Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 05:10 PM 4/28/2009, Kveri wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have some new info about 1000fps servers that we were discussing in
>November 2008.
>
>Old topic is here:
>http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/private/hlds_linux/2008-November/058527.html
>
>So, I was able to get constant 1000fps server, by constant I mean no
>drops, not single one (sorry for arguing too much in November, I was wrong).
>
>But there are some issues I encountered.
>
>1. I think htop, top and others are not showing CPU usage correct. 0% of
>all cores when 10 fully loaded 12 player 1000fps servers with pingboost
>3, it's funny.

Because you butchered the kernel timecounter code with fictitious 
values. No matter
what runs on the machine, you will now never get accurate usage values.


>2. segfaults, sometimes it just hangs. I don't know why, debug says
>nothing, but I was able to minimize if not eliminate those segfaults
>(but I don't know how, yet).

Another side effect of the above. It could also be because your 
system clock is drifting backwards due
to you altering SHIFT_HZ.

>I'm using Gentoo 64bit, but it should be almost same for any other Linux
>disto.
>
>Here is the kernel config: http://kveri.com/1000fps_kernel_config
>
>If you're willing to try it, I'll be glad.
>
>First of all: it's vanilla kernel 2.6.26.8 (kernel.org)
>NO RT patch
>just this config and these few steps:
>
>include/asm/param.h (or any other param.h under include dir in kernel root):
>
>#ifdef __KERNEL__
># define HZ 2100/* Internal kernel timer
>frequency */
># define USER_HZ1   /* some user interfaces are */
># define CLOCKS_PER_SEC 1  /* in "ticks" like times() */
>#endif

USER_HZ always runs at usually whatever HZ is, IIRC. Or maybe it's 
whatever the PIT is running at.

>include/linux/jiffies.h:
>change
>#elif HZ >= 1536 && HZ < 3072
># define SHIFT_HZ   11
>
>to
>#elif HZ >= 1536 && HZ < 3072
># define SHIFT_HZ   1

Changing Shift_HZ to 1 is evil, and breaks everything else including 
ntp and adjtimex.

>and
>
>change
># define LATCH ((CLOCK_TICK_RATE + HZ / 2) / HZ) / * For divider * /
>
>to
>#define LATCH  ((CLOCK_TICK_RATE + 2200/2) / 2200)  /* For divider */
>
>kernel/timeconst.pl:
>change (comment it)
>print "#if HZ != $hz\n";
>print "#error \"kernel/timeconst.h has the wrong HZ value!\"\n";
>print "#endif\n";
>
>to
>#   print "#if HZ != $hz\n";
>#   print "#error \"kernel/timeconst.h has the wrong HZ value!\"\n";
>#   print "#endif\n";
>
>and execute:
>kernel/timeconst.pl 2100 > kernel/timeconst.h
>
>*this step is probably why my CPU stats aren't working correctly anymore*.

>Next, use TSC clocksource,
>
>for grub: add clocksource="tsc" to your kernel command line in
>menu.lst/grub.conf
>
>for lilo: add append="clocksource=TSC" to your /etc/lilo.conf, under
>this kernel image and execute /sbin/lilo.

TSC is better to read, but use HPET if you can.

>I didn't try hpet, but it probably worth trying, as well as changing CPU
>I/O schedulers in kernel.

There are no such things are CPU I/O Schedulers. You are talking 
about disk I/O schedulers.

>That config I posted above is heavily optimized for my hardware, but it
>can be optimized further, make sure it suits your hardware.

I wouldn't suggest it's optimized for your hardware, it's a generic 
config that is altered.

>My experiences: with RT patch I was able to get around 900 fps, but not
>as stable as without RT patch. I tried 4 different kernels (all
>2.6.26.8): 1. without RT without HZ modification, without RT with HZ,
>with RT without HZ and with RT with HZ. Best one was without RT with HZ
>(that one I was discribing).

RT patches are better due to the fact they reduce kernel latency. 
Personally, RT patches are far superior for things like precise 
nanosleep()/tsleep()/usleep()

>Pingboost: I tried anything from pingboost 0 (no -pingboost) to
>pingboost 3, nothing except pingboost 3 gave me 1000fps constant.

Pingboost 1/2 use either an alarm() or select(). Alarm() and Select() 
do NOT use hrtimers, therefor that is why
you are not seeing the behavior you think you are seeing. Select() 
uses jiffies as a clocksource, and jiffies provides very coarse 
resolution, about
the same as the interrupt timer.

>Sys_ticrate:
>well, it looks like anything more than HZ in kernel (2100) makes game
>accelerated, so I'm using sys_ticrate 2000 for now.



>If anyone tries this method/config please let me know what are your
>results, I'll be very interested.
>
>That HZ guide was from: http://www.howto-cs16-root.de/gen_kernel.htm
>some other tips:
>http://wiki.fragaholics.de/index.php/EN:Linux_Kernel_Optimization

Running 2100 interrupts a second does nothing but cause cacheline 
pingpongs due to excessive clock interrupts. IIRC, linux
stops updating syscalls like gtod if HZ >= 1024, so 2100 is useless.




___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
ht

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 05:10 PM 4/28/2009, Kveri wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have some new info about 1000fps servers that we were discussing in
>November 2008.
>
>Old topic is here:
>http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/private/hlds_linux/2008-November/058527.html
>
>So, I was able to get constant 1000fps server, by constant I mean no
>drops, not single one (sorry for arguing too much in November, I was wrong).
>
>But there are some issues I encountered.
>
>1. I think htop, top and others are not showing CPU usage correct. 0% of
>all cores when 10 fully loaded 12 player 1000fps servers with pingboost
>3, it's funny.

Because you butchered the kernel timecounter code with fictitious 
values. No matter
what runs on the machine, you will now never get accurate usage values.


>2. segfaults, sometimes it just hangs. I don't know why, debug says
>nothing, but I was able to minimize if not eliminate those segfaults
>(but I don't know how, yet).

Another side effect of the above. It could also be because your 
system clock is drifting backwards due
to you altering SHIFT_HZ.

>I'm using Gentoo 64bit, but it should be almost same for any other Linux
>disto.
>
>Here is the kernel config: http://kveri.com/1000fps_kernel_config
>
>If you're willing to try it, I'll be glad.
>
>First of all: it's vanilla kernel 2.6.26.8 (kernel.org)
>NO RT patch
>just this config and these few steps:
>
>include/asm/param.h (or any other param.h under include dir in kernel root):
>
>#ifdef __KERNEL__
># define HZ 2100/* Internal kernel timer
>frequency */
># define USER_HZ1   /* some user interfaces are */
># define CLOCKS_PER_SEC 1  /* in "ticks" like times() */
>#endif

USER_HZ always runs at usually whatever HZ is, IIRC. Or maybe it's 
whatever the PIT is running at.

>include/linux/jiffies.h:
>change
>#elif HZ >= 1536 && HZ < 3072
># define SHIFT_HZ   11
>
>to
>#elif HZ >= 1536 && HZ < 3072
># define SHIFT_HZ   1

Changing Shift_HZ to 1 is evil, and breaks everything else including 
ntp and adjtimex.

>and
>
>change
># define LATCH ((CLOCK_TICK_RATE + HZ / 2) / HZ) / * For divider * /
>
>to
>#define LATCH  ((CLOCK_TICK_RATE + 2200/2) / 2200)  /* For divider */
>
>kernel/timeconst.pl:
>change (comment it)
>print "#if HZ != $hz\n";
>print "#error \"kernel/timeconst.h has the wrong HZ value!\"\n";
>print "#endif\n";
>
>to
>#   print "#if HZ != $hz\n";
>#   print "#error \"kernel/timeconst.h has the wrong HZ value!\"\n";
>#   print "#endif\n";
>
>and execute:
>kernel/timeconst.pl 2100 > kernel/timeconst.h
>
>*this step is probably why my CPU stats aren't working correctly anymore*.

>Next, use TSC clocksource,
>
>for grub: add clocksource="tsc" to your kernel command line in
>menu.lst/grub.conf
>
>for lilo: add append="clocksource=TSC" to your /etc/lilo.conf, under
>this kernel image and execute /sbin/lilo.

TSC is better to read, but use HPET if you can.

>I didn't try hpet, but it probably worth trying, as well as changing CPU
>I/O schedulers in kernel.

There are no such things are CPU I/O Schedulers. You are talking 
about disk I/O schedulers.

>That config I posted above is heavily optimized for my hardware, but it
>can be optimized further, make sure it suits your hardware.

I wouldn't suggest it's optimized for your hardware, it's a generic 
config that is altered.

>My experiences: with RT patch I was able to get around 900 fps, but not
>as stable as without RT patch. I tried 4 different kernels (all
>2.6.26.8): 1. without RT without HZ modification, without RT with HZ,
>with RT without HZ and with RT with HZ. Best one was without RT with HZ
>(that one I was discribing).

RT patches are better due to the fact they reduce kernel latency. 
Personally, RT patches are far superior for things like precise 
nanosleep()/tsleep()/usleep()

>Pingboost: I tried anything from pingboost 0 (no -pingboost) to
>pingboost 3, nothing except pingboost 3 gave me 1000fps constant.

Pingboost 1/2 use either an alarm() or select(). Alarm() and Select() 
do NOT use hrtimers, therefor that is why
you are not seeing the behavior you think you are seeing. Select() 
uses jiffies as a clocksource, and jiffies provides very coarse 
resolution, about
the same as the interrupt timer.

>Sys_ticrate:
>well, it looks like anything more than HZ in kernel (2100) makes game
>accelerated, so I'm using sys_ticrate 2000 for now.



>If anyone tries this method/config please let me know what are your
>results, I'll be very interested.
>
>That HZ guide was from: http://www.howto-cs16-root.de/gen_kernel.htm
>some other tips:
>http://wiki.fragaholics.de/index.php/EN:Linux_Kernel_Optimization

Running 2100 interrupts a second does nothing but cause cacheline 
pingpongs due to excessive clock interrupts. IIRC, linux
stops updating syscalls like gtod if HZ >= 1024, so 2100 is useless.




___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
ht

[hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

Hello,

I have some new info about 1000fps servers that we were discussing in 
November 2008.

Old topic is here: 
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/private/hlds_linux/2008-November/058527.html

So, I was able to get constant 1000fps server, by constant I mean no 
drops, not single one (sorry for arguing too much in November, I was wrong).

But there are some issues I encountered.

1. I think htop, top and others are not showing CPU usage correct. 0% of 
all cores when 10 fully loaded 12 player 1000fps servers with pingboost 
3, it's funny.

2. segfaults, sometimes it just hangs. I don't know why, debug says 
nothing, but I was able to minimize if not eliminate those segfaults 
(but I don't know how, yet).

I'm using Gentoo 64bit, but it should be almost same for any other Linux 
disto.

Here is the kernel config: http://kveri.com/1000fps_kernel_config

If you're willing to try it, I'll be glad.

First of all: it's vanilla kernel 2.6.26.8 (kernel.org)
NO RT patch
just this config and these few steps:

include/asm/param.h (or any other param.h under include dir in kernel root):

#ifdef __KERNEL__
# define HZ 2100/* Internal kernel timer 
frequency */
# define USER_HZ1   /* some user interfaces are */
# define CLOCKS_PER_SEC 1  /* in "ticks" like times() */
#endif

include/linux/jiffies.h:
change
#elif HZ >= 1536 && HZ < 3072
# define SHIFT_HZ   11

to
#elif HZ >= 1536 && HZ < 3072
# define SHIFT_HZ   1

and

change
# define LATCH ((CLOCK_TICK_RATE + HZ / 2) / HZ) / * For divider * /

to
#define LATCH  ((CLOCK_TICK_RATE + 2200/2) / 2200)  /* For divider */

kernel/timeconst.pl:
change (comment it)
print "#if HZ != $hz\n";
print "#error \"kernel/timeconst.h has the wrong HZ value!\"\n";
print "#endif\n";

to
#   print "#if HZ != $hz\n";
#   print "#error \"kernel/timeconst.h has the wrong HZ value!\"\n";
#   print "#endif\n";

and execute:
kernel/timeconst.pl 2100 > kernel/timeconst.h

*this step is probably why my CPU stats aren't working correctly anymore*.

Next, use TSC clocksource,

for grub: add clocksource="tsc" to your kernel command line in 
menu.lst/grub.conf

for lilo: add append="clocksource=TSC" to your /etc/lilo.conf, under 
this kernel image and execute /sbin/lilo.

I didn't try hpet, but it probably worth trying, as well as changing CPU 
I/O schedulers in kernel.

That config I posted above is heavily optimized for my hardware, but it 
can be optimized further, make sure it suits your hardware.

My experiences: with RT patch I was able to get around 900 fps, but not 
as stable as without RT patch. I tried 4 different kernels (all 
2.6.26.8): 1. without RT without HZ modification, without RT with HZ, 
with RT without HZ and with RT with HZ. Best one was without RT with HZ 
(that one I was discribing).

Pingboost: I tried anything from pingboost 0 (no -pingboost) to 
pingboost 3, nothing except pingboost 3 gave me 1000fps constant.

Sys_ticrate:
well, it looks like anything more than HZ in kernel (2100) makes game 
accelerated, so I'm using sys_ticrate 2000 for now.

If anyone tries this method/config please let me know what are your 
results, I'll be very interested.

That HZ guide was from: http://www.howto-cs16-root.de/gen_kernel.htm
some other tips: 
http://wiki.fragaholics.de/index.php/EN:Linux_Kernel_Optimization

Please, anyone who has experience in this, share it too.

Thanks

Kveri

-- 
Tato sprava bola prehladana na vyskyt virusov
a nebezpecneho obsahu antivirovym systemom
a zda sa byt cista.


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 04:07 AM 11/17/2008, Daryl wrote:
>Hi !
>
>I'm trying to get a 1000FPS stable server, with pain.. I've followed many
>recommendations on this thread like :
>- RT patched kernel (from Ingo Molnar)

RT helps out with scheduler latency..

>- with and without HRT Support

Required at least.


>- Tickrate 1000 and pingboost 2

pingboost uses select() for timing of frames. the problem is that 
select uses jiffies resolution, not hrtimers. another thing is, FPS 
is measured by a couple of syscalls, namely gettimeofday() and 
nanosleep(). There's also a bug
in the timespec_to_jiffies code where it automatically adds 3 jiffies 
to prevent timers firing off on all CPUs.



>I've posted my configuration here : http://pastebin.com/f7c4dff1e
>
>here's the result : around 950 FPS Unstable. If I try Tickrate 1 I get
>1000FPS some times... but not stable and with an accelerated game :(

Never going to get it all the time, no matter what. Only way to do is 
is to make gettimeofday coarse based. That will round the usec field 
to the last stored value, IIRC.





G. "Monk" Stanley

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~gary

"There currently are 7 different ways to get time from a computer. 
All of them can't agree on how long a second is supposed to be" -Me







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 04:07 AM 11/17/2008, Daryl wrote:
>Hi !
>
>I'm trying to get a 1000FPS stable server, with pain.. I've followed many
>recommendations on this thread like :
>- RT patched kernel (from Ingo Molnar)

RT helps out with scheduler latency..

>- with and without HRT Support

Required at least.


>- Tickrate 1000 and pingboost 2

pingboost uses select() for timing of frames. the problem is that 
select uses jiffies resolution, not hrtimers. another thing is, FPS 
is measured by a couple of syscalls, namely gettimeofday() and 
nanosleep(). There's also a bug
in the timespec_to_jiffies code where it automatically adds 3 jiffies 
to prevent timers firing off on all CPUs.



>I've posted my configuration here : http://pastebin.com/f7c4dff1e
>
>here's the result : around 950 FPS Unstable. If I try Tickrate 1 I get
>1000FPS some times... but not stable and with an accelerated game :(

Never going to get it all the time, no matter what. Only way to do is 
is to make gettimeofday coarse based. That will round the usec field 
to the last stored value, IIRC.





G. "Monk" Stanley

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~gary

"There currently are 7 different ways to get time from a computer. 
All of them can't agree on how long a second is supposed to be" -Me







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[tuorpeZ]

Same for me...

What is your hardware ?

Daryl a écrit :
> Hi !
>
> I'm trying to get a 1000FPS stable server, with pain.. I've followed many
> recommendations on this thread like :
> - RT patched kernel (from Ingo Molnar)
> - with and without HRT Support
> - Tickrate 1000 and pingboost 2
>
> I've posted my configuration here : http://pastebin.com/f7c4dff1e
>
> here's the result : around 950 FPS Unstable. If I try Tickrate 1 I get
> 1000FPS some times... but not stable and with an accelerated game :(
>
> I also tried the chrt program (chrt -f -p 90 PID, tried FIFO / RR, all the
> same results), that works better with a Low Latency Desktop kernel than a
> Real Time kernel. (I fall around 500FPS with RT kernel with chrt program).
>
> I know this is a kind of business on Internet game servers, but my goal is
> LANs, and I have no business plans on LAN :/
>
> Thanks for your help :)
>
> Daryl.
> ___
> 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] The 1000fps problem

[Daryl]

Hi !

