Morgrhim

I mean, it really depends. I doubt too many people have a 42U server rack at home. I run a bunch of Dell R610s, with a dedicated storage array. If you're interested in virtualization, ProxMox is a good, free solution. Other than that, a VM is generally handled the same as a physical server, its just... not physical. You have to be aware of how many resources you're allocating from the physical host, and know your oversubscription limits. But all of what I'm I'm saying is basic server engineering stuff, so looking into infrastructure architecture could help.

There is a difference between a VM and a VPS. I'm running multiple Dell servers in a rack that use Proxmox for virtualization. I use VMs for everything. There is literally no reason not to as long as you know what you're doing. When I talk about VMs, it's because I'm using my own hardware, not renting a dedi from another host. I'd also be willing to bet that if the devs were inclined to share, you'd find that a 1x1 "server" for their grid... is a VM.

You can run more than one 1x1 on a VM or physical server given the proper resources. Nothing stops you from running more than one instance of the server. You can link multiple VMs/Servers together, as they require a redis database, and you can host that on its own separate server/vm. Then each Atlas instance uses that redis server for its dbs.

Nope. they haven't released any kind of idea to the hardware thy're using or any kind of baseline for private servers. I'd wager it's slightly more than ARK servers, since it's a highly modified ARK base.

I agree, but that wasn't the question. He wanted to know what it would take to run the whole map. I'm personally shooting for a 5x5 grid on my hardware.

Same way you would run 5 ARK servers on one VM. Run separate instances of the server files. I do it now for ARK. I'm going to test doing it with Atlas once I can.

I'm running multiple Dell servers in a rack. I use a virtualization platform called Proxmox for VMs. I have to be able to use multiple VMs linked to spread the resources among my physical hosts properly. Granted, I am probably shooting for a bigger goal in an unofficial server than most.

15x15 = 255. You would need to be able to host 255 instances of Atlas. That doesn't necessarily mean 255 physical servers.

I can't answer any of that without access to the files. Right now I run 5 ARK servers in a cluster on one VM. I'm shooting for 5 grid squres per VM, 5 VMs for ATLAS, but that's highly dependent on a number of factors I won't know until I have the files.

The only info we have at the moment is that they want to fix the server issues before releasing the dedi files to us. Personally, I'd think releasing the files could be more beneficial, as a lot of us who do this are engineers and devs ourselves, and can assist with tracking down issues. It's like.. free crowd-sourced assistance for them.

What do you mean by manager? Every platform ARK is available on has managers because community members wrote them. It'll likely be the same here unless something about ATLAS requires the devs to provides us a manager to pull together the cluster servers.

Not only is it spanish, it's super rude. You can't demand files while bashing the people you're asking to provide them yo.

This is the appid Nitrado gets to use. It's not the anonymous ID we need.

Actually, it's 15x15, so 255 squares. That being said, if you can run a virtualized environment, you could run multiple VMs and have multiple grid squares on each physical server.

It's not just AUS. I'm in Seattle and am getting the same thing on every Freeport no matter the pop count.