Why do you need 980+ fps on public?
It's waste of resources, and no hardware can handle that.
Kveri
Faustas Buškevičius wrote / napísal(a):
> 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
