makes a huge difference as a poorly made mission will stress the server even with 8-10 players

2nd Amount of Players on server. More players that Join the lower the FPS will drop, its all about how many players are on the server. Thats it no amount of tweaking will give u the magical fix that we all seek.
I&#39;ve been playing with this topic for years with OFP and it seems the AA exe shows Exactly the same symtoms as the OFP dedicated exe. I have reconfigured, rebuilt, tweaked, jumped up and down, prayed to the god of FPS.

My Thoughts? I have none...LOL I have given up looking for the magical tweak as it dont exsist, we must simply do the best with what we can afford, When OFP was on the server I also weeded out the poorly made missions in an attempt at removing that problem area.

[SWAT_BigBear]

Your TS and the amount of players on it count as bandwidth and may hurt games. We run a Ventrilo with high codecs but had to put it on our 2nd server due to...over 10 on coms would lag the game servers. Standard codecs would let about 30+ on coms before lag started.
But we are on an older dual(proc, not cores) Amd 2800, 2 gig ram.

[CouchMonkey]

We run out our TS, web server, and game server on three different machines.

[Espectro]

Demo users reported alot better performance with the new .exe. I just think we need to wait for BI to release the patch to us full-gamers.

Also, you using winxp or vista?

Cause when I host on Vista I see no fps drop weather it&#39;s 1 or 10 people on it (or very litle), while on winxp, It&#39;s dropping around 6 fps. (from 1 to 10. My connection is, however, not good enough to have anything playable if more than 10 people are connected.

Oh, my system specs.

AMD64 3800+ X2 dualcore
2 * geforce 7600GT SLI (But only using one in Vista, due to lack of SLI support atm).
2 gb dual-ram.

[CouchMonkey]

Client side is fine. i get about 50 FPS on XP.

Server side is a different animal all together. The server has it&#39;s own FPS and that is typically good to gague overall performance.

I too have used the demo and the client size is definately a lot smoother. Part of our test this weekend will be to stress the demo server as well as the actual game server. My guess is even on the stock CTI mission, the server FPS will dip really low.

[Rekrul]

I installed XP on a P4 2.4Ghz with 1GB RAM on a E3 line (34Mbps) thinking it would be enough as the recommended system was 2Ghz 512MB. Boy was I disapointed when I saw the dedicated server had 24 FPS with just me there and 4 FPS with ~10 players.

The only thing installed on the server is ArmA and VNC. I quit VNC too just to be sure, but it didn&#39;t have an impact. I sure hope that a) server performance picks up and b) we get a Linux version sooner than schedualed.

[Terox]

Have you any information on user bandwidth
eg comparison in % of OFP usage

I am trying to forecast the annual running costs of our server, in preparation for the linux release

[CouchMonkey]

Welcome to the club Rekrul.

it isnt your server, it is the fact that you have more than 4 people on your server will drop the FPS like no ones business.

Doing some more testing, we have determined that in fact the problem with server FPS has to do with the number of connections.

Also there seems to be some sort of memory leak. I don&#39;t know if it because of the dead bodies (after 4 hours, they pile up) or something else.

We also tested the CTI mission on our beta server. Baseline is 44 server FPS. We have 32 people join and it dropped to 4 FPS.

BF2 had better frame rates. Something is going on.

[SniperAndy]

@<hidden> Monkey,
I was thinking this during yesterday session actually.
For battles that scale you guys should use a delete body script.
So that the mess is cleaned up after a while.

We&#39;re running a dedicated server for the arma demo over at ArmAmods.net (http://www.armamods.net).
And the server FPS drops from around 45-50 FPS to 4-7 FPS soon as there is 4-5 players on it playing the CTI. CPU load is insane as well. It shoots to a constant 100% soon as there is a few people on that CTI.

The demo server is running on a Pentium 4 with 2.8ghz with 1GB of ram on a shared 7GBit line.

[CouchMonkey]

We already have that planned for next weeks battle. However that only helps with the server degridation. Even in the inital load we only get 6 frames a second on the server.

[Suma]

We have found a bug in the server compilation process which caused the server to be less optimized than it should. The same issue is affecting the demo build, but not the full game build. (Note: The demo build 5116 is already fixed and fully optimized)

We expect the next server release should perform much better.
(For those interested: the bug was the automated upgrader of the Visual Studio project did not change some settings when transition from Visual Studio 2003 to Visual Studio 2005 to reflect the changed meaning of some options, and as a result the project has turned most optimizations off).

[Aussie]

@<hidden> Suma, I and many other appreciate you dropping into chat to us and letting us know of these fixes cheers http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

One question I have in regards to the full game server.exe. Is there anything you can suggest to assist us in optimizing our servers? I have struggled for many years to achieve decent FPS when big matches are playing, especially CTI&#39;S I have done all the optimizations that you recommend on the WIKI. I know this is a big question and I&#39;m not expecting miracles, we do have a very powerful server but I can see problems once the English version is released and we start to see large numbers of players joining especially when CTI&#39;S are released.

[CouchMonkey]

Suma, will you Marry me?

Those who run CTI missions and organized tournaments thank you.

Any help on this matter would surely be appreciated.

[Deady]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Looking forward to 5117 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif