Denied Server / host change

[Drunkdirector]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This will change the server host from where ever it is to a better one since base raid are basicly impossible due to lagg alone

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I do not know if this was suggest this year but it would be for the better if it happend

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Positives : Better player expirance and possibly less lagg and less crashes


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Negative : maybe a bit more expensive monthly then now and some players will possibly experience more ping issues

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This should be accepted on the basis of overall lagg expirance and loss of players due to lagg issues in baseraid or normal conquest wars

( if anyone has something to add to this please let me know )

 

[Straight]

-support, no matter where you move it, someone will suffer. Even living in the UK and the base raids are incredibly laggy. More like a game issue than server tbh

 

[Hydro]

CivilNetworks already rents the best possible hardware for hosting GMod. Obviously every year or so there's new stuff that comes out, but typically you won't really see any significant differences when switching between single generations of hardware when hosting GMod servers.

The reason base raids lag is because GMod relies on distributing players thinly across the map, and during a base raid you'll have the whole server in a small corner of it. The game is smart - and it only sends you updates for things that you may need to know about. If a player is talking or moving at the opposite corner of the map then you don't need to know about it, and it doesn't send you it, and it therefore saves a hell of a lot on the performance front by doing this. We lose all those performance gains during base raids because every player NEEDS to know about almost every update that's happening. By repositioning a few meters you can pretty much see any player/vehicle/helicopter, and that means you need updates for it.

It's also worth noting that even physically moving the servers wouldn't make much of a difference. The lag you're experience isn't due to the latency of moving packets of data across the globe - it's due to the speed the server can calculate updates.

That being said, CN does regularly purchase better hardware as it becomes available, and if benchmarks shows that's beneficial then I'm sure we'll see new hardware acquisitions being announced.

 

[Drunkdirector]

i mean you cant blame players for thinking what you just said about hardware is fully bullshit since if its newest hardware it would be able to run it flawless and as an hardware / IT guy i can tell you that what you said about hardware is not true at all even civil networks cannot buy a 10k cpu for a server wich is depended on donations from players and with its many servers that would litterly mean that Civil networks owner is richer then god him self

 

[Hydro]

First off - the CPU's you're referring to that cost 10k are Intel Xeon's or AMD EPYC's. Those are great chips, but they are specifically designed to have high core counts and lots of memory bandwidth. The vast majority of users using those chips are probably just running either virtual machines that customers are renting, or in the case of large business probably just loads of web servers/databases.

Let's compare two CPU's, one is an AMD EPYC 9654 ($12,000 USD) , and the other one is a 14900k ($700 USD). Forgive me here, because I'm not exactly giving loads of sources, but lets use this one: https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i9_14900k-vs-amd_epyc_9654.

If you look at the single-threaded performance, you'll see that the $12,000 chip only runs at 63% of the speed of the $700 chip in single-threaded workloads, but that in heavily multithreaded tasks that it runs 3x faster. The EPYC chip is awesome, and its really good when you have a task that can use all it's cores, but Garry's Mod can't. The engine it's written on was made in the early 2000's, and barely retrofitted to support larger maps, let alone 128 concurrent players and 200 mods.

Garry's Mod servers cap out at two CPU cores - one for the physics loop and another that's used to help speed things up where possible. With a 192 thread EPYC, you'd only be using 1/96th of its cores for the game. The benefits of it having lots of slower cores are therefore negated, and you lose out overall.

To summarise, GMOD requires a very small number of extremely fast CPU cores. Fast CPU cores take more energy, emit more heat, and that's why they don't go faster than they do at the moment. (p.s. if we wanted to host our servers on a $12,000 chip, we could. Hosting companies normally rent them out for maybe £50 per CPU core so for £100 we'd have 2 cores and a bunch of memory/storage that comes bundled with it. We don't do that because it'd half server performance...).

There have already been announcements made in the past talking about how much the servers we rent cost. If I recall correctly, Cloak's stated that it's thousands per year. I also have some insight here, and I can confirm that we always try purchase the best possible hardware money can buy. Money isn't the issue here, it's just the cost of doing business

Please read my original post for reasoning on why it lags more in base raids.

 

[Bogdan]

+Support
Link

 

[Harry]

We should just link the CN servers to the NASA supercomputer tbh.

-support (useless suggestion)

 

[shaun11103]

CN is a decently sized business just get the new alien tech that is in Fortnite

 

[Dr Drew]

Suggestion Denied​

---

Hi @Drunkdirector , Your suggestion has been denied. This is a NL thing not for MRP suggestion Thank you for taking the time to make a suggestion​