RustNotMC/benchmarks/server-2026-10-17

Dedicated server against vanilla 26.3, with bots (2026-10-17)

horizon-client --dedicated (run by horizon-server) against the pinned vanilla 26.3 server.jar, on main at 7bbbf6e9 (in release v2026.10.17.17). That build has the movement checks and chunk pacing of #586, the equal-work method of #670, and the server performance PRs #701–#707 and #713.

This replaces the data first published here, which came from a Mac mini overloaded by other work (load 55–141 on 14 threads). An earlier run of this method, on main at 002f14ce, is kept in earlier-002f14ce/ and compared at the end.

Setup

• Server machine: ThinkPad, Intel i7-7500U (2 cores, 4 threads), 32 GB, NixOS. Nothing else heavy ran on it: its load average was 0.4 when idle. Both servers ran under nice -n 19.
• Bots: horizon-bots on another machine (Mac mini M4 Pro), over the tailnet. That machine was shared with other work (load 36–170 on 14 threads, mean 78). The bots need little CPU, but a busy bot host can answer later. Both servers saw the same conditions, since they took turns at each bot count.
• Horizon: release build of 7bbbf6e9 (horizon-server, horizon-client).
• Vanilla: the pinned 26.3 server.jar on OpenJDK 25.0.4.1, with -Xms4g -Xmx4g.
• Properties:
  • level-seed=12345, view and simulation distance 10, creative (forced);
  • online-mode=false, difficulty=easy, max-players=200;
  • default game rules on both (the locator bar is on).
• Each run: a fresh server, bots joining one per second, a 60 s warm-up, then 180 s measured.
• Commands (on the server machine):

  python3 tools/server_bench.py --servers horizon,vanilla --nice 19 --warmup 60 --seconds 180 \
      --bots-via "ssh <bot host>" --bots-bin <horizon-bots> --connect <server address> \
      --bots 1,10,25,50,100 --behaviour walk,explore
  python3 tools/server_bench.py ...same... --bots 1,10,25,50 --behaviour explore --explore-speed 0.8
  

• Columns:
  • MSPT (mean) and P95 come from /tick query, in ms. TPS is the tick rate.
  • RSS is the mean over the run. CPU is the whole process tree, as a percentage of one core.
  • Chunks/s is what the bots received. New chunks/s counts each chunk once per bot.
  • Pulled back counts the times the server moved a bot back (vanilla's "moved too quickly" and similar).
  • Load is the mean load average during that run: the server machine (which includes the server's own threads) and the bot host.

Results

Equal work: bots explore at the same pace (--explore-speed 0.8)

Each bot flies outwards at 0.8 blocks a second, which both servers keep up with. They send the same chunks, so the tick times compare the same work.

Bots	Server	MSPT	P95	TPS	RSS	CPU	Chunks/s	New chunks/s	Pulled back	Load (server / bots)
1	Horizon	3.16	5.78	20.0	0.76 GB	22 %	2	1.27	0	2.8 / 63
1	Vanilla	16.82	27.3	20.0	3.37 GB	69 %	2	1.35	0	1.8 / 94
10	Horizon	9.83	19.01	20.0	0.86 GB	77 %	14	12.31	1051	2.2 / 74
10	Vanilla	24.38	39.58	20.0	3.57 GB	132 %	14	12.32	1027	2.5 / 64
25	Horizon	16.87	30.88	20.0	0.89 GB	111 %	34	29.92	3770	5.1 / 51
25	Vanilla	30.29	43.47	20.0	3.61 GB	176 %	33	29.29	5139	5.2 / 55
50	Horizon	23.57	47.53	20.0	0.92 GB	127 %	67	59.42	7434	8.5 / 64
50	Vanilla	42.44	54.84	20.0	3.67 GB	201 %	65	58.11	10604	5.1 / 59

