• Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Duplicate
    • None
    • 1.14.32.1
    • Ubuntu Server 19.10 (GNU/Linux 5.3.0-45-generic x86_64)
    • Unconfirmed

      We Just finished building a dedicated server for our needs.
      CPU: Ryzen 3950X
      RAM: 64GB 3200Mhz 16CL
      Mass Storage: SSD

      As our "lets do something stupid to benchmark it"
      Our final test was to run Bedrock edition server off of it because of it's superior multithreaded optimizations.
      And it ran like it was hosted from someones phone.
      New chunks and old chuncks were loading very slowly and and it couldn't even handle 160x160 tnt properly.
      If I do this off of my own i7 3930k, 16GB ram, SSD and Win10home I get much better performance and my CPU usage will be at 100% like it should be.

      With the small scale tnt test, my PC takes 1 min to blow it up, on the dedicated server, it took 10 minutes.
      On paper, even my CPU in 1 treaded performance loses to 2nd gen ryzen by a huge margin. 

      Heck, even Our JAVA server out performed the Bedrock server.

      This is unacceptable.

          [BDS-3850] Poor performance with OP hardware

          I have amazed my self, of my inability to read properly, and not seeing Stephen's comment at all until now.

          Benjaming Ivanka Bloigu added a comment - I have amazed my self, of my inability to read properly, and not seeing Stephen's comment at all until now.

          IonicEcko added a comment -

          I think you've confused the two responses in my comment.

          The quote you're referencing was in the paragraph directed at Stephen who mentioned he was using an old Xeon chip that was equivalent to an i7-2700. It had nothing to do with your 3950x.

          Ionic

          IonicEcko added a comment - I think you've confused the two responses in my comment. The quote you're referencing was in the paragraph directed at Stephen who mentioned he was using an old Xeon chip that was equivalent to an i7-2700. It had nothing to do with your 3950x. Ionic

          Well. you didn't exactly say "as powerfull" you claimed it to be better  "its far more capable than your chip"
          As within context of my post, my chip is the Ryzen chip, as within context we are talking about my OP server rig, not my personal gaming rig.

          And BDS-2574 seems to align with what I saw with my linux machine.

          Benjaming Ivanka Bloigu added a comment - Well. you didn't exactly say "as powerfull" you claimed it to be better  "its far more capable than your chip" As within context of my post, my chip is the Ryzen chip, as within context we are talking about my OP server rig, not my personal gaming rig. And  BDS-2574  seems to align with what I saw with my linux machine.

          IonicEcko added a comment - - edited

          No? Where did I say that?

          Edit: Turns out, even if I did, it wouldn't have been as crazy as you're insinuating. See below single core comparison and my previous comments about multi-threading.

          IonicEcko added a comment - - edited No? Where did I say that? Edit: Turns out, even if I did, it wouldn't have been as crazy as you're insinuating. See below single core comparison and my previous comments about multi-threading.

          Did you Just call i7 as powerfull as r9 3950X?

          Benjaming Ivanka Bloigu added a comment - Did you Just call i7 as powerfull as r9 3950X?

          IonicEcko added a comment - - edited

          GreatMCGamer - We're tracking a performance hit in 1.14 for Linux against BDS-2574. You should find that running the same server on Windows provides far better performance on the current version.

          As far as multi-threading goes, while BDS will spin up threads for some workloads the main game loop still runs on a single thread. For example below is an example of my server with 3 active players and a huge villager hall (which has a huge CPU impact at the moment). The highlighted core is the main thread.

          Because we've already raised poor linux performance with the devs under BDS-2574 I'm going to ask that this be duplicated into that.

          Uncle Fungus - If you believe you're having issues you will need to open your own report however I would suggest checking your individual cores before doing so. The i7 2700k has a far lower capacity than the i7-8700 shown in my picture and as you can see, with 3 people online and a villager trading hall my main game thread had the core at 30%. I'd expect that at 10-15 hoomans my server would also start lagging and its far more capable than your chip. Your issue is likely more a technical/optimization one rather than a bug.

          Ionic

          Quick Links:
          ๐Ÿ““ Issue Guidelines โ€“ ๐Ÿ’ฌ Community Support โ€“ ๐Ÿ“ง Customer Support โ€“ ๐Ÿ“– BDS Wiki โ€“ ๐Ÿ“– FAQs

          IonicEcko added a comment - - edited GreatMCGamer - We're tracking a performance hit in 1.14 for Linux against BDS-2574 . You should find that running the same server on Windows provides far better performance on the current version. As far as multi-threading goes, while BDS will spin up threads for some workloads the main game loop still runs on a single thread. For example below is an example of my server with 3 active players and a huge villager hall (which has a huge CPU impact at the moment). The highlighted core is the main thread. Because we've already raised poor linux performance with the devs under BDS-2574 I'm going to ask that this be duplicated into that. Uncle Fungus - If you believe you're having issues you will need to open your own report however I would suggest checking your individual cores before doing so. The i7 2700k has a far lower capacity than the i7-8700 shown in my picture and as you can see, with 3 people online and a villager trading hall my main game thread had the core at 30%. I'd expect that at 10-15 hoomans my server would also start lagging and its far more capable than your chip. Your issue is likely more a technical/optimization one rather than a bug. Ionic Quick Links : ๐Ÿ““ Issue Guidelines โ€“ ๐Ÿ’ฌ Community Support โ€“ ๐Ÿ“ง Customer Support โ€“ ๐Ÿ“– BDS Wiki โ€“ ๐Ÿ“– FAQs

          Steve added a comment -

          I'm playing on a fairly standard world with between 5 to 15 other players and it sometimes runs very slowly despite the CPU usage also being low.

          It's an old Xeon but it is effectively 3 * i7 2700k CPUs, with 32GB of RAM and Windows 10 so it should have no trouble whatsoever running just this one world.   Server.properties max threads is set to 12.

          I have to keep killing entities, any more than around 300 and the ticks per second becomes noticeably low.   Ticking area has been scaled back to 4 chunks but it still performs very poorly.

          Like Benjamin, I get better performance on a mundane PC

          Steve added a comment - I'm playing on a fairly standard world with between 5 to 15 other players and it sometimes runs very slowly despite the CPU usage also being low. It's an old Xeon but it is effectively 3 * i7 2700k CPUs, with 32GB of RAM and Windows 10 so it should have no trouble whatsoever running just this one world.   Server.properties max threads is set to 12. I have to keep killing entities, any more than around 300 and the ticks per second becomes noticeably low.   Ticking area has been scaled back to 4 chunks but it still performs very poorly. Like Benjamin, I get better performance on a mundane PC

          Squits eyes very hard
          I could have sworn I mentioned it while writing... But it ain't there, so I added it in now.

          Benjaming Ivanka Bloigu added a comment - Squits eyes very hard I could have sworn I mentioned it while writing... But it ain't there, so I added it in now.

          IonicEcko added a comment -

          Hi Benjamin,

          What OS were you running?

          Ionic

          IonicEcko added a comment - Hi Benjamin, What OS were you running? Ionic

            Unassigned Unassigned
            GreatMCGamer Benjaming Ivanka Bloigu
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: