Rust server bandwidth per player, is it just me?

Hi everyone. First Thank You all for the great resource you have here. Due to the breadth of knowledge here this is the first time I've ever had to register and post to ask a question. So here goes....

I run a Rust server and like any good admin, I keep an eye on the performance metrics of the server and network. I have no real issue other than I've noticed what appears to be some pretty crazy bandwidth per user requirements. As an example right now I only have 5 players on:


but notice the network usage outbound:



Which is a sustained ~40megabits/sec which works out to 8 megabits (1000 kilobytes!) a second per player on average. That's pretty nuts? First I doubted the graph from rcon.io so I corroborated that with my own independent network monitoring which confirms these numbers are in-fact true:


(5 minute sustained average of 38.9 megabit/sec)

Can anyone here who runs a server today provide me the same data I have just shown above? My goal is to see if there is an anomaly in my setup, or if Facepunch is getting silly.

Yes, I have done my fair share of googling on this topic and the results are always anecdotal or very stale, older than 6 months which is prior to significant shifts in Rust server code, emergence from early access and default configuration variables, etc. One admin was giving me numbers that were symmetric i.e.; "each user takes 3 up 3 down" -- which is obvious B.S. as the server sends more traffic than it receives, anyone knows that.

From what I can tell, one significant change that has increased bandwidth in this time is the shift from a default server.tickrate of 10 to a server.tickrate of 30, or a 3x increase plus overhead, still not sure if that explains it.

Many thanks for any data/intel fellow admins can provide. Cheers!

-Valentina

 

With just me on a pvt whitelisted server and only military tunnel AI I run about about 2kbps in and 1-3kbps out

 

Yah, I'm almost convinced there is something wrong with my setup or the data is misleading me in some way. The hunt continues.
[DOUBLEPOST=1523206911][/DOUBLEPOST]OK, I decided to take another look from the perspective of the server itself, and, after a packet capture I can confirm that the data above is completely wrong. My initial thought is that the data is in BITS and not BYTES, but I thought I excluded that by using the initial 2 sources of data.

Anyhow, in summary, nothing to see here.