Re: [hlds_linux] HZ=1000 and CPU-usage on FreeBSD 5.0
lower??? are you sure? our servers used slightly more CPU with HZ=1000, not that much but still not lower :) /Oscar, www.bhood.nu On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:26:25 +0200 (CEST) kama [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Bart wrote: I've just installed FreeBSD 5.0 on a SMP-system, and I'm running several CS-servers on it. My question is: Does the HZ=1000 (or another HZ-option above 100) increase or decrease the CPU-usage. The kernel is now compiled with the standard HZ. The problems isn't the latency (that's low enough), but the question is: what happens according to the CPU-usage? It will lower the cpu usage slightly.. but the main benefit is that you can run the server higher than 50fps.. btw, the hz value is changable through sysctl under FBSD 5.0... /Bjorn -- Favourite Comment: Programming is an art form that fights back. ___ 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] HZ=1000 and CPU-usage on FreeBSD 5.0
The HZ option will probably increase your CPU usage, but not that much, why not try it :) /Oscar, www.bhood.nu On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:44:18 +0200 Bart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've just installed FreeBSD 5.0 on a SMP-system, and I'm running several CS-servers on it. My question is: Does the HZ=1000 (or another HZ-option above 100) increase or decrease the CPU-usage. The kernel is now compiled with the standard HZ. The problems isn't the latency (that's low enough), but the question is: what happens according to the CPU-usage? ___ 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] HLDS 3111c
What does routing or network traffic has to do with what the first guy said??? The only thing he wanted to point out is that the beta uses way to much CPU, and I must say that I agree. Yes it's a beta version and things might not run as smooth as it should. But, it's good to point this out to valve before the stable version is released. That way they know that this really is an issue for lots of people and might think twice about that new 'über cool feature'. We've run CS servers in more than 3years now and the hardware seems to last in about 1.5year before they no longer can be used as a public server. Our server does not exist because we make a great deal of money on it, no, in fact it only cost alot. And must of the HL servers exist because people and not companies spend there money on computers. So if valve still want to have lots and lots of servers out on the net then people must afford to buy them :P I know it's boring and really not fun at all for the programmers, but I would rather have bugfixes instead of new features... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:36:06 -0500 Britt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be glad its free and ligthen up a little - alright? Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're running more than one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any given instance of valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. You can only do so much with what you're given bro - unless windows changes and the UDP protocol and other internet routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that time -we have no choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' server and network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way UDP packets are handled and other major ISPs to change to the latest in routing technology. We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig ddram - 32 players each - and it runs just fine. If you're on an old school ISP with lame routing - it'll probably suck - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - I'm no programmer but we have indy programmers here in this company that do gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever imagine!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. Sorry man. Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company thats doing this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and moan - while we profit off their development by providing server space and bandwidth... consider us lucky. Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the stats system in console, which use more and more CPU, when the cpu usage is already so high ! I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run quite good with the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, piranesi, survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to 200 for every one). I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised binaries, and it was totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i should set the maxplayer to 24 !! Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage improvement, than a new beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still use more and more CPU. I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot of people. And I wonder why the servers renting company dont speak about that. That's probably a big problem for them. DjoDjo I'm comparing the recent 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.0c, and observe approx 40 increase in cpu load under idential maps and playercounts running CS. Now my setups use -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 1 so I know I'm going to be working the cpu, but even with the advent of optimized binaries, it made zero difference. One of my servers has a 2.8 Xeon, and if a binary compiled with optimizations for x686 really did anything I would have noticed a difference between the 4 binaries that were provided. I was not able to disinguish any difference in performance or load for any of them. All of them worked, even the amd-optmized one, and no one showed any better performance than any other. With my setup, I can still support 2 20-player servers with that config and the new binaries, but that's really pushing it and there's no margin left. I hope Valve considers this issue because such a dramatic increase in resources is bound to have an effect on the entire HL community. Just think, how many people's server hardware can no longer
Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
It would be nice to have the 3.1.1.0 + the flashbang bugfix, valve, please! ;) On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:56:14 -0500 Rick Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- Where have you guys been? It was immediately established that the first 3.1.1.1 was a resource hog after it was released and none of the patches have done anything significant about it.Post after post after post on this list have been about people fighting the upgrade and then complaining about the CPU jump... what is the point guys? Downgrade to 3.1.1.0.c and be done with it. Be realists here, they are not going to tweak the CPU back to where it was without undoing whatever it was that they did in the first place. I don't think that is going to happen but as long as there is no client update, who cares, run 3.1.1.0.c and pray there is no client update ever. If and when there is a client update that forces us to run that latest pig, we will close all of our pubs and jack the price up to our clients accordingly. This of course will assure that we will see our clan servers shut down a month or two later. No great loss, we just host gameservers as a sideline because we have the extra space and bandwidth. It was fun while it lasted but nobody is going to buy $100.00 gameservers. With this latest release like it is, do you really think HL2 will be any better? It will be worse if anything so you folks who host gameservers as a mainstay had best come up with a plan to sell those high dollar gigs. Good luck. Rick -- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003 -- ___ 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] HLDS 3111c
woohoo(not), eric is awake ;) To bad you missed all the fun stuff, 3 or 4 has allready responded to the fun reading. On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:03:00 -0500 Eric \(Deacon\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're trying to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less - then it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and vice versa - thats what it has to do with it. Ok...what? My brain is having trouble wrapping itself around your assertions, there :\ Is it just me, or is that one of the stupidest things I've seen on this list in a long time--even worse than Nathan Dodd's ol' You must agree to the agreement before downloading stupidity? -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ 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] HLDS 3111c
hmm, it seems more like a statement rather than a license :) /Oscar On Sat, 31 May 2003 13:52:38 -0400 Nathan Dodd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you not see the license? It is about 1 sentence right above the accept button. Nathan Dodd VUGaming Networks www.VUGaming.com - Original Message - From: Eric (Deacon) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c Another mirror link: http://www.vugaming.com/pafiledb/pafiledb.php?action=licenseid= 1file=18 Nathan Dodd VUGaming Networks www.VUGaming.com What the... It says You must agree to this license agreement to download HLDS Linux v3.1.1.1c, which is already very strange in and of itself, but there's no link to a copy of the license agreement, etc. You sure you've done this before? -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] UDP tunneling software
I don't think it is such a good idea, as someone mentioned the ping will get terrible. The packets are UDP and not TCP because of a good reason :) I'm not sure if this will work, but have you tried starting the HL server at port 53? If you're really lucky the firewall might be bad configured and let in UDP packets on port 53, it's usually used for DNS queries from client to nameservers... oh, and you must run the HL server as root fortunately :/ /Oscar On Fri, 30 May 2003 18:59:26 -0700 agenthh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to tunnel in to a server behind this firewall. Now, I can't open the ports, so I need to have some kind of tunnel in, over TCP. in other words, so I can connect to HLDS server over a tunneled UDP connection. Using SSH forwarding directly is out of the question, it only does TCP. If you have something that does UDP tunneling over TCP, that's good. --agenthh If you think I didn't explain it well, you're probably correct. Tell me if that's the case. ___ 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] UDP tunneling software
Can one ask what ping you get when using that? :) /Oscar On Fri, 30 May 2003 20:51:13 -0700 agenthh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the help. I've ended up using an application called Zebedee. Works real well and is easy to work with. You could use it over ssh tunneling too. I would recommend it for all your port forwarding behind NAT/Firewall/Whatever needs. --agenthh Marcelo Bezerra wrote: Try ppp over ssh, but your ping will most likely suck you have an unstable link betwen both machines, because you will suffer tcp stalls and so on. On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 22:59, agenthh wrote: I'm trying to tunnel in to a server behind this firewall. Now, I can't open the ports, so I need to have some kind of tunnel in, over TCP. in other words, so I can connect to HLDS server over a tunneled UDP connection. Using SSH forwarding directly is out of the question, it only does TCP. If you have something that does UDP tunneling over TCP, that's good. --agenthh ___ 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: [OT][hlds_linux] Redhat 9 and Mandrake 9.1
