I am well familiar with 1855. You are right, I did go off on him, and poorly formatted it, and it was rude to the rest on the listserv, to whom I apologize.
About the UDP handlers, what I was referring to was Britt's assertation that if microsoft changed their handling of UDP, we would have an improvement. My reply was strictly to do with the fact that we weren't discussing how the kernel is affected by UDP, but by the massive cpu needs with 3.1.1.1. I was simply taken aback at the statement about it being microsoft's fault, or partial fault. I am well aware of the implications of UDP on a kernel, and wasn't in any way trying to imply it has no effect. That effect however, isn't the cause of our problems. Michael Ressen, Michigan Burbs Network Administrator www.michiganburbs.com ------------------------------------ > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > From: Jeremy Brooking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Organization: > Date: 03 Jun 2003 11:14:34 +1200 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:49, Michael Ressen wrote: > > 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. > > > > > If youre saying (and it appears as such) the way your kernel > handles UDP, and the way HLDS handles UDP, has no effect on > CPU usage, then you are the one whos retarded, and need to > shit down and shut the fuck up. > > > Perhaps start by reading RFC1855. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
