You should already know that 1000 FPS server is just bullshit and that only
people that know nothing about servers buy them (a lot) so it gives more
money to GSP.
There was an article that explained it which was posted on the HLDS mailing
list a while ago (The 1000 FPS Fairy Tale).
2008/11/13 en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "We" belive 1000FPS servers give the best gaming/aiming experience for
> pro-players.
>
> Using 1000FPS on public server is waste of resources if you're hosting
> company, but if you have gaming project and 1-2 pub servers - you make your
> server be the best in the list of available public servers.
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> en3my
> www.2Po.eu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "AnAkIn ." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
> <hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
> > Why do you want 1000 FPS servers?
> >
> > 2008/11/13 Faustas Buškevičius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> What are the chances of sustaining 980+ fps on a public server with
> >> 20+ players and max rates ?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Interesting, it looks like a bug in documentation. I'll test it on
> >> > brand new dual E5335 xeon server.
> >> >
> >> > Kveri
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >
> >> > On 13 Nov 2008, at 08:00, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Gary:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select()
> >> >>
> >> >> I was careful to check this before I originally posted; what I said
> >> >> about
> >> >> was accurate, as least at the OS level. You can confirm this with
> >> >> "strace".
> >> >> I see output like this for -pingboost 2:
> >> >>
> >> >> ...
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85065}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85091}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85122}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85147}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85170}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> select(1, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 1000}) = 0 (Timeout)
> >> >> select(1, [0], NULL, NULL, {0, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85971}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85996}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> recvfrom(5, 0xbfa3efe4, 4010, 0, 0xbfa3ff90, 0xbfa3efcc) = -1 EAGAIN
> >> >> (Resource temporarily unavailable)
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86058}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86083}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86102}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86120}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86161}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> In constrast, -pingboost 1 gives output like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60244}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60272}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> recvfrom(5, 0xbfb5ecb4, 4010, 0, 0xbfb5fc60, 0xbfb5ec9c) = -1 EAGAIN
> >> >> (Resource temporarily unavailable)
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60340}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60360}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60388}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60415}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60442}, NULL) = 0
> >> >> setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, {it_interval={0, 0}, it_value={0, 1000}},
> >> >> NULL) = 0
> >> >> pause() = ? ERESTARTNOHAND (To be
> >> >> restarted)
> >> >> --- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) @ 0 (0) ---
> >> >> rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x804a910, [ALRM], SA_RESTART}, {0x804a910,
> >> >> [ALRM],
> >> >> SA_RESTART}, 8) = 0
> >> >> setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, {it_interval={0, 0}, it_value={0, 1000}},
> >> >> NULL) = 0
> >> >> sigreturn() = ? (mask now [])
> >> >> select(1, [0], NULL, NULL, {0, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
> >> >>
> >> >> It sounds like Valve flipped the definitions of the functions since
> >> >> creating
> >> >> the versions you posted.
> >> >>
> >> >> With our kernel configuration, load-balancing, etc, both -pingboost 1
> >> >> and -pingboost 2 provide very stable framerates with extremely low
> >> >> jitter.
> >> >> On a Core2-based machine, we typically see a stable ~982fps with -
> >> >> pingboost
> >> >> 1 and a stable 1000fps with -pingboost 2. Rarely, either method will
> >> >> dip
> >> >> slightly. Typically with -pingboost 2, the dips are into the upper
> >> >> 990s.
> >> >>
> >> >> -John
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
