[16.36] Server not responding

[cakemasher]

Factorio Community,

For quite some time I've enjoyed playing this game very much. Me and some friends (max. 5 clients connected to the server at the same time) eventually start playing together on a headless server I created on a server I rented somewhere. Recently I've purchased my own server, and placed it in a datacenter. The server has the following specs:

Server Specs

2x E5-2430 v2 @ 2.50Ghz
128GB DDR3 ECC
4x 900GB 10k rpm in Raid 5 (using P420 raidcontroller)

The server has ProxMox 5.1 installed, where I've created a virtual machine containing 4 cores, 4gb of memory and full gigabit (1000/1000) internet connection. I've installed the newest version of the Factorio headless server (0.16.36) where the previous server was running version 0.15.x. We've decided to start over, generated a new map and start playing (no mods installed, nor did we add any enemy bases). For a while now, we're getting random 'Server not responding' messages and enormous lag (for example; upon picking items up from a belt, it takes up to 2 seconds before it's picked up), while the base isn't that big yet (no robots, no trains). I've tried to do some debugging by checking firewall settings, network issues and CPU core overloading, but I couldn't find anything out of the ordinary.

The UPS is stable at 60.0. Pressing F5, is showing me some information, but the values are not really constant. The latency is around 9 - 16 ticks (sometimes raising to ~30 ticks, but just for a short while). Buffer is also not constant as it's ranging between 1/0/0 tot 6/6/2 and other different values. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the values mean that are shown in the F5 screen.

The network and firewall configurations seem to be 100% good and stable. The server is using around 10 - 15% of 1 CPU core during normal playing, and raising to around 70 - 80% while saving the map.

The headless server is running on Debian 8.10 64-bit, using 'screen' to keep the server alive when the terminal is closed.

Does anyone know something we could try to improve the 'Server not responding' message, and lag? Any help is much appreciated!

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,
Cakemasher

[Loewchen]

See: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=52433

[cakemasher]

See: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=52433

I assume you mean, add the log files & save file? I've attached both to this post.

[Loewchen]

This seems to be caused by high package loss which suggests a networking issue.

[cakemasher]

Do you maybe have some tips to check if it is due to UDP packet loss?

I've pinged to the server 1.000 times, sending 1500 bytes of data each ping. Of the 1000 ping request, it dropped only 4 and had some high latency of a couple of them, but the average remains low. See screenshot for the ping results.

Pinging is TCP of course, so I've started a UDP server on the same server as the Factorio server is running on using the command;
nc -u -l -p 1234 > /tmp/100MiB.bin

On the host, I've downloaded a 100MiB.bin file from a speedtest website, and send it to the server using the following command;
cat 100MiB.bin | nc -u [server-ip] 1234

This resulted in a data transfer of 100MiB over a UDP socket, with no data loss. The file on the senders machine is the exact same as the one that was 'uploaded' to the server.

Do you maybe know what else I can test / try or do to check if packet loss is the problem?

All help is highly appreciated! Thanks alot!

Edit #1

netstat -suna

IcmpMsg:
InType8: 3036
InType11: 2
OutType0: 3036

Udp:
488847 packets received
0 packets to unknown port received.
0 packet receive errors
428455 packets sent

UdpLite:

IpExt:
InBcastPkts: 152
InOctets: 252388505
OutOctets: 79246897
InBcastOctets: 12288
InNoECTPkts: 654786
InECT0Pkts: 9

Edit #2:
I've perfomed a 'iperf3' test, which basically opens up a UDP server, and allows a client to send data to that server for testing purpuses. Iperf3 actually does keep track of packetloss.
I have ran a test for 5 minutes, transferring data from the client to the server at the maximum speed the client can handle. This resulted in a data transfer of 3,35GB over a UDP connection, with 0 packetloss (see screenshot).
Unless there is something I'm completely overlooking, I doubt if this has anything to do with packet loss.

- Cakemasher