I have a thought about the TacticalGamer Servers and I just thought i'd suggest it here and see what people think.
As a mission developer focusing primarly on cooperative missions I have come to the belief that with Armed Assault, the smaller number of players is better. I have noticed even on very fast server like ours that when more than 25 or 30 people connect, even the most streamlined missions can become lag ridden and unplayable. I think that the Armed Assault game engine is best suited in cooperative play for no more than 25 people.
I have heard from admins that both our servers are run on the same server. What if we were to try three servers hosted on the machine? And have the player count et at 25 each. Also, each would have the same maps and missions.
Not everyone is a fan of small unit tactics or simply CoOp. Server #1 is organized to cater to the larger crowd which also has less MODs. This allows for smoother game play when more people are in game.
Server #2 has smaller missions, predominantly CoOp with more mods, usually less then 25 players. It is a balance of MODs with player slots so again the game play is smooth. We tried larger servers with MODs in the past but it seems to choke everybody out when too many people connect with lots of MODs.
With both servers mentioned above running, we are utilizing about 50-75% of the computer box's resources. ArmA is a huge hog of resources as everyone here knows from how it works on their client.
A third server is not too feasible at the moment. When we run the test server (a third instance) which open for mission developers, it kinda sucks up all the resources on the box and will ruin everyones game if it is up too long. It puts us usually over 75-80% and will cause massive dsync on the other two other instances of ArmA on the server.
The way we have it organized is definitely not perfect or optimal, but it is from several years of experience trying different things. That is not to say that we cannot look at expanding to third full time server, but there has to be a greater demand of player slots then there is now. We are cater to decent numbers, but nothing beyond what we have already setup can handle. If both servers we packed consistently, we would definitely look at a third option to offer more resources.