I'm trying to get a 1000FPS stable server, with pain.. I've followed many
recommendations on this thread like :
- RT patched kernel (from Ingo Molnar)
- with and without HRT Support
- Tickrate 1000 and pingboost 2

I've posted my configuration here : http://pastebin.com/f7c4dff1e

here's the result : around 950 FPS Unstable. If I try Tickrate 1 I get
1000FPS some times... but not stable and with an accelerated game :(

I also tried the chrt program (chrt -f -p 90 PID, tried FIFO / RR, all the
same results), that works better with a Low Latency Desktop kernel than a
Real Time kernel. (I fall around 500FPS with RT kernel with chrt program).

I know this is a kind of business on Internet game servers, but my goal is
LANs, and I have no business plans on LAN :/

Thanks for your help :)

Daryl.
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Brandon Cherup]

Contact me if your interested in viewing a ROCK SOLID 1000 FPS server


It's very possible.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU
> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on
> celeron 1,8GHz.
>
> Kveri
>
> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
> > Hello,
> >
> > Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
> > I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to
> > get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
> >
> > Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
> > Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
> > Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
> > Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
> > Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
> > Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
> > Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
> >
> > Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for
> > the RT kernel :
> >
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> > 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> > 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
> >
> > BUT 70% CPU without players !
> >
> > Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
> >
> > I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
> > HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
> > Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server
> > class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
> >
> >
> > --- tuorpeZ
> >
> >
> > en3my a écrit :
> >
> >> None.
> >>
> >> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
> >>
> >> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature
> in
> >> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they
> really
> >> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
> >>
> >> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> >> en3my
> >>  www.2Po.eu
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
> >> 
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> @Enemy
> >>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
> >>>
> >>> best regards,
> >>> Philipp
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> en3my schrieb:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance
> on
> >>>> my
> >>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got
> is
> >>>> by
> >>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can
> get at
> >>>>
> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
> >>>>
> >>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the
> settings
> >>>> in
> >>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power
> Managment",
> >>>> try
> >>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
> >>>>
> >>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8
> physical
> >>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time)
> you
> >>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and
> priorities
> >>>> ("man renice").
> >>>>
> >>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+
> GB
> >>>> of
> >>>> ram, use 64bit distro.
> >>>>
> >>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> >>>> en3my
> >>>>  www.2Po.eu
> >>>>
> >>>> - Original Message -
> >>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
> >>>>
> >&g

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Ferenc Kovacs]

2008/11/15 Nander Paardekooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> ah crap... you too?!...
>
> Ferenc Kovacs schreef:
> > 2008/11/14 Valtteri Kiviniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> I've been testing 1000fps gameservers myself and i found after long
> >> research a kernel + patch combination that gives always 1000fps (with
> >> pingboost2). It stays on 1000fps constantly even with many players on
> >> server and multiple 1000fps servers on the same hardware. It didn't even
> >> use much CPU.
> >>
> >> I still consider the perfect kernel as some kind of business secret so
> >> im not telling anything more than that its possible with pingboost2 +
> >> real time patchset from /Ingo Molnár. Rest you have to figure out
> >> yourself. =)/
> >>
> >> kabukiUkie kirjoitti:
> >>> This is the best we got it to with our configuration and pingboost 2.
> >> Output
> >>> from console stats (output from rcon stats are more consistently 1000).
> >>  :
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 142.87 231.765059  7723 1000.00  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 143.05 229.285059  7723  980.39  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 143.02 230.855059  7723  984.25  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 143.26 232.515059  7723  981.35  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 141.28 232.725059  7723  956.02  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 142.59 234.155059  7723  505.31  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 144.81 237.625059  7723  492.85  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 143.50 237.015059  7723  946.07  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 142.39 235.565059  7723  492.37  20
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 141.01 227.235059  7723  975.61  20
> >>> statsDropped sway adr * mysway.net from server
> >>> Reason:  Client sent 'drop'
> >>>
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 127.23 203.215059  7723  975.61  19
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 126.72 197.655059  7723  928.51  19
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 129.82 198.305059  7723  970.87  19
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 136.97 213.335059  7723  948.77  19
> >>> stats
> >>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >>>  0.00 140.09 223.735059  7723 1000.00  19
> >>>
> >>> top:
> >>> PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
> >>> 16994 ndsg2 20   0  273m 256m 7608 S   38  7.8   1508:40 hlds_i686
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>  I think stable 980+ fps on 20 slot public with 20 players is not
> >> possible.
>  Kveri
> 
>  Kveri  wrote / napísal(a):
> 
> > 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({12265583

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Nander Paardekooper]

ah crap... you too?!...

Ferenc Kovacs schreef:
> 2008/11/14 Valtteri Kiviniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>> I've been testing 1000fps gameservers myself and i found after long
>> research a kernel + patch combination that gives always 1000fps (with
>> pingboost2). It stays on 1000fps constantly even with many players on
>> server and multiple 1000fps servers on the same hardware. It didn't even
>> use much CPU.
>>
>> I still consider the perfect kernel as some kind of business secret so
>> im not telling anything more than that its possible with pingboost2 +
>> real time patchset from /Ingo Molnár. Rest you have to figure out
>> yourself. =)/
>>
>> kabukiUkie kirjoitti:
>>> This is the best we got it to with our configuration and pingboost 2.
>> Output
>>> from console stats (output from rcon stats are more consistently 1000).
>>  :
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 142.87 231.765059  7723 1000.00  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 143.05 229.285059  7723  980.39  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 143.02 230.855059  7723  984.25  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 143.26 232.515059  7723  981.35  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 141.28 232.725059  7723  956.02  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 142.59 234.155059  7723  505.31  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 144.81 237.625059  7723  492.85  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 143.50 237.015059  7723  946.07  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 142.39 235.565059  7723  492.37  20
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 141.01 227.235059  7723  975.61  20
>>> statsDropped sway adr * mysway.net from server
>>> Reason:  Client sent 'drop'
>>>
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 127.23 203.215059  7723  975.61  19
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 126.72 197.655059  7723  928.51  19
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 129.82 198.305059  7723  970.87  19
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 136.97 213.335059  7723  948.77  19
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>  0.00 140.09 223.735059  7723 1000.00  19
>>>
>>> top:
>>> PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
>>> 16994 ndsg2 20   0  273m 256m 7608 S   38  7.8   1508:40 hlds_i686
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 I think stable 980+ fps on 20 slot public with 20 players is not
>> possible.
 Kveri

 Kveri  wrote / napísal(a):

> 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({1226

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Ferenc Kovacs]

2008/11/14 Valtteri Kiviniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I've been testing 1000fps gameservers myself and i found after long
> research a kernel + patch combination that gives always 1000fps (with
> pingboost2). It stays on 1000fps constantly even with many players on
> server and multiple 1000fps servers on the same hardware. It didn't even
> use much CPU.
>
> I still consider the perfect kernel as some kind of business secret so
> im not telling anything more than that its possible with pingboost2 +
> real time patchset from /Ingo Molnár. Rest you have to figure out
> yourself. =)/
>
> kabukiUkie kirjoitti:
> > This is the best we got it to with our configuration and pingboost 2.
> Output
> > from console stats (output from rcon stats are more consistently 1000).
>  :
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 142.87 231.765059  7723 1000.00  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 143.05 229.285059  7723  980.39  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 143.02 230.855059  7723  984.25  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 143.26 232.515059  7723  981.35  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 141.28 232.725059  7723  956.02  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 142.59 234.155059  7723  505.31  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 144.81 237.625059  7723  492.85  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 143.50 237.015059  7723  946.07  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 142.39 235.565059  7723  492.37  20
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 141.01 227.235059  7723  975.61  20
> > statsDropped sway adr * mysway.net from server
> > Reason:  Client sent 'drop'
> >
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 127.23 203.215059  7723  975.61  19
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 126.72 197.655059  7723  928.51  19
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 129.82 198.305059  7723  970.87  19
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 136.97 213.335059  7723  948.77  19
> > stats
> > CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> >  0.00 140.09 223.735059  7723 1000.00  19
> >
> > top:
> > PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
> > 16994 ndsg2 20   0  273m 256m 7608 S   38  7.8   1508:40 hlds_i686
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I think stable 980+ fps on 20 slot public with 20 players is not
> possible.
> >>
> >> Kveri
> >>
> >> Kveri  wrote / napísal(a):
> >>
> >>> 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({12265

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Valtteri Kiviniemi]

I've been testing 1000fps gameservers myself and i found after long 
research a kernel + patch combination that gives always 1000fps (with 
pingboost2). It stays on 1000fps constantly even with many players on 
server and multiple 1000fps servers on the same hardware. It didn't even 
use much CPU.