walk: bots walk around the spawn

Bots	Server	MSPT	P95	TPS	RSS	CPU	Chunks/s	New chunks/s	Pulled back	Load (server / bots)
1	Horizon	4.01	8.19	20.0	0.78 GB	59 %	10	0.43	0	1.4 / 70
1	Vanilla	18.22	29.34	20.0	3.43 GB	69 %	10	0.47	0	1.9 / 63
10	Horizon	8.79	17.35	20.0	0.78 GB	119 %	95	3.58	0	2.9 / 69
10	Vanilla	18.67	38.26	20.0	3.50 GB	101 %	101	4.38	5	3.2 / 59
25	Horizon	15.01	31.12	20.0	0.80 GB	161 %	234	8.49	0	6.3 / 43
25	Vanilla	18.78	28.16	20.0	3.52 GB	155 %	252	11.89	10	6.7 / 57
50	Horizon	22.72	60.19	20.0	0.81 GB	180 %	465	16.94	0	14.7 / 50
50	Vanilla	34.3	55.55	20.0	3.58 GB	267 %	497	26.74	39	9.5 / 56
100	Horizon	63.33	125.04	15.79	0.87 GB	246 %	678	31.8	0	32.9 / 95
100	Vanilla	stopped by its watchdog (a 60 s tick)								15.1 / 120

Both servers sent each walking bot the same number of distinct chunks over the whole run (680–690). Horizon's "new chunks/s" inside the measured window is lower, so compare the totals, not that column.

explore at full speed: unequal work

Bots fly outwards as fast as chunks arrive (horizon-bots' default, up to 22 blocks a second). Both servers now pull them back ("moved too quickly"), but Horizon sends more new terrain, so this pass doesn't compare equal work. The server-machine load of Horizon's 1-bot run is estimated from the time between the runs around it: its log was overwritten before it was read.

Bots	Server	MSPT	P95	TPS	RSS	CPU	Chunks/s	New chunks/s	Pulled back	Load (server / bots)
1	Horizon	9.73	20.99	20.0	0.84 GB	330 %	41	35.96	0	4.7 / 129
1	Vanilla	9.71	20.37	20.0	3.61 GB	247 %	35	33.61	0	4.3 / 156
10	Horizon	21.27	39.15	20.0	1.18 GB	322 %	46	46.11	9856	5.0 / 114
10	Vanilla	16.94	30.28	20.0	3.95 GB	254 %	25	25.01	11123	5.5 / 89
25	Horizon	25.76	45.01	20.0	1.17 GB	314 %	61	60.7	31264	6.6 / 82
25	Vanilla	24.93	37.09	20.0	4.04 GB	305 %	38	37.84	33467	6.1 / 91
50	Horizon	39.31	65.33	20.0	1.25 GB	325 %	115	112.25	64163	6.9 / 95
50	Vanilla	stopped by its watchdog (a 60 s tick)								7.7 / 86
100	Horizon	52.7	85.73	18.97	1.36 GB	328 %	154	151.83	116161	13.4 / 79
100	Vanilla	stopped by its watchdog (a 60 s tick)								10.0 / 72

Vanilla's watchdog stopped it after a 60-second tick in three runs (walk 100, explore 50 and 100). Each time its server thread was in entity tracking (ChunkMap$TrackedEntity.updatePlayer).

