Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
You need high res timers (HPET), on a newer kernel (2.6.24) -M I hated that kernel version. I'm running 2.6.26.5-rt8. And even with hpet enabled you still want the higher kernel frequency wouldn't you? I think Gary meant that you'd need a 2.6.24 or later kernel. HPET and hrtimers are a rather new addition to Linux. If you run something beyond 2.6.26 or so, make sure to also flag the server as a real-time process to remove the kernel's built-in SCHED_OTHER timer slack, which defaults to 50 usec and makes the FPS a bit less stable. This can be done with the chrt utility. With high resolution timers enabled, your machine doesn't need to run at 1000hz, because processes will be woken up at the right times regardless. In fact, a lower hz rate like 100 generally works out better; the lower number leads to less flipping of processes between CPUs, fewer unnecessary context switches to the kernel, etc. The only real advantage to a high hz might be in more accurate process accounting. In my testing, the -rt kernel patchset led to an overall reduction in performance, due to the additional context switching. YMMV. -John ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
At 02:20 AM 9/5/2009, John wrote: You need high res timers (HPET), on a newer kernel (2.6.24) -M I hated that kernel version. I'm running 2.6.26.5-rt8. And even with hpet enabled you still want the higher kernel frequency wouldn't you? I think Gary meant that you'd need a 2.6.24 or later kernel. HPET and hrtimers are a rather new addition to Linux. If you run something beyond 2.6.26 or so, make sure to also flag the server as a real-time process to remove the kernel's built-in SCHED_OTHER timer slack, which defaults to 50 usec and makes the FPS a bit less stable. This can be done with the chrt utility. With high resolution timers enabled, your machine doesn't need to run at 1000hz, because processes will be woken up at the right times regardless. In fact, a lower hz rate like 100 generally works out better; the lower number leads to less flipping of processes between CPUs, fewer unnecessary context switches to the kernel, etc. The only real advantage to a high hz might be in more accurate process accounting. In my testing, the -rt kernel patchset led to an overall reduction in performance, due to the additional context switching. YMMV. AFAIK the scheduler clock uses jiffies, so it's bound by what the clock interrupt is using. Running a HZ of 100 with SCHED_FIFO makes it perform worse when looking at tasks to process than a HZ of 1000 because of jiffies being tied into sched_clock. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
At 02:20 AM 9/5/2009, John wrote: You need high res timers (HPET), on a newer kernel (2.6.24) -M I hated that kernel version. I'm running 2.6.26.5-rt8. And even with hpet enabled you still want the higher kernel frequency wouldn't you? I think Gary meant that you'd need a 2.6.24 or later kernel. HPET and hrtimers are a rather new addition to Linux. If you run something beyond 2.6.26 or so, make sure to also flag the server as a real-time process to remove the kernel's built-in SCHED_OTHER timer slack, which defaults to 50 usec and makes the FPS a bit less stable. This can be done with the chrt utility. With high resolution timers enabled, your machine doesn't need to run at 1000hz, because processes will be woken up at the right times regardless. In fact, a lower hz rate like 100 generally works out better; the lower number leads to less flipping of processes between CPUs, fewer unnecessary context switches to the kernel, etc. The only real advantage to a high hz might be in more accurate process accounting. In my testing, the -rt kernel patchset led to an overall reduction in performance, due to the additional context switching. YMMV. AFAIK the scheduler clock uses jiffies, so it's bound by what the clock interrupt is using. Running a HZ of 100 with SCHED_FIFO makes it perform worse when looking at tasks to process than a HZ of 1000 because of jiffies being tied into sched_clock. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
I've never cared for the RT patches...but the hi-res timers pre 2.6.24 are very solid. John wrote: You need high res timers (HPET), on a newer kernel (2.6.24) -M I hated that kernel version. I'm running 2.6.26.5-rt8. And even with hpet enabled you still want the higher kernel frequency wouldn't you? I think Gary meant that you'd need a 2.6.24 or later kernel. HPET and hrtimers are a rather new addition to Linux. If you run something beyond 2.6.26 or so, make sure to also flag the server as a real-time process to remove the kernel's built-in SCHED_OTHER timer slack, which defaults to 50 usec and makes the FPS a bit less stable. This can be done with the chrt utility. With high resolution timers enabled, your machine doesn't need to run at 1000hz, because processes will be woken up at the right times regardless. In fact, a lower hz rate like 100 generally works out better; the lower number leads to less flipping of processes between CPUs, fewer unnecessary context switches to the kernel, etc. The only real advantage to a high hz might be in more accurate process accounting. In my testing, the -rt kernel patchset led to an overall reduction in performance, due to the additional context switching. YMMV. -John ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.77/2346 - Release Date: 09/04/09 17:51:00 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Updating a server using FTP