I still consider the perfect kernel as some kind of business secret so 
im not telling anything more than that its possible with pingboost2 + 
real time patchset from /Ingo Molnár. Rest you have to figure out 
yourself. =)/

kabukiUkie kirjoitti:
> This is the best we got it to with our configuration and pingboost 2. Output
> from console stats (output from rcon stats are more consistently 1000).  :
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 142.87 231.765059  7723 1000.00  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 143.05 229.285059  7723  980.39  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 143.02 230.855059  7723  984.25  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 143.26 232.515059  7723  981.35  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 141.28 232.725059  7723  956.02  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 142.59 234.155059  7723  505.31  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 144.81 237.625059  7723  492.85  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 143.50 237.015059  7723  946.07  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 142.39 235.565059  7723  492.37  20
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 141.01 227.235059  7723  975.61  20
> statsDropped sway adr * mysway.net from server
> Reason:  Client sent 'drop'
>
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 127.23 203.215059  7723  975.61  19
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 126.72 197.655059  7723  928.51  19
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 129.82 198.305059  7723  970.87  19
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 136.97 213.335059  7723  948.77  19
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  0.00 140.09 223.735059  7723 1000.00  19
>
> top:
> PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
> 16994 ndsg2 20   0  273m 256m 7608 S   38  7.8   1508:40 hlds_i686
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> I think stable 980+ fps on 20 slot public with 20 players is not possible.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> Kveri  wrote / napísal(a):
>> 
>>> 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({1

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[kabukiUkie]

This is the best we got it to with our configuration and pingboost 2. Output
from console stats (output from rcon stats are more consistently 1000).  :
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 142.87 231.765059  7723 1000.00  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 143.05 229.285059  7723  980.39  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 143.02 230.855059  7723  984.25  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 143.26 232.515059  7723  981.35  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 141.28 232.725059  7723  956.02  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 142.59 234.155059  7723  505.31  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 144.81 237.625059  7723  492.85  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 143.50 237.015059  7723  946.07  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 142.39 235.565059  7723  492.37  20
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 141.01 227.235059  7723  975.61  20
statsDropped sway adr * mysway.net from server
Reason:  Client sent 'drop'

CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 127.23 203.215059  7723  975.61  19
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 126.72 197.655059  7723  928.51  19
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 129.82 198.305059  7723  970.87  19
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 136.97 213.335059  7723  948.77  19
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 0.00 140.09 223.735059  7723 1000.00  19

top:
PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
16994 ndsg2 20   0  273m 256m 7608 S   38  7.8   1508:40 hlds_i686


On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think stable 980+ fps on 20 slot public with 20 players is not possible.
>
> Kveri
>
> Kveri  wrote / napísal(a):
> > 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_va

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

I think stable 980+ fps on 20 slot public with 20 players is not possible.

Kveri

Kveri  wrote / napísal(a):
> 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
>   

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[J T]

Yea.

Trap Shut.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Joseph Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Because he wants to.  If you don't want to help him then keep your trap
> shut.
>
> Kveri wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
>



-- 
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Joseph Laws]

Because he wants to.  If you don't want to help him then keep your trap 
shut. 

Kveri wrote:
> 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
>   


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

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

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Faustas Buškevičius]

Personally I can agree with that and 1000fps server never was one of
my goals. I'm after a server with _stable_ 500 fps (or 300, or
whatever number *I* set it to be at), as long as its _stable_.
Meaning, I would love to have a public server with _stable_ 300 fps,
it's just that the fps is constantly dipping to, say, 70, or rocketing
to, say, 980, neither of which is any good.


2008/11/13 AnAkIn . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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"
>> 
>> 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) 

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[AnAkIn .]

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"
> 
> 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 no

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[en3my]

"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" 

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.
>> >>

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[AnAkIn .]

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

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Faustas Buškevičius]

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

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

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

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 02:00 AM 11/13/2008, John 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:

Indeed. I didn't bother to profile it. I was going on the original 
email and what's in the sdk..

>...
>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

With no pingboosting on a spare, hacked up Linux machine (gentoo), I 
get 1000/999fps all the time with HPET and TSC as a clocksource.. Of 
course, I put a busy wait patch in
nanosleep to allow for more accurate nanosleep delays (old behavior), 
plus a module I use to convert the very broken, jittery gettimeofday 
and usleep with clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONO..) and clock_nanosleep().
I've also disabled SMI's on this machine to prevent pipeline stalls 
due to SMI interrupts firing off every few uS or so.. but that's 
pretty much an overkill :P

It looks like no pingboosting uses pingboost 2 (select boost..)

CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0  999.00   0
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0 1000.00   0
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0 1000.00   0
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0  999.00   0







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 02:00 AM 11/13/2008, John 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:

Indeed. I didn't bother to profile it. I was going on the original 
email and what's in the sdk..

>...
>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

With no pingboosting on a spare, hacked up Linux machine (gentoo), I 
get 1000/999fps all the time with HPET and TSC as a clocksource.. Of 
course, I put a busy wait patch in
nanosleep to allow for more accurate nanosleep delays (old behavior), 
plus a module I use to convert the very broken, jittery gettimeofday 
and usleep with clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONO..) and clock_nanosleep().
I've also disabled SMI's on this machine to prevent pipeline stalls 
due to SMI interrupts firing off every few uS or so.. but that's 
pretty much an overkill :P

It looks like no pingboosting uses pingboost 2 (select boost..)

CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0  999.00   0
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0 1000.00   0
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0 1000.00   0
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
  0.00  0.00  0.00   5 0  999.00   0







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[John]

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

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

I think -pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select()

Kveri

John  wrote / napísal(a):
>> You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
>>
>> from the usleep() man page:
>> BUGS
>>Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
>> microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.
>> 
>
> It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no. But 
> as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.
>
> With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely has 
> some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by 
> recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this 
> will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking longer 
> than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall 
> machine load or delays in writing to the disk.
>
> -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

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

so it's not stable, 1000fps almost stable, dropping to 500fps can be 
achieved by using low latency desktop in kernel, 1000Hz sys_ticrate 1000 
and pingboost 3. But I was to able to achieve this only with 0 players 
on server.

Kveri

xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
> Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable 
> 1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
> Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's 1000fps stable.
>
>
>   
>> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU 
>> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on 
>> celeron 1,8GHz.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>>   
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to 
>>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>>
>>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>>
>>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for 
>>> the RT kernel :
>>>
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>>
>>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>>
>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>
>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for 
>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server 
>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>
>>>
>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>
>>>
>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>
>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature 
>>>> in 
>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>> @Enemy
>>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>>
>>>>> best regards,
>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   
>>>>> 
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance 
>>>>>> on 
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the 
>>>>>> settings 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>>>>>> try
>>>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>>>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>>>>>> must experiment with affinities ("man tas

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 11:21 PM 11/12/2008, Guy Watkins wrote:
>} -Original Message-
>} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hlds_linux-
>} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Stanley
>} Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:16 PM
>} To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
>} Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>}
>} At 05:52 PM 11/12/2008, you wrote:
>} > > You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
>} > >
>} > > from the usleep() man page:
>} > > BUGS
>} > >Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
>} > > microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.
>} >
>} >It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no.
>} But
>} >as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.
>} >
>} >With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely
>} has
>} >some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by
>} >recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this
>} >will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking
>} longer
>} >than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall
>} >machine load or delays in writing to the disk.
>}
>} -pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select()
>
>alarm() or ualarm() ?


Here's pingboost 1:

void Sys_Sleep_Select( int msec )
{
 struct timeval tv;

 tv.tv_sec   = 0;
 tv.tv_usec  = 1000 * msec;

 select( 1, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv );

}

Here's 2:

void Sys_Sleep_Timer( int msec )
{
 struct itimerval tm;

 tm.it_value.tv_sec=msec/1000;
 tm.it_value.tv_usec=(msec%1000)*1E3;
 tm.it_interval.tv_sec  = 0;
 tm.it_interval.tv_usec = 0;

 paused=0;
 if( setitimer(ITIMER_REAL,&tm,NULL)==0)
 { // set the timer to trigger
 pause(); // wait for the signal
 }
 paused=1;

}


Of course, that was taken from the SDK, so there's no telling what is 
what now.. the best option is probably pingboost 3, select and 
setitimer have too much jitter.

I wrote a module that uses more aggressive timing, sort of like 
UDPSoft's old booster, and it almost eliminates FPS jitter :)

Info was taken from a very old email from alfred..

