Yeah, I wouldn't delete the Administrator account. Just give it a long unguessable password.naked_eskimo wrote:If you do disable the default administrator account, and you have already installed poker mavens using that account, then you would have to uninstall and re-install, I would think. You can ask Kent what the best option is there. But the software is going to have a no longer valid data folder path, for one.
Hosting the server in the cloud.
-
Kent Briggs
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6022
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:47 pm
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
Re-installing was a snap. I just copied the PM6 data files to a bak directory, and then restored them to the new path for the non-Administrator user.
Thanks again for the advice.
Thanks again for the advice.
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
Sadly, I think I've outgrown the free atlantic.net account Kent suggested.
Anybody using something with more horsepower then the configuration below? Preferably under $20 / month. And most importantly, very noob-friendly. thx!
Configuration
Windows Server 2012 R2 Datacenter (Desktop Experience)
Plan: G2.1GB
CPU: 1 vCPU
RAM: 1 GB
Disk: 40 GB
Anybody using something with more horsepower then the configuration below? Preferably under $20 / month. And most importantly, very noob-friendly. thx!
Configuration
Windows Server 2012 R2 Datacenter (Desktop Experience)
Plan: G2.1GB
CPU: 1 vCPU
RAM: 1 GB
Disk: 40 GB
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
Correct.naked_eskimo wrote:If you do disable the default administrator account, and you have already installed poker mavens using that account, then you would have to uninstall and re-install, I would think. You can ask Kent what the best option is there. But the software is going to have a no longer valid data folder path, for one.
Already done and it was a snap. Just copied the data to a backup directory, and restored it after reinstall.
-
naked_eskimo
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:51 pm
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
You can get a two slice server at interserver.net for $20/month (including Windows license). You will get 2 vcpu, 4GB of RAM and 60 GB of SSD storage. I used this for a couple of weeks. The gameplay was fine. Poker mavens uses very little system resources that I have seen. The server console was pretty sluggish. It would take a long time to open any application or even file explorer window. Then one session I started to get lots of latency on pings from the server to my home router. Eventually had to take the table offline and reboot, and then it was fine. Possibly Windows Updates gone awry. Not sure. I switched to OHV. It's a bit more per month, but it's hosted in Canada, so the latency to my region is a bit lower (15ms vs 30 ms, not a big deal). But the server console performs way better. Apps open instantly, the server reboots in a minute or two, unlike with interserver where it would take 5 mins or more to reboot. I think my current config is $30 a month with 2 vcpu, 8 GB of RAM and 80GB SSD storage. I ran Crystal DiskMark and the disk benchmarked very, very well on my ohv server. The only caveat with ohv is their customer service. The worst I have ever seen anywhere. Doesn't bother me much, as I'm a technical person. That is kind of their business model. Deliver high performance virtual servers, but with very little support. I am very pleased with my ohv virtual server. It feels pretty much the same as any virtual server that I run on my LAN using ESX. Just don't expect any hand holding from them or a fast response to any ticket you might open. But the bang for the buck ratio is great. I can run a ping from my virtual ohv server to my home router for two days straight and the latency stays around 15-18ms and not a single packet lost.all1word wrote:Sadly, I think I've outgrown the free atlantic.net account Kent suggested.
Anybody using something with more horsepower then the configuration below? Preferably under $20 / month. And most importantly, very noob-friendly. thx!
Configuration
Windows Server 2012 R2 Datacenter (Desktop Experience)
Plan: G2.1GB
CPU: 1 vCPU
RAM: 1 GB
Disk: 40 GB
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
Can confirm what naked_eskimo writes about interserve.
I am using it with the same configuration (two slices).
Poker Mavens is running great, and our game nights have seen no issues.
But the remote Desktop performance is slow.
I can tolerate it, as I am really not in there often, and I am happy with the price and performance.
But if you plan to do a lot of admin work (managing balances, accounts) you may want to explore using the browser-based admin capability or consider a different host.
I am using it with the same configuration (two slices).
Poker Mavens is running great, and our game nights have seen no issues.
But the remote Desktop performance is slow.
I can tolerate it, as I am really not in there often, and I am happy with the price and performance.
But if you plan to do a lot of admin work (managing balances, accounts) you may want to explore using the browser-based admin capability or consider a different host.
-
naked_eskimo
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:51 pm
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
Yeah, as I said I had really no complaints about how poker mavens performed on the interserver host, but I am in the server console always while playing. I like to see who may be having connection issues in the log in real time, plus I run stuff like Glasswire so that I can keep an eye on network security in real time too.
-
Pokerhostguy
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 6:02 am
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
I've been using Amazon Web Services to host. Their free tier is suitable for our needs - not sure how much they'd charge for yours, but no issues at all with remote desktop etc..Obviously they have a solid platform etc... Would recommend for sure!
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
According to that article, you would have to append the port number to login with RDP to your vps....after you change the port number in the registry. that doesn't make sense, wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of changing the listening port in the Registry Edit App?naked_eskimo wrote:Also, you may wish to change the default port for rdp. 3389 will be constantly targeted by bots looking to get on your server console. Changing the listening port can help with that:
https://www.accuwebhosting.com/blog/how ... ed-access/
-
naked_eskimo
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:51 pm
Re: Hosting the server in the cloud.
Not quite sure that I follow your question.
RDP default port is 3389. This is very well known, so any would be bad actor just needs to scan the Internet for ip addresses that are listening on port 3389 and then target logon attempts to those addresses that respond with a tcp 3389 open to the scan.
If you change that to a different port, then your system would not respond with a port open on 3389 and thus would not be targetted.
Yes, you would need to append the new port number for rdp when trying to remote control your server. You need to do this because the rdp client assumes you want to connect on 3389, but now you would need to tell it that you are not using 3389, but that rdp on your system is now listening on "whatever port you selected". Otherwise, it will just continue to try to connect to 3389, and you are no longer listening on 3389.
Does that make sense to you?
RDP default port is 3389. This is very well known, so any would be bad actor just needs to scan the Internet for ip addresses that are listening on port 3389 and then target logon attempts to those addresses that respond with a tcp 3389 open to the scan.
If you change that to a different port, then your system would not respond with a port open on 3389 and thus would not be targetted.
Yes, you would need to append the new port number for rdp when trying to remote control your server. You need to do this because the rdp client assumes you want to connect on 3389, but now you would need to tell it that you are not using 3389, but that rdp on your system is now listening on "whatever port you selected". Otherwise, it will just continue to try to connect to 3389, and you are no longer listening on 3389.
Does that make sense to you?