Well, doh... Then we might want to change the name of this list to Linux newbie list or something else... Ofcourse you need to run linux or freebsd to run the linux version of HL, but there are plenty of other lists, forums, howto's and so on that have that sort of information. /Oscar On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:03:56 -0800 Bryan R. Yablonski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What the f--k is this!?! If I want to download stuff at lightning speed then I will surelyfind the best way to do so. But no, no and no, I dont want to download files. I want to know about problem and things related to HL servers! So if you really need to post meaningless posts then put the [OT] tag in the subject... /Oscar Actually, I considered an OT but what I posted was EXACTLY on topic. This is all about the Linux version of the HL server and without an OS to run it on this list would be useless, but I appreciate your opinion. BRY -Original Message- From: Oscar N aka Dreadful [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 12:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Redhat 9 and Mandrake 9.1 What the f--k is this!?! If I want to download stuff at lightning speed then I will surely find the best way to do so. But no, no and no, I dont want to download files. I want to know about problem and things related to HL servers! So if you really need to post meaningless posts then put the [OT] tag in the subject... /Oscar On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 11:55:11 -0800 Bryan R. Yablonski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For anyone who is interested you can participate in http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/download.html and download RedHat 9 and other Linux distros at lightning speed. One catch you have to give some to get a lot! This is the best file sharing system I've ever seen. I was able to get a stream of 1.8MB/sec. Anyone needing to deliver large amounts of data should consider this stuff.. Go there, install BitTorrent, donate and tell Bram Cohen the Haus of Yablonski sent you. This technology is the future of high speed data delivery. ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] ifconfig alias + VAC issue
We do also use IP alias instead different port numbers. This is because we want all of our public servers to be easy remembered by our players. They all run on the default port and have a short girlname as hostname, and ofcourse our domain name... ex: joa.bhood.nu, ling.bhood.nu and so on... Anyway, I had some problem with the alias IP if I did not put netmask 0x in the alias line... hmm, and now I noticed another difference. The second line should have the word inet and not alias... so, the lines for you would be: ifconfig_fxp0=inet 202.36.xxx.xxx netmask 255.255.255.240 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=inet 202.36.xxx.xxx netmask 0x This is working for me on freebsd 4.7 but I think it should be the same at 5.0... /Oscar On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:08:43 -0800 m0gely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Drew Broadley wrote: I have the following set up in FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE /etc/rc.conf: ifconfig_fxp0=inet 202.36.xxx.xxx netmask 255.255.255.240 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=alias 202.36.xxx.xxx When I bind an hlds instance to each IP with VAC enabled, it doesnt let anyone connect and gives an error of client has sent invalid connection or some sort. I disable VAC and people can connect fine, is this a directly VAC related issue or just one of those one off bugs I manage to find. Out of curiosity, why do this? Using a different port number out of the question? -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ 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] ifconfig alias + VAC issue
Ok, but at least try the lines I gave you... If I'm not mistaking I had some trouble with it and it seemd to work, IP was correct with ifconfig, but when I started HL up it wouldn't work :/ This is the only problem I can think of, but this is as I said on 4.7... /Oscar On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:05:44 +1200 Drew Broadley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the aliasing working fine. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Oscar N aka Dreadful Sent: Friday, 28 March 2003 1:57 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] ifconfig alias + VAC issue We do also use IP alias instead different port numbers. This is because we want all of our public servers to be easy remembered by our players. They all run on the default port and have a short girlname as hostname, and ofcourse our domain name... ex: joa.bhood.nu, ling.bhood.nu and so on... Anyway, I had some problem with the alias IP if I did not put netmask 0x in the alias line... hmm, and now I noticed another difference. The second line should have the word inet and not alias... so, the lines for you would be: ifconfig_fxp0=inet 202.36.xxx.xxx netmask 255.255.255.240 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=inet 202.36.xxx.xxx netmask 0x This is working for me on freebsd 4.7 but I think it should be the same at 5.0... /Oscar On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:08:43 -0800 m0gely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Drew Broadley wrote: I have the following set up in FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE /etc/rc.conf: ifconfig_fxp0=inet 202.36.xxx.xxx netmask 255.255.255.240 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=alias 202.36.xxx.xxx When I bind an hlds instance to each IP with VAC enabled, it doesnt let anyone connect and gives an error of client has sent invalid connection or some sort. I disable VAC and people can connect fine, is this a directly VAC related issue or just one of those one off bugs I manage to find. Out of curiosity, why do this? Using a different port number out of the question? -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] Servers
