Disable anything that isn't used, especially since this will free up memory.
This is a very extensive list of services and descriptions and
recommendations what to enable / disable:
http://www.blackviper.com
For example most game servers will not have a printer attached so disable
the print spooler, etc.
The native firewall is not necessarily a bad thing to have enabled although
iptables are lower overhead but can be a bit tricky to use.
I also always disable all NETBIOS services and driver options under TCP.
The only network protocol that typically needs to be enabled is TCP. QoS
can thieve bandwidth away and give nothing in return and SSDP and UPNP are
not useful either and can represent additional security risk.
Get rid of themes and wallpaper and screensavers too.
Most servers don't have need for an audio subsystem, so disable that service
too.
Any service or feature that is running that you don't will need take up cpu
cycles and memory that the game server is always starving for.
Typically there are only 19 or 20 or so necessary services for a Win2K3 or
XP system running a game server with a baseline Commit Charge of 100 to
120MB.
Server2003 has a lot of these services disabled by default but might also
have a boatload of IIS related stuff that it's also best to not use on a
game server.
Something else ... I never allow automatic OS updates on my game servers, I
always do this manually (and religiously).
If you have an Anti-Virus installed on your server it's best to not allow it
to run automatic scans too, a game server should not be used to browse the
web or download stuff either.
Even uninstalling things like a custom mouse driver can help too.
Philosophy: Lean Mean Game Serving Machine!
I have a little toolkit that I wrote that has a lot of basic management and
process scan tool links that has been very useful in managing my game
servers.
It does require 1.1 or 2.0 DOT.NET installed but these are very low overhead
OS updates so not a problem
The webpage for the toolkit is here:
http://QSextreme.com/qs_toolkit
I am adding new things all the time to it, I just recently added a Community
SteamID lookup that I find very useful for checking players on my servers.
qUiCkSiLvEr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Hatsiev"
To: <hlds@list.valvesoftware.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] P4 vs. Celeron vs. AMD
I wonder which services from vanilla Windows installation may affect
srcds? The only service I can think of is firewall. Anything else?
On 23/10/2007, Kevin Ottalini wrote:
For running one or two srcds, you probably won't see a big difference for
512K, 1MB or 2MB L2 cache or 533 / 800 MHz for that matter.
256K L2 cache will be noticeably slower though.
If I had to rate value I would say:
1. P4 Northwood or newer (not Celeron)
2. higher cpu clock rate (higher clock rates demands a better cpu cooler
like a zalman though)
3. matched performance memory (2 sticks in Dual channel mode)
4. more system memory (1GB minimum, 2GB best, no more then 2 sticks in
either case, 4 stick of memory = slower)
5. 800MHz memory (PC3200 C2)
Normal P4: 512K L2 cache (Northwood) is fine, no need to burn money on EE
P4: 2MB L2 cache
AMD 64 cpu running 32-bit OS is going to be pretty similar (forget 64-bit
OS).
Is an AMD 3200+ as good as an Intel 3.0 P4? IMO it's a toss up. I have
both
but prefer intel, Intel mobos seem to be a little more stable.
A really good case and powersupply with good flow-through cooling is
worth
the extra expense as well as a good UPS.
As a baseline comparison, a P4 3.0GHz / 800MHz / 512K L2 machine with 2GB
memory can run 4ea SRCDS (no bots!, 300FPS) and see an average ~50%
utilization peaking occasionally at 75% (map changes) with 50 to 64
players
(hi-res timer enabled).
CPU% is very dependent on the map and the mod though, so two or three TF2
sessions (or CSS with bots) might max the system out.
I'm also talking pure vanilla SRCDS here, no addons.
Win2K3 is going to be a little better then XP Pro but disabling unneeded
services in both can make a big difference.
If you're looking at a datacenter box, get the 3.0 P4/800/512K L2 with
2GB
memory unless $ is a big problem, it's worth the extra pennies.
If you need to run more then 4 SRCDS on one box look into a newer
core2duo
or dual AMD but be aware that 2 physical CPUs does not give you 2X the
performance, and more servers means you will need more physical memory
too
($ is going to be a lot more overall).
----- Original Message -----
From: <taytrrs>
To: <hlds@list.valvesoftware.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: [hlds] P4 vs. Celeron vs. AMD
> Does anyone have, or could refer me to, any SRCDS specific performance
> comparisons between Celeron and P4 processors--or same for AMD? More
> specifically, how much better for how much more cache/bus and at what
> amount
> of cache/bus does the performance curve level? Would a (P4 3GHz 800MHz
> 2MB)
> outperform a (P4 3GHz 800MHz 1MB)? A (P4 3GHz 800MHz 1MB) outperform a
> (P4
> 3GHz 533MHz 256KB)? By how much?
>
> For example: What is average CPU% for (P4 3GHz 800MHz 1MB) vs. a
> (Celeron
> 3GHz 533MHz 256KB) given all other factors equal.
>
> Thanks!!
> Rick
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