What it shows

• Same work, 1 to 50 players: Horizon's mean tick is 44–81 % shorter than vanilla's, its 95th percentile is lower, and its process uses 32–63 % of vanilla's CPU.
• Walking, 1 to 50 players: Horizon's mean tick is shorter at every count (4.0 against 18.2 ms with 1 bot, 22.7 against 34.3 ms with 50).
• Where vanilla wins:
  • With 25 and 50 walking bots, vanilla's 95th percentile is lower (28.2 against 31.1 ms, 55.6 against 60.2 ms). Horizon's slow ticks are spikier.
  • In the full-speed explore pass, vanilla's mean tick is shorter with 10 and 25 bots (16.9 against 21.3 ms, 24.9 against 25.8 ms), while Horizon sends 1.6–1.8 times as many new chunks.
  • With 50 walking bots, Horizon makes the server machine busier (load 14.7 against 9.5). Its connection writer threads compress every packet (below).
• 100 players: Horizon keeps 15.8 TPS walking and 19.0 TPS exploring at full speed. Vanilla's watchdog stopped it in both.
• Memory: Horizon used 0.76–0.92 GB in every walk and equal-work run, and 1.36 GB at most when 100 bots explored at full speed. Vanilla used 3.4–4.0 GB with its 4 GB heap.
• Start: Horizon's fresh world was ready in 9.2–9.9 s, vanilla's in 14.9–17.2 s.

Where Horizon's time goes (50 walking bots)

perf record -e cycles:u --call-graph lbr on the engine for 30 s, during a separate 50-bot walk run on the same build and machine (MSPT 21.7 ms, 178 % CPU). Shares of all the engine's CPU samples:

Thread	Share	Mostly
Connection writers (horizon-lan-out)	55 %	53 % in miniz_oxide deflate, from horizon_protocol::frame::encode
World generation workers	33 %	noise, surface rules, aquifers
Server thread (the tick)	12 %	see below

Inside the tick:

• the locator bar (Waypoints::tick): a third of the tick;
• Hub::tick: a quarter;
• block entities, creatures, chunk encoding (ChunkEncoder::encode_in) and Streaming::update: 7–10 % each;
• SipHash of u128 keys (the default HashMap hasher): about 10 % of the tick.

The next biggest cost is compressing packets. Every chunk packet is compressed again for each player who gets it, with flate2's default miniz_oxide backend at level 6. On this 4-thread CPU that competes with the tick and with world generation. Two fixes, which can be combined:

• the zlib-rs backend for flate2: 2.2–10 times faster than miniz_oxide at level 6 in a quick test, with output about 3 % larger;
• compressing a chunk packet once and sending the same bytes to every player who needs it.

Before and after the performance PRs

The earlier run, on main at 002f14ce with #670's bench changes (build a9ee56a8), before #586, #701–#707 and #713. Same machines and settings. MSPT mean / P95, in ms:

Walk:

Bots	Horizon before	Horizon now	Vanilla before	Vanilla now
1	5.77 / 11.04	4.01 / 8.19	18.84 / 29.55	18.22 / 29.34
10	16.23 / 29.32	8.79 / 17.35	18.02 / 37.62	18.67 / 38.26
25	23.98 / 49.18	15.01 / 31.12	19.19 / 33.84	18.78 / 28.16
50	35.07 / 73.24	22.72 / 60.19	35.23 / 60.87	34.3 / 55.55
100	104.8 / 158.8	63.33 / 125.04	watchdog	watchdog

Equal work:

Bots	Horizon before	Horizon now	Vanilla before	Vanilla now
1	4.78 / 7.3	3.16 / 5.78	16.63 / 26.23	16.82 / 27.3
10	15.19 / 25.66	9.83 / 19.01	24.65 / 40.81	24.38 / 39.58
25	23.37 / 42.59	16.87 / 30.88	30.28 / 44.81	30.29 / 43.47
50	30.59 / 67.94	23.57 / 47.53	43.52 / 56.18	42.44 / 54.84

Vanilla's numbers repeat within a few percent, so the runs are comparable. In the earlier run, 25 walking bots were faster on vanilla (19.2 against 24.0 ms). A profile then put a third of the tick in advancement updates, which #701 fixed.

Files

• walk-explore.json: the walk and full-speed explore passes. explore-equal-rate.json: the equal-work pass.
• load.txt: both machines' load averages every 30 s during the runs.
• earlier-002f14ce/: the same files for the earlier run.
• The server's tailnet address is replaced by <server address> in the JSON.