From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@list.valvesoftware.com
on behalf of Alfred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13. juli 2002 07:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Pingboost modes...

All the pingboot modes attempt to reduce the latency caused by the server.
The default implementation adds around 20msec to each players ping 
(under linux).

Mode "1" reduces this by using a different wait method (a select() call).
This method reduces the latency to 10msec.

Mode "2" uses a similar but slightly different method (and alarm() type call).
Again, the result it 10msec worth of latency being added. NOTE that 
this method
has the potential to hang a server in certain (terminal) situations.
If anyone has used this mode recently (not the first test we did!)
and it hangs please speak up

Mode "3" minimises the latency to the minimum possible level by processing
a frame EVERY time a packet arrives. This causes the lowest possible latency,
but can also cause extreme CPU usages (it does a complete frame for 
every packet,
with each player sending lots of packets per second and 30 players
this adds up to insane amounts of frames). Use this mode at your own risk,
it will consume all available CPU, don't complain that cstrike uses 
too much CPU
if you use this mode :-)

In a future release this mode will be tweaked to let the admin 
balance latencies
agains CPU usage (by processing a frame every N packets).

There is also an external modules called "pingbooster" by UDPSoft
(or is it UDPSoftware?). They implement something like mode "3".
As this is an external module, and was built for an older version
of HL (1108) it may not work properly any longer, and future
releases may (accidently) break it.




___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 11:21 PM 11/12/2008, Guy Watkins wrote:
>} -Original Message-
>} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hlds_linux-
>} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Stanley
>} Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:16 PM
>} To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
>} Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>}
>} At 05:52 PM 11/12/2008, you wrote:
>} > > You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
>} > >
>} > > from the usleep() man page:
>} > > BUGS
>} > >Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
>} > > microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.
>} >
>} >It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no.
>} But
>} >as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.
>} >
>} >With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely
>} has
>} >some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by
>} >recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this
>} >will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking
>} longer
>} >than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall
>} >machine load or delays in writing to the disk.
>}
>} -pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select()
>
>alarm() or ualarm() ?


Here's pingboost 1:

void Sys_Sleep_Select( int msec )
{
 struct timeval tv;

 tv.tv_sec   = 0;
 tv.tv_usec  = 1000 * msec;

 select( 1, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tv );

}

Here's 2:

void Sys_Sleep_Timer( int msec )
{
 struct itimerval tm;

 tm.it_value.tv_sec=msec/1000;
 tm.it_value.tv_usec=(msec%1000)*1E3;
 tm.it_interval.tv_sec  = 0;
 tm.it_interval.tv_usec = 0;

 paused=0;
 if( setitimer(ITIMER_REAL,&tm,NULL)==0)
 { // set the timer to trigger
 pause(); // wait for the signal
 }
 paused=1;

}


Of course, that was taken from the SDK, so there's no telling what is 
what now.. the best option is probably pingboost 3, select and 
setitimer have too much jitter.

I wrote a module that uses more aggressive timing, sort of like 
UDPSoft's old booster, and it almost eliminates FPS jitter :)

Info was taken from a very old email from alfred..

From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@list.valvesoftware.com
on behalf of Alfred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13. juli 2002 07:18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Pingboost modes...

All the pingboot modes attempt to reduce the latency caused by the server.
The default implementation adds around 20msec to each players ping 
(under linux).

Mode "1" reduces this by using a different wait method (a select() call).
This method reduces the latency to 10msec.

Mode "2" uses a similar but slightly different method (and alarm() type call).
Again, the result it 10msec worth of latency being added. NOTE that 
this method
has the potential to hang a server in certain (terminal) situations.
If anyone has used this mode recently (not the first test we did!)
and it hangs please speak up

Mode "3" minimises the latency to the minimum possible level by processing
a frame EVERY time a packet arrives. This causes the lowest possible latency,
but can also cause extreme CPU usages (it does a complete frame for 
every packet,
with each player sending lots of packets per second and 30 players
this adds up to insane amounts of frames). Use this mode at your own risk,
it will consume all available CPU, don't complain that cstrike uses 
too much CPU
if you use this mode :-)

In a future release this mode will be tweaked to let the admin 
balance latencies
agains CPU usage (by processing a frame every N packets).

There is also an external modules called "pingbooster" by UDPSoft
(or is it UDPSoftware?). They implement something like mode "3".
As this is an external module, and was built for an older version
of HL (1108) it may not work properly any longer, and future
releases may (accidently) break it.




___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Guy Watkins]

} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hlds_linux-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Stanley
} Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:16 PM
} To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
} Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
} 
} At 05:52 PM 11/12/2008, you wrote:
} > > You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
} > >
} > > from the usleep() man page:
} > > BUGS
} > >Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
} > > microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.
} >
} >It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no.
} But
} >as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.
} >
} >With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely
} has
} >some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by
} >recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this
} >will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking
} longer
} >than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall
} >machine load or delays in writing to the disk.
} 
} -pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select()

alarm() or ualarm() ?


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Guy Watkins]

} -Original Message-
} From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hlds_linux-
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Stanley
} Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:16 PM
} To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
} Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
} 
} At 05:52 PM 11/12/2008, you wrote:
} > > You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
} > >
} > > from the usleep() man page:
} > > BUGS
} > >Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
} > > microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.
} >
} >It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no.
} But
} >as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.
} >
} >With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely
} has
} >some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by
} >recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this
} >will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking
} longer
} >than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall
} >machine load or delays in writing to the disk.
} 
} -pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select()

alarm() or ualarm() ?


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 05:52 PM 11/12/2008, you wrote:
> > You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
> >
> > from the usleep() man page:
> > BUGS
> >Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
> > microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.
>
>It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no. But
>as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.
>
>With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely has
>some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by
>recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this
>will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking longer
>than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall
>machine load or delays in writing to the disk.

-pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select() 


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 05:52 PM 11/12/2008, you wrote:
> > You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
> >
> > from the usleep() man page:
> > BUGS
> >Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
> > microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.
>
>It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no. But
>as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.
>
>With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely has
>some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by
>recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this
>will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking longer
>than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall
>machine load or delays in writing to the disk.

-pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select() 


___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[John]

> You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.
>
> from the usleep() man page:
> BUGS
>Probably not accurate on many machines down to the
> microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.

It is not possible to achieve a forever constant 1000 in practice, no. But 
as you have seen, it is possible to come very close.

With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays. It likely has 
some minor precision errors as well (though these have been reduced by 
recent improvements in the kernel), but regardless, most of the time this 
will be trumped by internal factors, such as the game simply taking longer 
than 1ms to handle a tick, and external factors, such as a high overall 
machine load or delays in writing to the disk.

-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] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 03:10 PM 11/12/2008, Ryan Devonshire wrote:
>This is the output from one of our servers, it is consistent throughout
>- and this is running Fedora 6 with a 2.6.x kernel (recompiled). The CPU
>usage is reported falsely, server is running on a Q6600.
>
>20:08:05 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 81.89 119.89 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 85.18 125.19 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 84.30 123.78 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 84.06 122.97 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 84.22 121.49 12216  919.96  10

You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.

from the usleep() man page:
BUGS
Probably not accurate on many machines down to the 
microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.


G. "Monk" Stanley

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~gary

"There currently are 7 different ways to get time from a computer. 
All of them can't agree on how long a second is supposed to be" -Me







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 03:10 PM 11/12/2008, Ryan Devonshire wrote:
>This is the output from one of our servers, it is consistent throughout
>- and this is running Fedora 6 with a 2.6.x kernel (recompiled). The CPU
>usage is reported falsely, server is running on a Q6600.
>
>20:08:05 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 81.89 119.89 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 85.18 125.19 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 84.30 123.78 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 84.06 122.97 12216 1000.00  10
>20:08:06 stats
>20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>  99.90 84.22 121.49 12216  919.96  10

You're never going to get 1000 all the time, no matter who says what.

from the usleep() man page:
BUGS
Probably not accurate on many machines down to the 
microsecond.  Count on precision only to -4 or maybe -5.


G. "Monk" Stanley

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~gary

"There currently are 7 different ways to get time from a computer. 
All of them can't agree on how long a second is supposed to be" -Me







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[John]

Core2 systems seem to achieve constant framerates best although it is 
obtainable on other hardware as well. In the latest kernel it should only 
take minor tweaking to do this, such as setting the processor type correctly 
adjusting a few other settings on the "Processor type and features" page. 
The I/O scheduler makes no difference and I can't answer the distro 
question. The -pingboost 2 is crucial to getting a solid 1000.

I can't get into too many details, of course. It's also been awhile since I 
last explored this in any depth.