So autoupdate works again? Eric Greer skrev: just add -autoupdate to the command line at reboot the server Eric On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Nightbox alexandrualexa...@gmail.comwrote: Is it possible ? ___ 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 __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4396 (20090904) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4396 (20090904) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
So what is the secret to achieving 2000 fps if I dump the real time patch? I've never tried this but am now thinking about it. -- On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Joseph Laws jl...@hd-gaming.com wrote: I've never cared for the RT patches...but the hi-res timers pre 2.6.24 are very solid. John wrote: You need high res timers (HPET), on a newer kernel (2.6.24) -M I hated that kernel version. I'm running 2.6.26.5-rt8. And even with hpet enabled you still want the higher kernel frequency wouldn't you? I think Gary meant that you'd need a 2.6.24 or later kernel. HPET and hrtimers are a rather new addition to Linux. If you run something beyond 2.6.26 or so, make sure to also flag the server as a real-time process to remove the kernel's built-in SCHED_OTHER timer slack, which defaults to 50 usec and makes the FPS a bit less stable. This can be done with the chrt utility. With high resolution timers enabled, your machine doesn't need to run at 1000hz, because processes will be woken up at the right times regardless. In fact, a lower hz rate like 100 generally works out better; the lower number leads to less flipping of processes between CPUs, fewer unnecessary context switches to the kernel, etc. The only real advantage to a high hz might be in more accurate process accounting. In my testing, the -rt kernel patchset led to an overall reduction in performance, due to the additional context switching. YMMV. -John ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.77/2346 - Release Date: 09/04/09 17:51:00 ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
At 05:04 PM 9/5/2009, Gregg Hanpeter wrote: So what is the secret to achieving 2000 fps if I dump the real time patch? I've never tried this but am now thinking about it. Lie to the engine about when sleeping wakeups occur. -M ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
At 09:50 AM 9/5/2009, Joseph Laws wrote: I've never cared for the RT patches...but the hi-res timers pre 2.6.24 are very solid. RT patches try and reduce the latency of a great multitude of things, but the only ones that really count are the scheduler latency. The 2.6.22 kernels without CFS are better than the newer ones :) The best mainline kernels are the 2.4 series, because nanosleep will busy wait. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
At 05:04 PM 9/5/2009, Gregg Hanpeter wrote: So what is the secret to achieving 2000 fps if I dump the real time patch? I've never tried this but am now thinking about it. Lie to the engine about when sleeping wakeups occur. -M ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
At 09:50 AM 9/5/2009, Joseph Laws wrote: I've never cared for the RT patches...but the hi-res timers pre 2.6.24 are very solid. RT patches try and reduce the latency of a great multitude of things, but the only ones that really count are the scheduler latency. The 2.6.22 kernels without CFS are better than the newer ones :) The best mainline kernels are the 2.4 series, because nanosleep will busy wait. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] 1000 FPS CentOS Servers?
This is all really awesome information everyone and I am very appreciative of all your ime and knowledge... however... What does this mean to the guy who hasn't recompiled a linux kenel before? Right now I'm seting fps_max on the command line to 500. Can I get more than 500 fps without recompiling? What settings would that require? If I do have to recompile, where do I start learning for that? How dangerous is it? Thanks again everyone, Eric On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Gary Stanley g...@velocity-servers.netwrote: At 09:50 AM 9/5/2009, Joseph Laws wrote: I've never cared for the RT patches...but the hi-res timers pre 2.6.24 are very solid. RT patches try and reduce the latency of a great multitude of things, but the only ones that really count are the scheduler latency. The 2.6.22 kernels without CFS are better than the newer ones :) The best mainline kernels are the 2.4 series, because nanosleep will busy wait. ___ 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
