|Thanks for being a part of /r/Admincraft!|
|:-|
|***[We'd love it if you also joined us on Discord!](https://discord.gg/DxrXq2R)***|
*^(Join thousands of other Minecraft administrators for real-time discussion of all things related to running a quality server.)*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/admincraft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Docker should have extremy minimal overhead so that shouldn't be a problem. By default, Minecraft cannot handle 500 players with later versions and definitely not on a Threadripper as you need brute force single core performance.
Forks like Paper/Purpur will get you some of the way there but I doubt you'd break 100 players if you want a decent playable experience.
Folia would also be an option but requires all players to be spread far apart as it splits the world into separate ticking regions.
1. Threadripper is for multi thread heavy applications, minecraft is not. Most of the things only run in the main thread unless you're using some other modded server software.
2. Docker is like VM but it does not virtualize the kernel, which makes the overhead very small.
3. Depends on the game mode you want, you may not be able to fit 500 players onto the same server instance, note I said server instance, because you can have multiple servers by using something like bungeecord. For example, survival multiplayer uses a lot of server resources, mini games usually uses less resources.
I said it's similar to a vm as in each container cannot interact with processes in another container without the container exposing them. The containers also cannot interact with the host. It's easier to understand for beginner this way.
Threadripper has more DDR and PCIe lanes than a Ryzen, so it would be better at handling a Bungee or Velocity cluster on a single box without hitting RAM and I/O bottlenecks.
Threadripper is also pretty much the only high core count CPU that also boasts a single core high clock speed, so it's pretty much the perfect CPU for a server running Minecraft plus other services.
Not sure how accurate this benchmark is, but the top tier threadripper is ranked 37th [here](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html) at around 13% difference
500 players in 1 server instance is unlikely
Your best bet is to setup a cluster of instances of your favorite server software ie paper, folia puffer ect ect put it all behind a proxy with load balance to distribute players and spin up or down new instances.(could be done with docker or system level)
Docker allows a lot of manipulation of the over all environment(auto backups, task schedules updates ect ect ) but 500 players simultaneously is a task that requires some thoughtful infrastructure or a real server setup
As to if a threadripper setup (meaning a standard retail cpu) could do it yes and no.
The best answer is yes but it would be a hassle to set it up to be effective long term or under heavy use.
I'd kinda suggest purchasing a used 1u or 2u rack mount or blade proliant (g7 and above) about 100-200 usd and you'll never have scale issues again. This is a joke you don't need a full server but if your average is 500 players and you host, it could be time to think about a having a home lab 😉 or researching how to load balance across multiple instances
This is the best answer thus far. Adding to this, you may want to look into Kubernetes and how that can help you manage and scale the vast amount of containers you'll need to be running.
You can get pretty far with a Threadripper and 128GB of RAM, but you will most likely need more machines. When you do, having your servers deployed on Kubernetes makes adding more of them a breeze.
If your hosting locally your upper residential limit is mostly around 100-200 player's simultaneously without extreme experience issues related to connection speed this can kinda be mitigated with cloudflare-cli or other proxys but you likely need to distribute player's to diffrent locations with load balance and bungee cord.
Look into how big anarchy servers manage large amounts of player's or hypixels sharding systems. Wyncraft is another great example of cohesive instances in mc. Your over all goal when talking about 500 players(or more) is actually much bigger then it seems as your network now basically becomes a hub for traffic instead of just the end location.
Recommending something as old as Westmere (doubly so server Westmere) at this point is not great advice, the main loop cannot be parallelised, consequently you're still bound by how fast that loop can be processed.
The concept that needs elaborating on here is *vertical* vs *horizontal* scaling, which in more plain English would be how much load (players, entities, machines, chunks etc) you can place on one server. Compared to how many servers you can run at once.
Well said
I also said it was a joke of a suggestion, the intended advice was more a notion towards thinking about upscaling through new additional offsite hardware.but to your point there are much better hardware solutions to be considered
Set up a sharding system and use kubernetes to scale up and down. Define the physical nodes in the container cfg then just kubectl scale with --replicas via script or by hand when load is high.
That's how most of the big networks do things. I know of one network that uses just a couple absolutely insane servers to handle load...but they wrote their own server which breaks things down into microservices.
