Rust server performance: GSP issue or development issue?

So, like most of you all, I thought the performance problems with Rust servers was with the program itself. We all experience the jerkiness, the stutters, etc. I get 150+ FPS, but in between that, it stutters. So, a friend got his hands on the Rust server files, and fired it up for some testing on his home PC. Connecting to this server, the game runs silky smooth, no stuttering, fluid movement of players, etc. I even had a high ping as I am on East coast and he is West, but it didn’t seem to matter. One could argue, “but Tex, that’s because you guys had less than 10 people on the server!”, the thing is, even on servers with 10 or less people, performance is poor.

After seeing it on a home PC, I think the issue largely lies in the GSPs over committing disk, CPU, and memory. I am a sys admin by trade, and administer/deployed nearly 1000 combined virtual servers/desktops for my company and our clients. I am no stranger to a virtualized environment, and the challenges with shared resources. I think all of these GSPs are trying to offer servers so cheap, that this is the performance we all get. And yes, $20 for a server that can hold 100 people is insanely cheap.

So I ask, can a) the GSPs be opened up to more providers? b) can the dev team lean on GSPs to provide more resources/don’t overcommit to protect the game experience? c) can some of the GSPs offer a premium offering that offers more resources to a fewer number of clients. I for one would be happy to pay someone a monthly fee to get a premium experience, ie my server admins, and I think others would as well.

So, peopled agreed, but no comments? I feel like this is kind of big news, that potentially the game is fine, but the providers are bad.

It’s always hard to find the perfect GSP. Many of these smaller companies have no idea what they’re doing and routinely overload their boxes and don’t load balance. Many believe it’s OK to run their boxes at 70%+ CPU usage. Many also can’t afford top of the line machines and rent whatever their datacenter of choice has…

Looking around at GSP’s and their prices, it simply doesn’t make sense. I think many are betting on the fact that since the files are private, you can’t export your world. So most will deal with the lag they see. They’re also using the “alpha” state to their advantage. Yes, the game has some server side performance issues, and yes, it is an alpha, but the state of some of the servers is terrible.

Garry’s doesn’t seem like he wants to let more host in. Not sure why :confused:

Letting in more hosts just means more server monopoly, shittier performance and cheaper prices… etc. I’d be happier paying double the price for better performing hardware. 40 bucks a month for a server isn’t much. That OR let us run our own server, issue resolved.

Actually, no. It would be the opposite of a monopoly since if you didn’t like the service you were getting here, you’d go over there. It could bring on more competitive pricing, but not all companies do competitive pricing as some realize the quality of service they offer is a lot better than anyone else. Some even guarantee it!.

Currently all the GSPs are shit-tier. Maybe multiplay does not suck that major dick, but the rest does for sure. Had 2 Server from, one in HK one in Germany. On both servers huge performance issues and no good help from the Support. Same issues with deinserverhost and HFB.

Now running 2 machines in Singapore from multiplay, they are way better than all the others. But still high latency sometimes and you dont have so much freedome with plugins.

There must be a good GSP out there. Which can cover the needs of all, for a price. 100$-50 slots are fine. Maybe 150$ for 100 slots, cool as well. Just MORE POWER PLEASE!

There are some good ones about there, but Garry isn’t really letting anyone else in for some reason.

So far we’ve had a server with HFB,Multiplay, and currently with FPSplayers.

FPSplayer is working out the best for us, we have the most access to update our plugins and so far the response time is good to tickets and such. Performance hasn’t been an issue them, but hey we are just starting out in Rust. Though somehow the server at HFB seemed sluggish and Multiplay restarted a lot.
I’d have to also admit I’m a bit spoiled.?.
I’m the community leader for a largely FPS community centered around Battlefield series games. For this we lease a dedicated server from NFO there performance guaranty isn’t just a statement, it’s just a fact.
There servers aren’t the cheapest, though I don’t think they are the most expensive. But you won’t get “GoDaddy-ed”, if they say a server will run something it will. They take running game servers very seriously, in an industry that doesn’t seem to, it’s not a part time job for them.

We run seven BF4 servers and a BF3 server on our box, most of our server run 24/7 that is not an exaggeration nor is it common amongst BF4 servers. It’s not a passive accomplishment and it would not be possible with out a solid team and a solid GSP. It’s just to hard to maintain enough donations on a month to month basis to gamble it and or throw it away on fly by night “gsp’s”.

Please, please add NFO ( to your RSP list, you won’t regret it Gary…please.

I recently moved from Multiplay to and have the opposite experience. However I selected playrusts “big plan”. The stuttering is gone and our playerbuilt town, 7 huge buildings clumped together, (moved world files so its identical on both servers) is transfered to our clients at lightning speed with almost no lag.

Server usage is at 3% with 10 connected players whereas on multiplay it was hitting 20-30% with only 4-5 players. Frequency of server crashes are the same though.

Where is the machine. Mine was in Frankfurt, the other in HK. HK had the big plan as well. Didnt work so well.

Frankfurt I believe.

I feel like not many use and I wonder why… Perhaps because they are the most expensive of the hosts, but they seem to the only ones that actually dedicate sufficient RAM to support the game.