Don't know for sure. But try the 2.4.9 and if the same problem exist try latest 2.2.x People have reported wierd stuff with kernels later than 2.4.9, but I don't know if this problem can be related to that... Or you can use Freebsd instead of linux... :) /Oscar Michael Madsen wrote: I am using the latest kernel 2.4.20 on RedHat. Is that a problem? Michael *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 25-03-2003 at 14:28 Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' wrote: What kernel are you using? And have you tried 2.4.9 or the latest 2.2.X? /Oscar Michael Madsen wrote: ___ 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] Servers
By the way, way is it so??? I mean, the problem can not only exist when you run HL. Have there been any bug reported about this to the kernel developer??? /Oscar Matt wrote: Your going to find wierd problems with kernels after 2.4.9 and up to about 2.4.16 or .17. On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 08:43, Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' wrote: Don't know for sure. But try the 2.4.9 and if the same problem exist try latest 2.2.x People have reported wierd stuff with kernels later than 2.4.9, but I don't know if this problem can be related to that... Or you can use Freebsd instead of linux... :) /Oscar Michael Madsen wrote: I am using the latest kernel 2.4.20 on RedHat. Is that a problem? Michael *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 25-03-2003 at 14:28 Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' wrote: What kernel are you using? And have you tried 2.4.9 or the latest 2.2.X? /Oscar Michael Madsen wrote: ___ 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 -- Matt http://www.playway.net ___ 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] Servers
Go with 2.4.9... all newer version has the bug... /Oscar Michael Madsen wrote: *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 25-03-2003 at 09:50 Kevin J. Anderson wrote: I would imagine it has to do w/ overhead due to changes/improvements to the kernel. I think around 2.4.9 they redid the VM and continued tweaking it afterwards? So you think I'd be better of with the 2.4.9 or have they fixed something after 2.4.17, so my 2.4.20 is alright? Michael ___ 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] Servers
This is what we are saying... Kernel versions after 2.4.9 are wierd... Try the one we suggested and find out this yourself, no idea in us speculation any more before you've tried that... /Oscar Michael Madsen wrote: I'm at this moment running two servers. 1. Runnning de_dust 16/16 = 1% cpu usage 2. Running cs_estate 13/15 = 40% cpu 3. Running de_aztec 10/12 = 1% cpu Then the players on #3 is dropping out and the CPU usage for #2 is 1% again. It's really freaking me out, because I don't know what to look for. Could it be NIC-drivers which causes this, because it can't keep up with the packets? I'm using eepro100.c:v1.26 11/17/2002 drivers with my 82557/8/9? Or is it really the kernel which is screwing it up? Michael *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 25-03-2003 at 16:19 Michael Madsen wrote: *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 25-03-2003 at 09:50 Kevin J. Anderson wrote: I would imagine it has to do w/ overhead due to changes/improvements to the kernel. I think around 2.4.9 they redid the VM and continued tweaking it afterwards? So you think I'd be better of with the 2.4.9 or have they fixed something after 2.4.17, so my 2.4.20 is alright? Michael ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] Servers
But that should hardly be the problem. eepro100 works great, the only difference I noticed is that e100 had some more features... /Oscar Kevin J. Anderson wrote: you could also try intel's own new linux driver, e100. It seems to do very well from my tests. Ive moved away from eepro100 on all of my boxes. kev --Original Message- -From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael -Madsen -Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:28 AM -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Servers - - -Hehe ok. Sorry for being a pain in the ass :o) - -I'll go for the 2.49 and see where it takes me. Thanks for your -time for the being :) - -Michael - -*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** - -On 25-03-2003 at 17:22 Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' wrote: - -This is what we are saying... Kernel versions after 2.4.9 are wierd... -Try the one we suggested and find out this yourself, no idea in us -speculation any more before you've tried that... - -/Oscar - - - -___ -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
Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
haha! And I really need to have a floppy drive because I have it on all my servers... bah! Kevin J. Anderson wrote: --Original Message- -From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Hodges -Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:40 PM -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - -Well you don't need EXT3 for a game server. But you're right, it -would have -to be a custom job. - well, i do because I have ext3 on all my servers. : P kev ___ 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] [OT] IDE raid