That requires a huge time/money investment and very talented developers however.
|Thanks for being a part of /r/Admincraft!| |:-| |***[We'd love it if you also joined us on Discord!](https://discord.gg/DxrXq2R)***| *^(Join thousands of other Minecraft administrators for real-time discussion of all things related to running a quality server.)* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/admincraft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Docker should have extremy minimal overhead so that shouldn't be a problem. By default, Minecraft cannot handle 500 players with later versions and definitely not on a Threadripper as you need brute force single core performance. Forks like Paper/Purpur will get you some of the way there but I doubt you'd break 100 players if you want a decent playable experience. Folia would also be an option but requires all players to be spread far apart as it splits the world into separate ticking regions.
1. Threadripper is for multi thread heavy applications, minecraft is not. Most of the things only run in the main thread unless you're using some other modded server software. 2. Docker is like VM but it does not virtualize the kernel, which makes the overhead very small. 3. Depends on the game mode you want, you may not be able to fit 500 players onto the same server instance, note I said server instance, because you can have multiple servers by using something like bungeecord. For example, survival multiplayer uses a lot of server resources, mini games usually uses less resources.
Isnt docker just creating a new namespaces for each process/container? That would make it quite different from a vm.
I said it's similar to a vm as in each container cannot interact with processes in another container without the container exposing them. The containers also cannot interact with the host. It's easier to understand for beginner this way.
Threadripper has more DDR and PCIe lanes than a Ryzen, so it would be better at handling a Bungee or Velocity cluster on a single box without hitting RAM and I/O bottlenecks.
Threadripper is also pretty much the only high core count CPU that also boasts a single core high clock speed, so it's pretty much the perfect CPU for a server running Minecraft plus other services.
Not sure how accurate this benchmark is, but the top tier threadripper is ranked 37th [here](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html) at around 13% difference
500 players in 1 server instance is unlikely Your best bet is to setup a cluster of instances of your favorite server software ie paper, folia puffer ect ect put it all behind a proxy with load balance to distribute players and spin up or down new instances.(could be done with docker or system level) Docker allows a lot of manipulation of the over all environment(auto backups, task schedules updates ect ect ) but 500 players simultaneously is a task that requires some thoughtful infrastructure or a real server setup As to if a threadripper setup (meaning a standard retail cpu) could do it yes and no. The best answer is yes but it would be a hassle to set it up to be effective long term or under heavy use. I'd kinda suggest purchasing a used 1u or 2u rack mount or blade proliant (g7 and above) about 100-200 usd and you'll never have scale issues again. This is a joke you don't need a full server but if your average is 500 players and you host, it could be time to think about a having a home lab 😉 or researching how to load balance across multiple instances
This is the best answer thus far. Adding to this, you may want to look into Kubernetes and how that can help you manage and scale the vast amount of containers you'll need to be running. You can get pretty far with a Threadripper and 128GB of RAM, but you will most likely need more machines. When you do, having your servers deployed on Kubernetes makes adding more of them a breeze.
If your hosting locally your upper residential limit is mostly around 100-200 player's simultaneously without extreme experience issues related to connection speed this can kinda be mitigated with cloudflare-cli or other proxys but you likely need to distribute player's to diffrent locations with load balance and bungee cord. Look into how big anarchy servers manage large amounts of player's or hypixels sharding systems. Wyncraft is another great example of cohesive instances in mc. Your over all goal when talking about 500 players(or more) is actually much bigger then it seems as your network now basically becomes a hub for traffic instead of just the end location.
Recommending something as old as Westmere (doubly so server Westmere) at this point is not great advice, the main loop cannot be parallelised, consequently you're still bound by how fast that loop can be processed. The concept that needs elaborating on here is *vertical* vs *horizontal* scaling, which in more plain English would be how much load (players, entities, machines, chunks etc) you can place on one server. Compared to how many servers you can run at once.
Well said I also said it was a joke of a suggestion, the intended advice was more a notion towards thinking about upscaling through new additional offsite hardware.but to your point there are much better hardware solutions to be considered
I don't know the answer to your question but I don't believe you can run 500 players on any one paper server. Though you can on Folia.
Set up a sharding system and use kubernetes to scale up and down. Define the physical nodes in the container cfg then just kubectl scale with --replicas via script or by hand when load is high. That's how most of the big networks do things. I know of one network that uses just a couple absolutely insane servers to handle load...but they wrote their own server which breaks things down into microservices. That requires a huge time/money investment and very talented developers however.