Um, Valve isn't a charity organization, they're a company, in > business to make money, and throwing money at something doesn't > guarantee that it will either work, or be fixed (windows anyone?).
Windows works, its very proffecient at giving me blue screens. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Ressen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, > windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy Valve? Or > did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my > knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would > changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're > discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are we discussing > routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. > > DjoDJo was talking about the fact that with the huge increase in cpu > load, he can't run well because the insane resource requirements cause > his servers to melt - thus increasing pings to an unplayable level. > The problem is not the ping, it is the need for clockcycles. > > ISP's and latest routing technology? I'm sure whoever is in charge of > the ISP's decisions on routing policies has a pretty decent handle on > what's best for their organization. If you were familiar with this > concept, you'd know there isn't one cure-all for routing, protocol or > otherwise. And valve? Slap them 100M and get a low-ping server and > network? Um, Valve isn't a charity organization, they're a company, in > business to make money, and throwing money at something doesn't > guarantee that it will either work, or be fixed (windows anyone?). > > Ok, Im sorry for the flame here, but calling the discussion BS and > telling people to chill out because it makes you sick really isn't too > proper for a listesrv, especially when you don't know what you're > talking about. > > Ok, back to my little cave. > > Michael Ressen, > Michigan Burbs Network Administrator > > www.michiganburbs.com > > > From: "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:36:06 -0500 > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be > > glad its free and ligthen up a little - alright? > > Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're > > running more than > > one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any > > given instance of valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. > > You can only do so much with what you're given bro - unless > > windows changes and the UDP protocol and other internet > > routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more > > up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that > > time -we have no > > choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 > > million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' > > server and network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way > > UDP packets are handled and other major ISPs to change to the > > latest in routing technology. > > > > We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig > > ddram - 32 players each - and it runs just fine. If you're > > on an old school ISP with lame routing - it'll probably suck > > - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - I'm no programmer > > but we have indy programmers here in this company that do > > gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever > > imagine!!!!!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. > > Sorry man. > > Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company > > thats doing this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and > > moan - while we profit off their development by providing > > server space and bandwidth... consider us lucky. > > > > Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM > > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > > > > I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the > > > "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, > > when the cpu > > > usage is already so high ! > > > > > > I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run > > quite good with > > > the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, > > > piranesi, survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to > > 200 for every > > > one). I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised > > > binaries, and > > it was > > > totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i > > should > > > set the maxplayer to 24 !! > > > > > > Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. > > > Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. > > > I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage > > improvement, than a > > > new beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still > > > use more > > and > > > more CPU. > > > I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot of > > people. And I > > > wonder why the servers renting company dont speak about > > that. That's > > > probably a big problem for them. > > > > > > DjoDjo > > > > > > >I'm comparing the recent 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.0c, and observe > > approx 40 > > > >increase in cpu load under idential maps and playercounts > > running CS. > > > >Now my setups use -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 10000 so I > > know I'm > > > >going to be working the cpu, but even with the advent of optimized > > > >binaries, it made zero difference. One of my servers has > > a 2.8 Xeon, > > > >and if a binary compiled with optimizations for x686 really did > > > >anything I would have noticed a difference between the 4 > > binaries that were > > > >provided. I was not able to disinguish any difference in > > performance > > > >or load for any of them. All of them worked, even the > > amd-optmized > > > >one, and no one showed any better performance than any other. > > > > > > > >With my setup, I can still support 2 20-player servers with that > > > >config and the new binaries, but that's really pushing it > > and there's no margin > > > >left. I hope Valve considers this issue because such a dramatic > > > >increase in resources is bound to have an effect on the entire HL > > > >community. Just think, how many people's server hardware > > can no longer > > > >support what they were running, all because of an upgrade? > > My guess is > > > >quite a few. I can understand some gradual needs for resource > > > >increases over time, but what caused such a substantial > > increase? Has > > > >Valve even acknowleged it yet? Have they said anything about > > > >correcting it? I haven't heard anything, so my > > assumption is that > > > >they are considering this not to be a code problem, but an > > inherent > > > >need of the game engine. > > > > > > > >I rolled my servers back to 3.1.1.0c last night, and they > > are running > > > >beautifully again. Loads are down, pings are down, > > players are happy, > > > >and I have left over CPU resources again. > > > > > > > >Back to your statement about a 1gig cpu doing just fine, > > yes I agree. > > > >We were running a 20-player CS server with HLG on a 700mhz > > P3 back in > > > >February. Yes it did get a bit overworked when full, but > > it wasn't > > > >bad. Now, I'd wonder if it could even handle 14 players. > > > > > > > >So at this time I can see no advantage to moving to 3.1.1.1 (or > > > >4.1.1.1 for win32) until such time that a benefit is revealed. > > > > > > > >Michael Ressen, > > > >Michigan Burbs Network Administrator > > > > > > > >www.michiganburbs.com > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:56:41 EDT > > > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> Subject: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > > > >> I would be happy to see the CRAZY cpu usage of > > > >> this 3.1.1.1x beta FIXED... > > > >> > > > >> Think about people who host servers !!!!! > > > >> 20 more cpu usage than 3.1.1.0 ! > > > >> > > > >> Bah! > > > >> > > > >> DjoDjo > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Do you know compare to 3.1.1.1(or 4.1.1.1 for win32) to the old > > > >> version like 3.0.0.8 the CPU usage jumped like 200 to > > 300 Percent ? > > > >> > > > >> 2-3 years ago, a 1GHz can handle HLDS + CS like nothing, now? a > > > >> 3GHz computer can barely handle a busy HLDS, I'm not > > sure what kind > > > >> of code they're using, but this kind of insane CPU > > really getting > > > >> out of hand, compare to other game engines that got far more > > > >> features than HL does but they're using far less > > resources.....sigh > > > >> > > > >> Chickon > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
