Ask HN: Why does my Node.js multiplayer game lag at 500 players with low CPU?
18 hours ago
I’m hosting a turn-based multiplayer browser game on a single Hetzner CCX23 x86 cloud server (4 vCPU, 16GB RAM, 80GB disk). The backend is built with Node.js and Socket.IO and is run via Docker Swarm. I use also use Traefik for load balancing.
Matchmaking uses a round-robin sharding approach: each room is always handled by the same backend instance, letting me keep game state in memory and scale horizontally without Redis.
Here’s the issue: At ~500 concurrent players across ~60 rooms (max 8 players/room), I see low CPU usage but high event loop lag. One feature in my game is typing during a player's turn - each throttled keystroke is broadcast to the other players in real-time. If I remove this logic, I can handle 1000+ players without issue.
Scaling out backend instances on my single-server doesn't help. I expected less load per backend instance to help, but I still hit the same limit around 500 players. This suggests to me that the bottleneck isn’t CPU or app logic, but something deeper in the stack. But I’m not sure what.
Some server metrics at 500 players:
- CPU: 25% per core (according to htop)
- PPS: ~3000 in / ~3000 out
- Bandwidth: ~100KBps in / ~800KBps out
Could 500 concurrent players just be a realistic upper bound for my single-server setup, or is something misconfigured? I know scaling out with new servers should fix the issue, but I wanted to check in with the internet first to see if I'm missing anything. I’m new to multiplayer architecture so any insight would be greatly appreciated.
What are your processes waiting on? in Linux top, show the WCHAN field. In FreeBSD top, look at the STATE field. Ideally, your service processes are waiting on i/o (epoll, select, kqread, etc) or you're CPU limited.
Is there any cross-room communication? Can you spawn a process per room? Scaling limited at 25% CPU on a 4 vcpu node strongly suggests a locked section limiting you to effectively single threaded performance. Multiple processes serving rooms should bypass that if you can't find it otherwise, but maybe there's something wrong in your load balancing etc.
Personally, I'd rather run with fewer layers, because then you don't have to debug the layers when you have perf issues. Do matchmaking wherever with whatever layers, and let your room servers run in the host os, no containers. But nobody likes my ideas. :P
Edit to add: your network load is tiny. This is almost certainly something with your software, or how you've setup your layers. Unless those vCPUs are ancient, you should be able to push a whole lot more packets.
So when running `top` WCHAN shows `ep_poll` most of the time and sometimes `-`. Even when the game starts lagging this pattern stays pretty consistent.
There is no cross-room communication. I could spawn a process per room but I was trying to address this issue with my current Docker setup where I have multiple `game` containers that run a single node.js process and each process can host multiple rooms.
Not having to use Docker sounds simpler but it's that's where I'm at atm haha.
I agree that the network load feels very small. Maybe it's a socket.io related issue where when many broadcasts are being fired at once, then a shared I/O step gets bottlenecked?
Here's my actual typing broadcast code, I was originally broadcasting from the socket event callback itself but I found performance improved slightly by batching broadcasts per player in a setInterval loop (also note that only 1 player in a given room can be typing at once, so batching broadcasts per room shouldn't address the bottleneck).
3000 pps / 6 Mbps is pretty much nothing for that server. I wouldn't change random network sysctl options.
> This suggests to me that the bottleneck isn’t CPU or app logic, but something deeper in the stack
Just a word of caution - I have seen plenty of people speed towards eg "it must be a bug in the kernel" when 98% of the time it is the app or some config.
Yeah changing the sysctl options was a shot in the dark... I really hope it's my app code. But the fact that the same bottleneck occurs even when I add more containers which decreases the load per container confuses me. I mentioned this in another comment but I wonder if socket.io broadcast calls share the same I/O resource or something. Maybe a lock?
Are you buffering your output? Doing one syscall (write) for each client in a server for each keystroke is a significant amount of IO overhead and context switching.
Try buffering the outgoing keystrokes to each client. Then, someone typing "hello world" in a server of 50 people will use 50 syscalls instead of 550 syscalls.
Think Nagle's algorithm.
I'm somewhat buffering right now - Everytime the current turn player types I buffer their input on the backend, and I have a job setup that broadcasts typing events every ~200ms using this buffer.
I could increase this interval, but I'd like to keep it as short as I can afford to to keep that realtime feel (i.e. other players can see what the current turn player is typing).
It sounds like you want to coalesce the outbound updates otherwise everyone typing is accidentally quadratic.
I thought this might've been the issue too, but because the game is turn-based there should only ever be 1 person typing at once (in a given room).
60 * 7 is not all that great either if you get cascading and clumping as people type at the same time- coalescing the outbound updates still seems like a good idea and since the game is turn based you know it's not really going to affect gameplay. You've basically made yourself a first person shooter networking problem for a game that's slower than WoW. That feels like overkill in terms of self-imposed obstacles.
1 reply →
there should only ever be 1 person typing at once (in a given room)
Have you verified that is the case?
4 replies →
are you using uwebsockets.js?
Are you awaiting anywhere, such that you might be better off doing fire n forget instead?
25% CPU usage could indicate that your I/O throughput is bottlenecked.