Good point. I once ran an OP4 server from a network share. The server was an old PIII/800 box with an old 5400rpm 20GB Maxtor. It ran fine. At least there was no noticable lag due to file i/o. I assumed that file i/o would not be steller running it across the network like that. I watched bandwidth, and it never really used that much.
A better reason to symlink some of your directories might to be if you have multiple servers using same map set and you don't want multiple copies of your maps and resources. It would be nice if we could do this with Windows. Hmm...anyone old enough to remember the old DOS append command? And all the trouble it caused? Yeah,yeah - not quite the same as using a symbolic link. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Watts" <iwatt...@hotmail.com> To: "'Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list'" <hlds@list.valvesoftware.com> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [hlds] symlink multiple servers >I won't point out the finer detail of this being a Win32 server mailing > list... oops.. :P Google "windows junctions" to get info on how to use > junction points. > > You have found where you would need to link the shared content. Because > you > would want cfg and addons separated (yes, I suppose you could pass an exec > for custom autoexec.. but come on..), it means you would want, then, to > link > the other folders at that level (materials, models, maps.. etc). > > However, compared to many other things to look at, I don't believe you > would > gain all too much. > > -----Original Message----- > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Ook > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:55 PM > > Having multiple servers accessing the same files would actually be faster. > The files will be in the cache, reducing reads to the hard drive. The disk > i/o block scheduler may or may not be faster depending on what else is > being > > read. If more then one process tries to read the same sector such that > both > requests go into the same head scan, then it will come out faster, but > that > probably isn't too likely. I would count on the cache to increase > performance, but not the i/o scheduler. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arg!" <chillic...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:29 PM > >> im a bit of a linux noob, but wouldnt there be some potential latency >> involved with multiple server accessing the same files? >> >> i wonder if this would work with windows junction points as well :P >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:09 AM, f0rkz <h...@f0rkznet.net> wrote: >> >>> You could share the source shared content as a single symlink point. >>> Getting any deeper into sharing content may get tricky, but its >>> possible. >>> >>> For instance, you set up something like /home/serverfiles/hl2 >>> You could then symlink that in your server's directory.. >>> /home/myuser/mygameserver/ >>> ln -s /home/serverfiles/hl2 /home/myuser/mygameserver/hl2 >>> >>> Further than that may get messy... >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Chris Oryschak wrote: >>> >>> > Currently i'm running multiple TF2 servers each from their own >>> > installation directory and have heard of people symlink'ing all the >>> > additional servers to one installation folder. This would probably >>> > clean up data along with making server updates much easier across >>> > all servers in one shot. >>> > >>> > Anyone here setup the additional servers via symlink? >>> > >>> > If so how did you go about doing it so that /addons and /cfg folders >>> > arn't shared? >>> > >>> > I'm curious to hear everyones opinion on this. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
