Jeremy, I assure you, it is not incorrect. Its very correct. Kernel timings in kernel-2.4.21 which I have also tested against, use identical kernel sleeping habbits:
LINUX 2.4.21 : [EMAIL PROTECTED] asm-i386 # cat /usr/src/linux-2.4.21/include/asm-i386/param.h #ifndef _ASMi386_PARAM_H #define _ASMi386_PARAM_H #ifndef HZ #define HZ 100 #endif #define EXEC_PAGESIZE 4096 #ifndef NGROUPS #define NGROUPS 32 #endif #ifndef NOGROUP #define NOGROUP (-1) #endif #define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 /* max length of hostname */ #ifdef __KERNEL__ # define CLOCKS_PER_SEC 100 /* frequency at which times() counts */ #endif #endif LINUX 2.4.9: [EMAIL PROTECTED] asm-i386 # cat /usr/src/linux-2.4.9/include/asm-i386/param.h #ifndef _ASMi386_PARAM_H #define _ASMi386_PARAM_H #ifndef HZ #define HZ 100 #ifdef __KERNEL__ #if HZ == 100 /* X86 is defined to provide userspace with a world where HZ=100 We have to do this, (x*const)/const2 isnt optimised out because its not a null operation as it might overflow.. */ #define hz_to_std(a) (a) #else #define hz_to_std(a) (((a)*HZ)/100) #endif #endif #endif #define EXEC_PAGESIZE 4096 #ifndef NGROUPS #define NGROUPS 32 #endif #ifndef NOGROUP #define NOGROUP (-1) #endif #define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 /* max length of hostname */ #ifdef __KERNEL__ # define CLOCKS_PER_SEC 100 /* frequency at which times() counts */ #endif #endif As you can clearly see, HZ is still 100. So, please explain to me how I am being lied to? I use 2.4.21 I see obscene usage breaking to almost full capacity of my chip. In addition to not only SAYING its using that many cycles, it TRULY is, FPS drops, working on the machine becomes sluggish etc... Yet when I use a 2.4.9 kernel, I see a remarkable difference, in addition to INCREDIBLY low cpu use, its accurate, since the FPS is high, and the server is extremely responsive. I am not using top to discover cpu use either, and thats even a moot point since top agrees fully with the cpu use I arrive at, which I manually calculate by using the proc filesystem. Please explain to me the logic you are using to deduce that my results are incorrect? FPS does not lie. If the server can do 50 FPS, which is its MAX, then I think i'm on the right track here. I am telling you, and PROVING to you, that using this kernel, with DEFAULT kernel timings results in performance vastly superior to any kernel released after. James ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:43 PM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Crazy Usage > >Here is an example: > > > >AMD XP2600 1GB PC2700 DDR333: > >[7:19:pm] -r5-cs3- [CS3] Statistics: CPU: 1% FPS: 50 Players: 15/17 Map: > >cs_assault Uptime: 757 m > >[7:19:pm] -r5-cs2- [CS2] Statistics: CPU: 1% FPS: 50 Players: 14/17 Map: > >de_chateau Uptime: 922 m > > > >Those two servers are on the same machine, and the cpu reported, is the > >TOTAL CPU use for the ENTIRE server, so its 1% combined. So there are 29 > >players effectively doing only 1% cpu. And as you can see, each server is> > >still clearly getting 50FPS which is excellent also. > > > >VERY IMPRESSIVE. > > That's not impresssive, it's just incorrect. There is no possible way that > your server has 1% usage with 30 active players. I'm sorry but top is VERY > incorrect. > > Jeremy > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
