Talk:Server/Requirements/Server

I have researched this and there appears to be no advantage to using server processors over desktop processors for minecraft unless using out-of-game features like dynmap or other plugins which run on their own threads enough so to justify buying more cores. You could even call it a disadvantage because of the wasted money. Although MC uses around 63 threads its still mostly a single threaded engine. It seems like having more than 4 cores is completely pointless, and the real bottleneck is CPU and RAM clock speeds. Server processors are meant for when you have a very large number of threads and need as many processing cores as possible, while MC will almost never utilize more than three.

I recommend getting a high clock speed quad core such as a Vishera for only 120$ and liquid cooling and overclocking it to around 4.5GHz, which would be nearly twice as fast as processors people use and for 1/5 the cost.

I may be wrong however, but everything I've read and experimented points to this. --Khlorghaal 04:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is the 4930K rated higher than the E3? They're both basically equivalent in singlethreaded performance, which is ACTUALLY STATED IN THE ARTICLE as making the only real difference on server performance.

Numbers...
When the hardware is specified, e.g. i7's, there's literally no difference between the stuff on here and the "Dedicated Server" page, and that has been tested - the previous numbers on that page were from fantasy-land, I don't even know who could've made them up, they were ridiculous, and so are these - 10,000 players on a 4.0GHz CPU? I doubt anything short of a supercomputer could do 10K players. Unless the CPU-requirements magically stop increasing after a certain amount of players, this page - just like the original Dedicated Server page - is entirely made-up, and hails from Fantasy-land. Seriously, what source is there for any of these numbers? (Personally, I highly suspect either none, or another source that just made up the numbers). All this is not even mentioning the fact that Minecraft - as most Java-applications - threads horridly (barely at all), and does not really benefit from running on typical server-architectures (SPARC, IBM Blade/Z and so on)... So why is there even a separate "Server-grade" page, that is, separate from the "Dedicated Server" page? THe only reason I didn't just mirror the results from that page was the small, utterly tiny, chance that someone had tested this on some SPARC-based machine or similiar, and found that it did slightly increase the allowable number of players without skipping ticks every second - though I doubt that. Seriously, what are these numbers based on, where are they from, and most importantly, how are they in any way realistic? 155.4.14.25 09:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Across these three edits from Jan 2014, someone put (I think) suspicious numbers in. They remained that way until you changed them. This page just doesn't get that much attention; I don't know what proportion of our editors have experience setting up MC servers, but I suspect the most active editors do not. If you're confident your numbers are more correct, thanks very much for your corrections. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This page really should be removed - it's not even clear what the headers mean ("used plugins"? What?), and even though I seriously toned-down the numbers, they're still - from my experience, testing, and having run dedicated servers for quite some time now - from fantasy-land, and as stated above, I don't see why this page is needed - what differentiates it from the Dedicated server page? When it said server-grade, I presumed it was due to someone having done test on e.g. the SPARC-architecture or something that is, ya know, actually "server-grade", or anything like that, but for the reasons stated above (Minecraft wouldn't really benefit from typical server-architectures), this page really just seems like a confusing and entirely unnecessary addon to the dedicated server page. I suggest it be removed entirely. 94.254.51.243 15:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)