I took a break in all php coding and looked at 3wares site. The escalade serie doesn't seem to support the feature you want... As must of the time my memory is wrong ;) Things that happen more than 3seconds ago are very blur to me... Anyway, I found another card that may be able to do what you're searching for. It kind of depends on what they mean in the product description. Adaptecs 2400A support Online Capacity Expansion, it's a IDE raid card that support 4 discs. Now the tricky part is to understand what they mean. That you can extend and raid 5 array from 3 discs to 4 discs is pretty obvious, but is it possible to change from one array to another without losing data, that's the question :/ Send adaptec an email or search the web for some answer... /Oscar Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' wrote: Hmm, forgot to answer your question :P It depends very much on the controller card you're going to use. For an example, scsi raid cards often has the ability to change arrays(sometimes even on the fly). There you can create an array with 1 disc and then later change it to raid 0,1,5 or whatever you want when you add discs. But there is no way to create a raid 5 array with only 1 disc... Now, I'm trying to think about a ide raid card that can change arrays afterword and the only one who 'might' be able to do that is 3ware's escalade cards... But I'm not sure about this, it's only something I have a small memory about... Check out there webpage and let me know :) /Oscar Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' wrote: raid 0 or 1 requires at least 2 discs, and raid 5 requires at least 3 discs... Are you thinking about software raid or hardware raid by the way? hondaman wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] I think im gonna set up an array, i have too much data to lose. I guess my 2 options are 0+1 or 5. My questions are: Has anyone had experience setting up a raid 5 in RH 8? What cards did you use? Can I build an initial raid 5 array on one drive? The reason i ask i becuase my strategy, if it would work, is to buy a new drive, set up the array on it, xfer stuff over, then add my existing, now empty drive, to the array, and continue this process till ive added all my drives to the array. My biggest concern is drivers. After looking at a couple cards capable of doing raid 5, it seems that there arent drivers for RH 8, only 7.X hondaman - admin www.hardgaming.com -- ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] Help needed
Hmm, didn't you recieve my mail? I posted it here on the list and recieved it myself... Anyway, I type it once again, it wasn't that big... The problem will most likely be your CPU. We're running servers with similar setup and on a P4 1.8ghz one of the 18player servers consume about 60% cpu... So I would say it's pretty impossible to run 3 servers on your 2.0ghz server... /Oscar Ryo wrote: Hi, Thx for the reply. So what else can cause the lag? Pls enlighten me. Is it the isp? Pls help. Regards Shao wei Regards --- DLinkOZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3 servers shouldn't eat up 512mb of ram. I never see mine use more than 70mb each. Even at double that 512mb should be more than enough. That's assuming the box isn't doing anything else. - Original Message - From: Ryo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:44 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Help needed Thanks man,I will upgrade to 1g ram will it helps?? --- hondaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Run top and paste it here. I'll bet all the money in the world your out of ram. Hondaman - admin www.hardgaming.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryo Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [hlds_linux] Help needed Hi, I have some problems in my server, pls help. Currently i'm running online servers. I have 3 servers in a box and is running on 512 rams. i used to have no problem before but now it seems to lag a lot, the ping can go up to 300-400. Do i have to increase my rams? Pls advice. Thanks a million These r my server configurations : Intel Pentium IV - 2.0GHz Ram - DDR 512 Megabytes Two T10/100 Network Card 40 Gig HDD OS LINUX Version Running 3 Server Running Admin mod,Statsme,HLguard (Basic Admin Mod Plugin) Regards Ryo = [C|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|2yo~[L]onely~ Our MIRC Channel:#C|[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galaxynet) Webby Adds:http://www.xstat.net/ Xstats Forum Adds:http://forum.xstat.net/index.php C|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Webby Adds:http://crazy.xstat.net/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ 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 = [C|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|2yo~[L]onely~ Our MIRC Channel:#C|[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galaxynet) Webby Adds:http://www.xstat.net/ Xstats Forum Adds:http://forum.xstat.net/index.php C|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Webby Adds:http://crazy.xstat.net/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ 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 = [C|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|2yo~[L]onely~ Our MIRC Channel:#C|[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galaxynet) Webby Adds:http://www.xstat.net/ Xstats Forum Adds:http://forum.xstat.net/index.php C|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Webby Adds:http://crazy.xstat.net/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ 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] A question for you pro's