TexRob brings up a valid point that 100 slot servers for $20-30 is insanely cheap when you typically pay about $1/slot for any other game. I think simply offering up the server files is honestly the best solution… For some odd reason more developers are opting for this temporary exclusivity. With the new EAC being implemented, the primary reason for sharing server files goes out the window (stop hackers for exploiting further, although hardly a real solution). Allowing people to choose their own hosts and hardware.

Hello everyone. Multiplay community manager here.

There’s a LOT of misconceptions occurring in this thread.

The reason so many providers are providing Rust servers for the price that we are is because we’re able to. Nobody is trying to hurt you, nobody is dedicating less resources than are necessary.

Comparing Rust to other games that charge roughly 1$ per player is not a fair comparison. All games are different and all games use the backend differently.

In the case of Rust, there is extremely little resource difference between total number of players. It doesn’t really add much more resource usage at all thus everyone is capable of offering high player counts for lower prices.

To put it in perspective - a player joins Minecraft and it uses in the region of 100mb of memory more and 60mhz more cpu, with Rust it’s in the region of 0.1mb and 2mhz per player. I’ve not got the actual numbers in front of me, these are for a very rough impression of what’s going on at the backend.

TL;DR: The resource usage that occurs has very little to do with the number of players.

If anyone has any technical questions I’ll be happy to answer them!

Just curious how you guys spec machines. I’ve noticed the performance tends to go down shortly after a wipe when people start building. If the machines are spec’d based on the assumption that there isn’t much ‘per user’ difference, then that isn’t accounting for the fact that the more players you have, the more quickly the server starts filling up with structures.

I have a server with FPS that I and 1-2 other folks use to test building. I get CPU alerts every other day from potential overusage WITH NO ONE ON THE SERVER.

I suspect this is a two-fold problem – GSP’s not specing based on real, long term usage AND poorly written code that leaks resources (yes, even with a GC you can experience leak-like issues).

It also wouldn’t surprise me if either Unity itself or Rust’s use of it results in overtaxed resources due to user-built structures.

Funny you will answer us here, but in a support ticket it will take a week.
I’m not sure you are even qualified to comment, your above statement clearly shows you are not. Or at the very lest not adept at explaining your point or refuting others. But I can see why you would want to.

“The resource usage that occurs has very little to do with the number of players.”

I think your splitting hairs here, though the network can handle those connections it’s what the players are doing on the server that is the issue. Once the server becomes populated and players are building and such, the server begins to lag terribly due to the lack of resources. I know, I have one of your servers. We didn’t remove the Auto renew in time and you guys snaked us for some more cash. Oh well live and learn.
Your company tosses the low specs at these servers and slaps a low price on it hoping on the volume and general ignorance to carry you on. Why do you think the servers restart all the time. And yes I know all about the CPU and memory problem of one of the earlier patches.

On top of that your FTP restrictions on plug-ins is beyond ridiculous, you claim that it’s about “security” but other RSP’s have no issue letting us change out of plug-ins without the hand holding. Might not be that bad if you replied to tickets in a timely manor, but you don’t. It would take a week to tweak a single plug in at that pace, and hell, the next patch would be out by then.

So please excuse me if I’m not impressed with your limited and biased opinion of what is needed to run RUST servers, you’ve already had that chance with me and several others and have proven that Mulitplay doesn’t.

And to network security, name one single AAA game that you lease a top rated server in, just one. I’ll save you the time, there aren’t any. Nope your company won’t spend the money to upgrade your network so anyone of those servers in a triple A title never has a chance of being on the top or populated 24/7. Not in todays world, all it take is one pissed off skiddie and your “servers” gets owned for weeks till one of the other providers gets the “tool” source removed. You don’t have one server that can’t be dropped in a nano second by the simplest of means.
I’m not saying other providers can’t be ddos’ed, no what I’m saying is that some take active steps to ensure that ddos’es have as little impact as possible. And for that it takes money, experience and diligence.

Nobody is using because everyone who paid them once instantly notice how unprofessional and unskilled this company is. (I REALLY DON’T EXAGGERATE) my experience
with this company is beyond poor performance.

Daily really daily basis was:
-Controlpanel crashes
-Server crashes
-Random server support stopping
-Huge rubberbanding

Even when I canceled my contract the support made huge mistakes. Did I tell you that apart from
that the support is heavly unskilled they also tell you wrong information? I’d never recommend this server host company to anyone really now where I’m at hfb I’m satisfied I’m paying 10 euro less to have a much more professional company and a server with good uptime and rare lags.

To be fair, he is correct. CPU usage doesn’t scale the way you’d think it would with Rust. Higher slot servers aren’t crazy on CPU, even, though they can be. I’ve noticed ram is an important factor here. A 100 slot server will easily use 1.5GB+ of ram and the more structures that are built the more it uses.

It’s all about the money.

A piece of paper makes decisions for you.

Remember that.

LUA wants to be free.

That why I said “He was splitting hairs…” and that may not have been the best term. My intent was more to the way the servers are marketed and it’s appearance to the average user. Selling them based solely on slots is misleading.

I think that it low CPU usage may led some GSP’s to over loading boxes to the point that not only is there not enough ram but the point that the systems I/O can right/read fast enough to either the RAM or the HD.

That is where a quality company comes in that understands how to balance performance with profit. Once a relationship is built on even a footing then one can began to trust when your partner (the GSP) says that “yes there is cheaper out there, but performance doesn’t always come cheap”.