:) It's cool. It's just that a lot of people have the luxury of their company's servers, etc. They forget about the rest of us.
----------------------------------------------------- Robert J Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Wrath_of_Ace Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question I was just pointing something out to him that is a lot faster than Firewire AKA IEEE 1394. Dan PS Saves you the trouble and *THWACKS* Myself. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:12 PM Subject: RE: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question > For the home user, dude. Not everyone feels like gearing their home > network for fiber optics. > Now, back to the main topic before I start thwackin'... > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert J Mitchell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Wrath_of_Ace > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question > > I think it is called Fibre Optical Network? Just a guess here. > > Dan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:24 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question > > > > Now if only we could get Cat 5 to haul ass like firewire (400MBps)... > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Robert J Mitchell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 10:13 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question > > > > This is not correct. I have a 4 port hub. One of the ports goes to a > > 10mbps > > connection, the other 3 are 100mbps connections. The bandwidth from > one > > 100mbps connection to another 100mbps connection is exactly what you > > would > > expect, and is the same whether or not the 10mbps cable is plugged in. > > The > > 10mbps connection lopes along at the slow 10mbps speed. Having one > > 10mbps > > connection does not effect the speed of the other ports at all. I've > had > > it > > like this for a while - the 10mbps connection has no effect at all on > > the > > speed of the 100mbps connections - they are lightning fast, while the > > 10mbps > > is soooo slooooowwwww..... > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kelly Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:32 PM > > Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question > > > > > > > In response to Hubs vs Switches. > > > One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub runs > > > all connections at the speed of the slowest connection. Thus if you > > have > > a > > > 4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1 > > 10mb/sec > > > connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at > > 10mb/sec. > > > However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed. > Thus > > if > > you > > > have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, > and > > 1 > > > 10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections > will > > all > > > run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at 10mb/sec. > > > > > > (To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded > > controller, > > > this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes to > > their > > > configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the > like. > > The > > > configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer. Hubs > > however, > > > typically have no controller and thus typically are not > configurable.) > > > > > > Kelly > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question > > > > > > > > > I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network > > with > > a > > > full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a > > Cisco...it > > was > > > only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View" > > menu > > > interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not > > Advanced > > > Server) with 2 NIC's. I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink > Server > > > (3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for > MS > > > Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the > > settings > > > Manuel had also said below. > > > > > > I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have > > "TCP/IP" > > > enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect > > the > > > Server PC and insulate the LAN. I also run BID & NAV on both the > > Server > > and > > > LAN PC. These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard > that > > a > > > switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the > > > differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the > router > > CAT > > > cable connects into. > > > > > > Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more > > > simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and > > running > > > it with a custom user profile. I also Ghosted and image in case it > > gets > > > hacked. I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of > maps!) > > pretty > > > quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC. > > > > > > How does this setup sound to you? The pings for people are > > superb....a > > lot > > > are getting pings under 50! I am also now running a second HLDS, > both > > > running as shortcuts..not as services. So far the most people I > have > > had > > > connected to both games running is about 35...and no crashes or > other > > > problems have come up running this for about a week straight (have > not > > had > > > to reboot, or restart, etc.). > > > > > > Sorry this is so long...I'm getting to the heart of my question, but > > another > > > thought I had was at some point to get another (a third) dedicated > > (used) > > PC > > > box from someone, and use that as a dedicated game server, running > > Win2k > > > Pro, put 2 NIC's in it, also plug them both into the switch, and > then > > > configure one NIC to directly connect to the Internet (only using > > TCP/IP) > > > with another one of the block of public IP's. Then have the 2nd NIC > > connect > > > in to the LAN so I could have configuring access from the network. > If > > I > > did > > > that I would also likely get one of those keyboard/mouse/monitor A/B > > > switches so I didn't have to put up another monitor. > > > > > > I guess my real question is: Is there anything wrong with having > the > > Win2k > > > Server box that is also the gateway NAT routing PC run the HLDS > games > > if > > > that's all I have on it? People are getting excellent pings, with > > many > > > under 50! I understand that the Server PC will get a bit more > > "stressed" > > if > > > I do file transfers, surfing, emailing, play HL as client, etc. from > > the > > LAN > > > PC I have now...but I thought that most all of these LAN requests > just > > get > > > passed right through the Win2K Server box out to the Internet. Is > > there > > any > > > point to setting up a third PC as a dedicated game server which > would > > have > > a > > > less powerful OS on it? > > > > > > Again, my apologies for this being so long, and many thanks for any > > > feedback. > > > > > > From: "Manuel Bermudez III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: [hlds] CS Server Question > > > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:10:18 -0500 > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Well... I have messed with I-share before and really don't like it. > > > If your running win2k server stick with the ICS (internet connection > > > sharing) that comes with it. It seems to route traffic very smoothly > > and > > > efficiently. I have had no problems (yet). Just make sure that you > > have > > > two decent 10/100 PCI nic cards installed. Trash the I-share. You > > don't > > > need it. > > > Don't give yourself more headaches. If you are new to networking... > > here > > > is some information that will help you out a bit: > > > > > > Share the nic that has the router/dsl/cable connection that is > > directly > > > connected to it. It will know the other nic is there and create a > > > default subnet of like 255.255.255.0. Then it will make the #2 nic a > > > default gateway access to the rest of your network and assign it a > ip > > > address of 192.168.1.1 by default. It will also use the preferred > DNS > > of > > > 127.0.0.1 as well. You have to do nothing. Just make sure all the > > other > > > computers that need to have internet access are using DHCP by > default > > > and it will find an ip of 192.168.1.XXX for itself. Unless you want > to > > > give it a specific ip, that is up to you. Then connect them all to > > your > > > hub (I hope you have one) and connect the server nic #2 to the hub > and > > > viola! You have ICS in basic form. > > > > > > Welcome to networking 101! > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Manuel Bermudez III > > > Network Implementation Engineer > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, > > > please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, > > please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