-John

- Original Message - 
From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem


@John
What is the correct hardware?
And what kernel optimization?

Does the choise of distro and scheduler depend on it?

Regards

P.s Feel free to send me an email..

> It is entirely possible to maintain a constant 1000fps for HL1-based 
> servers
> on Linux without faking it. In fact it would probably be harder to fake it
> than to actually do it. The right hardware combined with appropriate 
> kernel
> optimization options and -pingboost 2 make it possible.
>
> -John
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
> Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable
> 1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
> Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's 1000fps 
> stable.
>
>
>
>> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU
>> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on
>> celeron 1,8GHz.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to
>>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>>
>>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>>
>>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for
>>> the RT kernel :
>>>
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>>
>>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>>
>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>
>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server
>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>
>>>
>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>
>>>
>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>
>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every 
>>>> feature
>>>> in
>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they
>>>> really
>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> @Enemy
>>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>>
>>>>> best regards,
>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[xLnT]

@John
What is the correct hardware?
And what kernel optimization?

Does the choise of distro and scheduler depend on it?

Regards

P.s Feel free to send me an email..

> It is entirely possible to maintain a constant 1000fps for HL1-based servers 
> on Linux without faking it. In fact it would probably be harder to fake it 
> than to actually do it. The right hardware combined with appropriate kernel 
> optimization options and -pingboost 2 make it possible.
>
> -John
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
> Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable
> 1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
> Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's 1000fps stable.
>
>
>   
>> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU
>> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on
>> celeron 1,8GHz.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>>
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to
>>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>>
>>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>>
>>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for
>>> the RT kernel :
>>>
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>>
>>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>>
>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>
>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server
>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>
>>>
>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>
>>>
>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>
>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature 
>>>> in
>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they 
>>>> really
>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> @Enemy
>>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>>
>>>>> best regards,
>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance 
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get 
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the 
>>>>>> settings
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> "Processo

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Ryan Devonshire]

This is the output from one of our servers, it is consistent throughout 
- and this is running Fedora 6 with a 2.6.x kernel (recompiled). The CPU 
usage is reported falsely, server is running on a Q6600.

20:08:05 stats
20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 81.89 119.89 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:06 stats
20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 85.18 125.19 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:06 stats
20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 84.30 123.78 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:06 stats
20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 84.06 122.97 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:06 stats
20:08:06 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 84.22 121.49 12216  919.96  10
20:08:07 stats
20:08:07 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 83.16 118.83 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:07 stats
20:08:07 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 81.97 116.11 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:07 stats
20:08:07 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 82.55 116.54 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:07 stats
20:08:07 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 83.02 117.74 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:10 stats
20:08:10 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 85.15 121.78 12216 1000.00  10
20:08:11 stats
20:08:11 CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
 99.90 80.50 114.55 12216 1000.00  10

John wrote:
> It is entirely possible to maintain a constant 1000fps for HL1-based servers 
> on Linux without faking it. In fact it would probably be harder to fake it 
> than to actually do it. The right hardware combined with appropriate kernel 
> optimization options and -pingboost 2 make it possible.
>
> -John
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
> Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable
> 1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
> Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's 1000fps stable.
>
>
>   
>> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU
>> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on
>> celeron 1,8GHz.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>>
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to
>>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>>
>>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>>
>>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for
>>> the RT kernel :
>>>
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>>
>>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>>
>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>
>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server
>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>
>>>
>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>
>>>
>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>
>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature 
>>>> in
>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they 
>>>> really
>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - 
>&g

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[John]

It is entirely possible to maintain a constant 1000fps for HL1-based servers 
on Linux without faking it. In fact it would probably be harder to fake it 
than to actually do it. The right hardware combined with appropriate kernel 
optimization options and -pingboost 2 make it possible.

-John

- Original Message - 
From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem


Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable
1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's 1000fps stable.


> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU
> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on
> celeron 1,8GHz.
>
> Kveri
>
> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to
>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>
>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>
>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for
>> the RT kernel :
>>
>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>> stats
>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>
>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>
>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>
>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server
>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>
>>
>> --- tuorpeZ
>>
>>
>> en3my a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> None.
>>>
>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>
>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature 
>>> in
>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they 
>>> really
>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>
>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>> en3my
>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> @Enemy
>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>> Philipp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance 
>>>>> on
>>>>> my
>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got 
>>>>> is
>>>>> by
>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get 
>>>>> at
>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>
>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the 
>>>>> settings
>>>>> in
>>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power 
>>>>> Managment",
>>>>> try
>>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>>
>>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 
>>>>> physical
>>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) 
>>>>> you
>>>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and 
>>>>> priorities
>>>>> ("man renice").
>>>>>
>>>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if yo

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[xLnT]

pt + RT patch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps  
>>>>>> except for
>>>>>> the RT kernel :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>>>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>>>>>> stats
>>>>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPS    Players
>>>>>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
>>>>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>>>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a  
>>>>>> "server
>>>>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> None.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every  
>>>>>>> feature in
>>>>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that  
>>>>>>> they really
>>>>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>>>>> en3my
>>>>>>> www.2Po.eu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> @Enemy
>>>>>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> best regards,
>>>>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS  
>>>>>>>>> performance on
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result  
>>>>>>>>> i've got is
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you  
>>>>>>>>> can get at
>>>>>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all  
>>>>>>>>> the settings
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power  
>>>>>>>>> Managment",
>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8  
>>>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same  
>>>>>>>>> time) you
>>>>>&

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Joseph Laws]

gt;>>>
>>>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
>>>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a  
>>>>> "server
>>>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> None.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every  
>>>>>> feature in
>>>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that  
>>>>>> they really
>>>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>>>> en3my
>>>>>> www.2Po.eu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> @Enemy
>>>>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> best regards,
>>>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS  
>>>>>>>> performance on
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result  
>>>>>>>> i've got is
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you  
>>>>>>>> can get at
>>>>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all  
>>>>>>>> the settings
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power  
>>>>>>>> Managment",
>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8  
>>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same  
>>>>>>>> time) you
>>>>>>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and  
>>>>>>>> priorities
>>>>>>>> ("man renice").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're  
>>>>>>>> using 4+ GB
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> ram, use 64bit distro.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>>>>>> en3my
>>>>>>>> www.2Po.eu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>>>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps 

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

Hlds - cs 1.6

Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Nov 2008, at 14:48, Joseph Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm sorry but which game are you guys going back and forth about?
>
> xLnT wrote:
>> Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable
>> 1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
>> Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's  
>> 1000fps stable.
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any  
>>> hardware, YOU
>>> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on
>>> celeron 1,8GHz.
>>>
>>> Kveri
>>>
>>> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>>>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never  
>>>> achieve to
>>>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>>>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>>>
>>>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps  
>>>> except for
>>>> the RT kernel :
>>>>
>>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>>>> stats
>>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>>>
>>>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>>>
>>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>>
>>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for
>>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a  
>>>> "server
>>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> None.
>>>>>
>>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every  
>>>>> feature in
>>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that  
>>>>> they really
>>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>>
>>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>>> en3my
>>>>> www.2Po.eu
>>>>>
>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Enemy
>>>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best regards,
>>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS  
>>>>>>> performance on
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result  
>>>>>>> i've got is
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you  
>>>>>>> can get at
>>>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all  
>>>>>>> the settings
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power  
>>>>>

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Joseph Laws]

I'm sorry but which game are you guys going back and forth about?

xLnT wrote:
> Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable 
> 1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
> Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's 1000fps stable.
>
>
>   
>> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU 
>> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on 
>> celeron 1,8GHz.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>>   
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to 
>>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>>
>>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>>
>>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for 
>>> the RT kernel :
>>>
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>>> stats
>>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>>
>>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>>
>>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>>
>>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for 
>>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server 
>>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>>
>>>
>>> --- tuorpeZ
>>>
>>>
>>> en3my a écrit :
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>>
>>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature 
>>>> in 
>>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
>>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>> @Enemy
>>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>>
>>>>> best regards,
>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   
>>>>> 
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance 
>>>>>> on 
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the 
>>>>>> settings 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>>>>>> try
>>>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>>>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>>>>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities
>>>>>> ("man renice").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist 

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[xLnT]

Then game-hosting.com is faking their stats output. They have stable 
1000fps and drops down to 500fps exactly.
Not 501 or 499 but 500fps.. once in a while.. otherwise it's 1000fps stable.


