> -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What are the main issues with updating to v3.1.1.1d? CPU usage? > > -Eric
Increased CPU loads are the biggie, Eric. Figure it this way: You size your servers and plan your capacity based on 3.1.1.0x versions, which have been the standard for quite a while. Now, migrating to 3.1.1.1x reduces your overall capacity by not just the ~20-25% that you see in increased load, but can cause even bigger probs for those who run multiple hlds on a physical box. For example, my biggest server is a 2x2.8 Xeon machine, using FreeBSD 5.1, with hyperthreading enabled, and the HZ compiled in at 1000. All extra stuff is stripped out. Since hlds is only single-threaded, the scheduler is running tasks across one cpu at a time, although the scheduler is alternating between phyical cpus to balance the load. Now, here's my hlds command line: "./hlds_i686 -noipx -game cstrike +ip 64.108.152.130 +port 27018 +maxplayers 32 +servercfgfile b1server.cfg +map de_dust2 -pingboost 3 +sys_ticrate 1000 -tos". I have VAC, metamod 1.16, hlguard 1.50 using aimbot, cvar, and file checks, and amx 0.9.3 with 21 plugins. Watching my 'top' output right now here's what I get at 10 sec intervals on cs_assault: CPU % (1 proc) # players ------------------------------- 74.22 26 71.09 25 77.34 25 80.47 27 82.03 27 82.81 26 83.59 26 If this was cs_office, or de_torn, she'd be pegged at 99%, and there'd be some much higher pings in there. My only recourse is to turn the pingboost down, which is going to result in adding +10ms or so to all players and it won't be as smooth. Now imagine running an identical server on the same box. With 3.1.1.0x I can, but 3.1.1.1x I probably cannot. So, that puts me in a predicament; I can change my setup and lower the load a bit, but my patrons won't like it. I'll lose people doing that. On the other hand, to keep 2 servers running, at the same level of performance, I now have to go out and spend another $2200 on new hardware, plus space fees, additional router port, etc. The costs to me for just one server are more than I am going to undertake, so you can hopefully realize some of these guys here with 100 servers, who might find they no longer have the capacity to handle the load. They're out revenue. We do like all the things that you folks have put into the game, and that's what's helped make it so successful, but we get frustrated when we look at some of the other game engines out there and compare. For example, that same box that hosts my 32 player CS server also hosts a 20-player rental. It also hosts a 20 player BF1942 server. Right now, that server is full, running coral_sea, and the load is 30.47% (1 proc). The efficiency of that binary is way ahead of the hlds binary, and it uses 2.4 times the bandwidth player for player. I'm no super-duper programmer, I'm just some dumbass network engineer, so I'm sure I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I'm also sure that there will be more than a few people who will echo my statements here. Anything that can be done to aid in the load issue we're facing is going to be the most welcome relief to us. Thanks! Michael Ressen, Michigan Burbs Network Administrator www.michiganburbs.com _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