Running any plugins? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, i've got a problem with starting hlds, i've read over 10 howto's and tutorials, posted on 4 forums, no help, i've read the 25 pages of the forum on server.counter-strike.net, but no help. when i start hlds with ./hlds_run ... ... ... i only get : Auto-restarting the server on crash Add -debug to the ./hlds_run command line to generate a debug.log to help with solving this problem Sat Mar 15 18:53:46 CET 2003: Server Died it doesn't matter what options i write behind the hlds_run, always the same error. i've tried to run it with -debug but i did not have gdb installed, so i installed, ncurses, gdb ... but gdb is having some problems when i run ./configure so i can forget gdb. so i've run hlds with sTrace what it gave me you can see on http://www.digital-modes.de/str.txt i can't find anything, btw i'm really not a pro, i know basic functions for running my apache on the server but that error is too much for me. would be cool if someone had a solution to the problem. many thanks in advance. ___ 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] Dualie Athlons? [OT]
Hmm, really? All the firewalls I've installed lately are routers also... If the firewall not is a router at the same time it must work transparently, that is 2NIC's that is bridged togheter and with the firewall that sits between and filtering all the stuff. This is somehow not that good as if you also use it as a router, because you will need 2NIC's for every network you want to protect. If you use it as a router also you only need 1NIC to the gateway and 1NIC for each of the net behind the firewall... /Oscar Florian Zschocke wrote: Mad Scientist wrote: And most firewall are routers too (let's get the firewall definition guy started again :P) Just for the record: no, they are not. Some are, but not most of them. :) Florian. -- Want to produce professional emails and Usenet postings? http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html ___ 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] Dualie Athlons?[keeping it alive]
oh, yeah, must keep this thread going! Well, they are classed 'non routable', but they are fully routable... A NAT device is somehow in the grey zone because it's connected to at least 2 networks. And somewhere in the device it route packets. But as you said, the packets also get translated which might not have been the original definition of a router... But if I were to choose between hub, switch, router, brouter, bridge or gateway, I would say router because that is closest to the function... /Oscar Eric (Deacon) wrote: A router (by my reckoning, anyway) would be any device that routes packets between networks. A NAT device does this; a switch does not. I think thats correct, be it $100 or $38,000 not including operating system (thanks Cisco) if it moves packets from IP network to another, its a router. No need for router racism. Negative. RFC1918 addresses are also classed as 'non routable' addresses. The packets DO NOT get routed, they get translated, there's a difference between the 2, but most people buy into the marketing hoopla and don't wish to see that. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ 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] OT: Gentoo updating?
This APT has Super Cow Powers. Why use redhat when you can use the all mighty apt-get that comes with debian :) Hehe, another distro flame, muahaha... Tyler \Overkill\ Schwend wrote: Does Gentoo do anything similar to RedHat's Up2date? That's THE reason I use RedHat. I'd like to give Gentoo a try. - Tyler [TASF]Overkill Schwend Semper facere bonum, an a amare odium, vita mors. --- Server operator of [LCGA]Telefragged: Counter-Strike: telefragged.lynchburg.edu:27015 http://schwend-t.web.lynchburg.edu ___ 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] SPAM
Now that reply was really not intelligent... Go install windows XP on 400 machines as punishment!!! DmD wrote: yes eric, and wou are surely one of the biggest n00b/uninteligent guys in here... - Original Message - From: Eric (Deacon) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:55 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] SPAM Never ask someone NOT to do something on this list :p There are certain giveaways that reveal the true noob/unintelligent nature of some people. That certainly is one of them. I love it when people actually participate in a huge flame war, ending with an epic post, dripping with venom, spite, hate, and general negativity, and then say something incredibly stupid like, nobuddy repsond to this [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] Dualie Athlons?[keeping it alive]
I think I would choose... hmm... sock, I mean that is also used to keep stuff(read smelly feet) where it's suposed to be. And what if the 'device' includes stuff like port filter rules, regular routing and things that are used in the so called 'broadband routers' and common firewalls? aaah, now it's getting tricky! Hmm, by the way, what does this have to do with Dualie Athlons? ;) /Oscar Eric (Deacon) wrote: But if I were to choose between hub, switch, router, brouter, bridge or gateway, I would say router because that is closest to the function... And if you were to choose between boat, gorilla, alien, and sock, which would you pick? It doesn't matter since none of the choices mentioned by either of us are accurate. It is a NAT device. Plain and simple. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ 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] Dualie Athlons?