> There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU 
> CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on 
> celeron 1,8GHz.
>
> Kveri
>
> tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
>   
>> Hello,
>>
>> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
>> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to 
>> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>>
>> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
>> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
>> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
>> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>>
>> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for 
>> the RT kernel :
>>
>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
>> stats
>> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
>> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>>
>> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>>
>> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>>
>> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for 
>> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
>> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server 
>> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>>
>>
>> --- tuorpeZ
>>
>>
>> en3my a écrit :
>>   
>> 
>>> None.
>>>
>>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>>
>>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature in 
>>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
>>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>>
>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>> en3my
>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
>>> 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> @Enemy
>>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>> Philipp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> en3my schrieb:
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on 
>>>>> my
>>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>>>>> by
>>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>>
>>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings 
>>>>> in
>>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>>>>> try
>>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>>
>>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>>>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities
>>>>> ("man renice").
>>>>>
>>>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB 
>>>>> of
>>>>> ram, use 64bit distro.
>>>>>
>>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>>> en3my
>>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>>
>>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>>
>>>>>
>&

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

They do, because of IRQ.

Kveri

en3my  wrote / napísal(a):
> None.
>
> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>
> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature in 
> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> en3my
>  www.2Po.eu
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
>   
>> @Enemy
>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>
>> best regards,
>> Philipp
>>
>>
>> en3my schrieb:
>> 
>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on 
>>> my
>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>>> by
>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>
>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings 
>>> in
>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>>> try
>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>
>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities
>>> ("man renice").
>>>
>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB 
>>> of
>>> ram, use 64bit distro.
>>>
>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>> en3my
>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>> Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
>>>> Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
>>>> no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.
>>>>
>>>> In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
>>>> suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
>>>> us know of your findings.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> 2 Faustas:
>>>>> I think if they've hacked the output of "stats - fps" value, they would
>>>>> not
>>>>> change the "stats - cpu use" field. Don't they? :) Any way, not me nor 
>>>>> my
>>>>> friends have a single complain about GH.com servers. That's why i 
>>>>> belive
>>>>> the
>>>>> text i see in "stats" command and i belive stable 1000 fps is possible 
>>>>> to
>>>>> archive (under Linux, don't know about others OS's).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 J T:
>>>>> I'm not advertising any companies hosting. I've just told that 
>>>>> "perfect"
>>>>> server is a real thing :)
>>>>>
>>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>>> en3my
>>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>>
>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:55 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
>>>>>> with "sys_ticrate 1".
>>>>>> Using -pingboost 3 with s

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

Maybe because your cpu cannot handle it? pingboost 3 is more performance 
hungry than pingboost 2. But it really doesn't matter if you have 900 or 
1000 fps, you are not able to run 1000fps stable, maybe 980-1000 yes, 
but not 1000 stable. Btw in GSP terms, 900FPS = 1000FPS.

Kveri

xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
> Hi.
> Just tested one server with -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 1000 on my 
> 1000hz kernel, No Preemt, Tickless.
> And it was even worse then with -pingboost 2 and +sys_ticrate 1000.
>
> got about 900fps fairly stable with the pingboost 3 option.
>
> And 980fps stable with -pingboost 2 option.
>
> Wierd.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Faustas Buškevičius wrote:
>   
>> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
>> with "sys_ticrate 1".
>> Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
>> related" problems at all.
>>
>> On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
>> more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
>> GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
>> think the whole output might have been false.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
>>> "performance"?
>>>
>>> I can has performance?
>>>
>>>
>>> Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 you are
>>>> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be able
>>>> to feel the drops on your server.
>>>>
>>>> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to rent
>>>> HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't know
>>>> how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they give is
>>>> just amazing.
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>> I have no other services running but opensshserver,
>>>>> Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
>>>>> have speeded servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kveri wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   
>>>>>> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kveri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to
>>>>>>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   
>>>> output
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>>>> of "rcon stats".
>>>>>>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>>&

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

There is no chance of running 1000fps stable server on any hardware, YOU 
CAN'T GET 1000FPS STILL server. I'm running 998-1000fps server on 
celeron 1,8GHz.

Kveri

tuorpeZ  wrote / napísal(a):
> Hello,
>
> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to 
> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>
> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>
> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for 
> the RT kernel :
>
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>
> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>
> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>
> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for 
> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server 
> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>
>
> --- tuorpeZ
>
>
> en3my a écrit :
>   
>> None.
>>
>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>
>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature in 
>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>
>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>> en3my
>>  www.2Po.eu
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
>> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> @Enemy
>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>> Philipp
>>>
>>>
>>> en3my schrieb:
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on 
>>>> my
>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>>>> by
>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>
>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings 
>>>> in
>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>>>> try
>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>
>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities
>>>> ("man renice").
>>>>
>>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB 
>>>> of
>>>> ram, use 64bit distro.
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>> Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
>>>>> Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
>>>>> no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
>>>>> suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
>>>>> us know of your findings.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>&

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Philipp Reddigau]

Hi,
the server do not using 70% it is using maybe 7% its a failure at 
sv_stats because you have set user_hz to 1000. look at your power @ top 
and disable the cpu feature at server commandline +sv_stats 0

greets
tuorpeZ schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
> I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to 
> get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.
>
> Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
> Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
> Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
> Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
> Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch
>
> Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for 
> the RT kernel :
>
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> 71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
> stats
> CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
> 70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0
>
> BUT 70% CPU without players !
>
> Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.
>
> I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for 
> HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
> Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server 
> class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?
>
>
> --- tuorpeZ
>
>
> en3my a écrit :
>   
>> None.
>>
>> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>>
>> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature in 
>> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
>> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>>
>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>> en3my
>>  www.2Po.eu
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
>> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> @Enemy
>>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>> Philipp
>>>
>>>
>>> en3my schrieb:
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on 
>>>> my
>>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>>>> by
>>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>>
>>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings 
>>>> in
>>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>>>> try
>>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>>
>>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities
>>>> ("man renice").
>>>>
>>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB 
>>>> of
>>>> ram, use 64bit distro.
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>>> Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
>>>>> Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
>>>>> no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
>>>>> suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
>>>>> us know of your findings.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[tuorpeZ]

Hello,

Has someone succeed to get a stable 1000fps hlds on a core2duo ?
I tryed a lot of different kernel configurations but I never achieve to 
get FPS close to 1000 for a long time.

Here what I've already tested (64bits) :
Kernel 2.6.24.5 default
Kernel 2.6.24.5 1000HZ
Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ No preempt
Kernel 2.6.27.4 1000HZ preempt
Kernel 2.6.27.4 1500HZ preempt (With USER_HZ=1500)
Kernel 2.6.26.6 1000HZ preempt + RT patch

Neither of those kernels achieve to get a stable +/- 900 fps except for 
the RT kernel :

CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
71.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  930.23   0
stats
CPU   InOut   Uptime  Users   FPSPlayers
70.00  0.00  0.00  15 2  855.43   0

BUT 70% CPU without players !

Other kernels cause some drops to 300FPS.

I think that my box (c2duo 2x2Ghz) simply can't compute 1000fps for 
HLDS... I think that it is only possible on a Xeon/Opteron CPU.
Am I wrong ? Did someone succeed to get 1000fps on other than a "server 
class" CPU (ie Xeon/Opteron) ?


--- tuorpeZ


en3my a écrit :
> None.
>
> Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.
>
> One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature in 
> MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
> mess your FPS, but belive they do :)
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> en3my
>  www.2Po.eu
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
>   
>> @Enemy
>> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>>
>> best regards,
>> Philipp
>>
>>
>> en3my schrieb:
>> 
>>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on 
>>> my
>>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>>> by
>>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>>
>>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings 
>>> in
>>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>>> try
>>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>>
>>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities
>>> ("man renice").
>>>
>>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB 
>>> of
>>> ram, use 64bit distro.
>>>
>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>> en3my
>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>> Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
>>>> Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
>>>> no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.
>>>>
>>>> In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
>>>> suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
>>>> us know of your findings.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> 2 Faustas:
>>>>> I think if they've hacked the output of "stats - fps" value, they would
>>>>> not
>>>>> change the "stats - cpu use" field. Don't they? :) Any way, not me nor 
>>>>> my
>>>>> friends have a single complain about GH.com servers. That's why i 
>>>>> belive
>>>>> the
>>>>> text i see in "stats" command and i belive stable 1000 fps is possible 
>>>>> to
>>>>> archive (under Linux, don't know about others OS's).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 J T:
>>>>> I

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[en3my]

None.

Default 2.6.26.6 kernel with config i've included in prev. mail.

