Do you think dropping it down to 500HZ is a better choice or do you suggest something else? If yes, does 500HZ still maintain 500FPS?
Thanks! Gary Stanley wrote: > At 10:33 PM 3/6/2009, The Universes wrote: >> I'm running 4 32 man TF2 servers at 500fps (66 tick) and I'm wondering >> if having kernel at 1000HZ (not tickless) with PREEMPT is necessary? >> Is that putting unnecessary strain on my CPU (Q9300)? >> >> My second question is if you guys use HPET as your clocksource >> $ cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/available_clocksource >> tsc hpet acpi_pm jiffies >> >> $ cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource >> tsc > > > 1000hz kernels make nanosleep() expensive to call.. on a core2quad > calling usleep (which calls nanosleep) > > nanosleep: 6157 cycles > > That's alot of cpu time. Cranking up HZ makes interrupts fire so > often, so you get more accurate sleep behavior.. > > TSC lives on the CPU, so calling it is fairly cheap. HPET lives off > somewhere on a bridge, so you need to go out to PCI land to > read it. HPET is a decent choice, but overall the fastest one is TSC. > > > > >> Would you recommend changing that to HPET? >> >> I'm basically trying to lower CPU usage so it doesnt shoot up to 90% >> sometimes. >> >> Thanks, >> Dan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
