Turn time very high

[dfortier]

Hello all,

Just making the jump to tekkit lite today and the turn time (response MS) is very high compare to the old tekkit server.

This is a small server used by myself and 3 others but its a pretty decent set up(or at least i think it is):

ESXI 5.0 (patched)

ubuntu 12.04 server (patched, vm tools installed)

1 v-cpu (avg 12-15% used when everyone is on)

8 gigs of ram (java set to use up to 6 gig)

50 gigs hdd (datastore for this is on a ssd)

all cat6 cables

sun java 7

tekkit classic was 18ms

tekkit lite is over 1047ms

anyone else seeing a drop in reponse like this? i can seem to find anything by searching

thanks

[zarb]

full hardware virtualisation is ALWAYS bad to run anything taxing on, which is why vmware performs this badly. I would suggest either running it completely natively or at most under openvz (which is what im doing). openvz is somewhat of a super-glorified BSD-jails. also if you want to kick it up a notch performance-wise for your general virtualisation, Id suggest looking into KVM/qemu.

[dfortier]

Thanks for the advice, ill load up a machine and try it native. i'm not sure how much better it will run though. litteraly the only thing that changed on the setup was the new version of tekkit.

ill post back with the results

[dfortier]

Well finally got a chance to create a test system and the results are really no better. Tekkit classic is around 20ms and tekkit lite is over 1000ms. im going to set up a windows test to see if it prduces the same results as ubuntu.

thanks

[zarb]

hm how did you start the server by the way? there are parameters that help a little bit with performance:

java -server -Xmx6G -Xms6G -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+DisableExplicitGC -XX:+UseG1GC -jar YOURJAR

works best with recent java7 since the G1 garbage collector received an overhaul during one of the early java7 updates

[dfortier]

ive been using (same for classic) and i do have the latest java update:

java -Xmx6G -Xms4G -jar TekkitLite.jar nogui

ill give yours a shot though.

thanks for the feed back

[dfortier]

tried your settings and it made no differance, 1059ms. seems very odd to me that there is such a drastic change. ill poke around a bit more later today.

thanks again