That doesn't seem like 1 single array :P And you know that we'll have to kill you when you write stuff like C: /Oscar Ronin wrote: C: 95.13GB out of 114.47GB F: 14.53GB out of 19.06GB H: 1.05GB out of 271.98GB I: 1.03GB out of 4GB P: 65.64GB out of 739.44GB q: 35.88GB out of 679.94GB r: 316.38GB out of 679.99GB s: 1.03GB out of 50.99GB I have 530.67GB free out of 2559.87GB available IRC script I have that shows what I have in space on each one of my drives. Now THAT is a raid array :) - Original Message - From: Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Dualie Athlons? bah, stop telling yourself lies. I mean, if you don't want to go with scsi raid, then who can resist an 3ware escalade controller with 12 120gb IDE discs ;) No, time to sleep and wake up 6hours later with 284new messages from this spam list :P /Oscar Me wrote: Yes that would be great. But do I _NEED_ the additional speed? Can I do what I need in 60 minutes if I use IDE? I would use some sort of RAID add-on controller (any suggestions?). Here are the three configurations I might want to use: 2 WD1200BB hard drives on RAID 0 (Western Digital 120GB 8mb 7200rpm buffer) 4 WD400JB hard drives on RAID 0 (Western Digital 40GB 8mb 7200rpm buffer) 3 KW018L2 hard drives on RAID 0 (Quantum Atlas II 18GB 10k rpm SCSI 160) I don't think space will be an issue. I don't imagine using more than 20GB. /me think you should buy four 15k rpm scsi drives, put them in an raid 0 array and hell we got some spd :) Me wrote: Well... Not to egg things on but I would be interested in everyones take on this. Personally I've got 10k U160 drives in two of my PCs at home. One PC is IDE as are the servers. I know I know, kinda stupid. But my servers don't do much but store mp3s. :P Now, I'm getting ready to set up a server for my training room. I'm going to be running Linux on it. I'm going to use it to store Ghost images. I'll be restoring the images on 15 computers at a time. As long as I can get all the computers done in 60 min I'm happy. I really have 2 hours but... From what I could tell current top of the line IDE hard drives can put out 30MB/sec where current top of the line SCSI hard drives can put out 40MB/sec. I got this information from storagereview.com. I haven't seen the test results on the 10k SATA drives yet but I don't think I would go that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Linux's support for SCSI hard drives much better than it's support for UDMA chipsets? Won't I have a better chance getting the drive's maximum performance if I go SCSI? If that's not true, then I would prefer to save the money and go IDE. On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 23:16, Ronin wrote: What I find most funny is that everyone else is wrong and he is right. Typical child mentality. And your information is STILL wrong, Stefan. *chuckles* So, anyone up for some good SCSI vs IDE action? ___ 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
Re: SV: SV: SV: [hlds_linux] Crashes
Yeah, that should be enough. Only wanted to make sure your problem doesn't depend on that issue at least :) But I would recommend to put at least 128mb more into that machine when you're running 2 hl servers... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu Capriotti wrote: As a rule of thumb, make your swap twice as large as your RAM. At 04:55 PM 3/9/2003, you wrote: I would say I have about 300mb swap, is that enough? I only have 256 ram -FvK ___ 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] RE:P4 vs Dual PIII
Running FreeBSD without any pingbooster, but with the kernel option HZ=1000, the effect is somehow the same as using pingbooster... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu Gambler wrote: some questions do u use any pingbooster on the servers ? valves or udpsoft ? what values if u use valves do u use sys_ticrate 1 or default ? best regards Gustav Gambler Hejdenberg Serveradmin @ www.gamers.nu http://www.gamers.nu/ ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