One more thing i forgot to suggest - try to disable almost every feature in 
MB's BIOS - COM, LPT, USB, Sound, etc. I don't have proof that they really 
mess your FPS, but belive they do :)

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
en3my
 www.2Po.eu

- Original Message - 
From: "Philipp Reddigau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem


> @Enemy
> Wich Kernel patches are you using?
>
> best regards,
> Philipp
>
>
> en3my schrieb:
>> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on 
>> my
>> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is 
>> by
>> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at
>> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>>
>> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings 
>> in
>> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", 
>> try
>> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>>
>> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical
>> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you
>> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities
>> ("man renice").
>>
>> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB 
>> of
>> ram, use 64bit distro.
>>
>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>> en3my
>>  www.2Po.eu
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>> 
>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>
>>
>>
>>> Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
>>> Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
>>> no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.
>>>
>>> In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
>>> suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
>>> us know of your findings.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2 Faustas:
>>>> I think if they've hacked the output of "stats - fps" value, they would
>>>> not
>>>> change the "stats - cpu use" field. Don't they? :) Any way, not me nor 
>>>> my
>>>> friends have a single complain about GH.com servers. That's why i 
>>>> belive
>>>> the
>>>> text i see in "stats" command and i belive stable 1000 fps is possible 
>>>> to
>>>> archive (under Linux, don't know about others OS's).
>>>>
>>>> 2 J T:
>>>> I'm not advertising any companies hosting. I've just told that 
>>>> "perfect"
>>>> server is a real thing :)
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:55 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
>>>>> with "sys_ticrate 1".
>>>>> Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
>>>>> related" problems at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
>>>>> more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
>>>>> GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
>>>>> think the whole output might have been false.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't get it? Are y

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Philipp Reddigau]

@Enemy
Wich Kernel patches are you using?

best regards,
Philipp


en3my schrieb:
> Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on my 
> dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is by 
> using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at 
> http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config
>
> But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings in 
> "Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", try 
> kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).
>
> When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical 
> cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you 
> must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities 
> ("man renice").
>
> And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB of 
> ram, use 64bit distro.
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> en3my
>  www.2Po.eu
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 
> 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
>   
>> Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
>> Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
>> no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.
>>
>> In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
>> suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
>> us know of your findings.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2 Faustas:
>>> I think if they've hacked the output of "stats - fps" value, they would 
>>> not
>>> change the "stats - cpu use" field. Don't they? :) Any way, not me nor my
>>> friends have a single complain about GH.com servers. That's why i belive 
>>> the
>>> text i see in "stats" command and i belive stable 1000 fps is possible to
>>> archive (under Linux, don't know about others OS's).
>>>
>>> 2 J T:
>>> I'm not advertising any companies hosting. I've just told that "perfect"
>>> server is a real thing :)
>>>
>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>> en3my
>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
>>>> with "sys_ticrate 1".
>>>> Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
>>>> related" problems at all.
>>>>
>>>> On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
>>>> more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
>>>> GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
>>>> think the whole output might have been false.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
>>>>> "performance"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can has performance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be
>>>>>> able
>>>>>> to feel the drops on your server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to
>>>>>>

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[en3my]

Speaking on the subject... I was trying to archive 1000FPS performance on my 
dual quad box for few months under Debian Linux. Best result i've got is by 
using latest kernel (im using 2.6.26.5) with kernel config you can get at 
http://2po.eu/downloads/custom/www.2po.eu_linux_kernel_2.6.26.6.config

But i suggest anyone to experiment with "IO Schedulers", all the settings in 
"Processor type and features", try to disable all the "Power Managment", try 
kernel param "acpi=off" (append="acpi=off" for lilo.conf).

When dealing with lot of servers on one physical box (i have 8 physical 
cores and allow to run about 20 HLDS's and few HLDSS's at same time) you 
must experiment with affinities ("man taskset" in Linux) and priorities 
("man renice").

And as it was suggested before in this maillist - if you're using 4+ GB of 
ram, use 64bit distro.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
en3my
 www.2Po.eu

- Original Message - 
From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem


> Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
> Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
> no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.
>
> In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
> suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
> us know of your findings.
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2 Faustas:
>> I think if they've hacked the output of "stats - fps" value, they would 
>> not
>> change the "stats - cpu use" field. Don't they? :) Any way, not me nor my
>> friends have a single complain about GH.com servers. That's why i belive 
>> the
>> text i see in "stats" command and i belive stable 1000 fps is possible to
>> archive (under Linux, don't know about others OS's).
>>
>> 2 J T:
>> I'm not advertising any companies hosting. I've just told that "perfect"
>> server is a real thing :)
>>
>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>> en3my
>>  www.2Po.eu
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>> 
>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>
>>
>>> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
>>> with "sys_ticrate 1".
>>> Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
>>> related" problems at all.
>>>
>>> On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
>>> more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
>>> GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
>>> think the whole output might have been false.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
>>>> "performance"?
>>>>
>>>> I can has performance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 
>>>>> you
>>>>> are
>>>>> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be
>>>>> able
>>>>> to feel the drops on your server.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to
>>>>> rent
>>>>> HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't
>>>>> know
>>>>> how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they 
>>>>> give
>>>>> is
>>>>> just amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>>> en3my
>>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>>
>>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> To: "Half-Life d

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Faustas Buškevičius]

Take it easy :) I didn't say they "hacked" it.
Since CPU values have been known to be reported incorrectly, there's
no reason why fps values would *always* be reliable and accurate.

In response to OP, try running 1000hz, not tickless kernel. Kveri has
suggested doing so in the past. I think it's worth a shot. Please let
us know of your findings.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2 Faustas:
> I think if they've hacked the output of "stats - fps" value, they would not
> change the "stats - cpu use" field. Don't they? :) Any way, not me nor my
> friends have a single complain about GH.com servers. That's why i belive the
> text i see in "stats" command and i belive stable 1000 fps is possible to
> archive (under Linux, don't know about others OS's).
>
> 2 J T:
> I'm not advertising any companies hosting. I've just told that "perfect"
> server is a real thing :)
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> en3my
>  www.2Po.eu
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
> 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
>> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
>> with "sys_ticrate 1".
>> Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
>> related" problems at all.
>>
>> On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
>> more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
>> GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
>> think the whole output might have been false.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
>>> "performance"?
>>>
>>> I can has performance?
>>>
>>>
>>> Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 you
>>>> are
>>>> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be
>>>> able
>>>> to feel the drops on your server.
>>>>
>>>> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to
>>>> rent
>>>> HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't
>>>> know
>>>> how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they give
>>>> is
>>>> just amazing.
>>>>
>>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>>> en3my
>>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >I have no other services running but opensshserver,
>>>> > Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
>>>> > have speeded servers.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Kveri wrote:
>>>> >> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Kveri
>>>> >>
>>>> >> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the
>>>> output
>>>> >>> of "rcon stats".
>>>> >>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Regards.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[en3my]

2 Faustas:
I think if they've hacked the output of "stats - fps" value, they would not 
change the "stats - cpu use" field. Don't they? :) Any way, not me nor my 
friends have a single complain about GH.com servers. That's why i belive the 
text i see in "stats" command and i belive stable 1000 fps is possible to 
archive (under Linux, don't know about others OS's).

2 J T:
I'm not advertising any companies hosting. I've just told that "perfect" 
server is a real thing :)

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
en3my
 www.2Po.eu

- Original Message - 
From: "Faustas Buskevicius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem


> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
> with "sys_ticrate 1".
> Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
> related" problems at all.
>
> On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
> more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
> GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
> think the whole output might have been false.
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
>> "performance"?
>>
>> I can has performance?
>>
>>
>> Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 you 
>>> are
>>> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be 
>>> able
>>> to feel the drops on your server.
>>>
>>> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to 
>>> rent
>>> HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't 
>>> know
>>> how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they give 
>>> is
>>> just amazing.
>>>
>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>> en3my
>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>
>>>
>>> >I have no other services running but opensshserver,
>>> > Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
>>> > have speeded servers.
>>> >
>>> > Regards.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Kveri wrote:
>>> >> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>>> >>
>>> >> Kveri
>>> >>
>>> >> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>>> >>
>>> >>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down 
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the
>>> output
>>> >>> of "rcon stats".
>>> >>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Hi.
>>> >>>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>>> >>>>> resources from the server?
>>> >>>>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about
>>> >>>>> 970-985fps.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time..
>>> >>>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things
>>> >>>> cause the drops.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>&

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[xLnT]

Hi.
Just tested one server with -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 1000 on my 
1000hz kernel, No Preemt, Tickless.
And it was even worse then with -pingboost 2 and +sys_ticrate 1000.

got about 900fps fairly stable with the pingboost 3 option.

And 980fps stable with -pingboost 2 option.

Wierd.

Regards


Faustas Buškevičius wrote:
> -pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
> with "sys_ticrate 1".
> Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
> related" problems at all.
>
> On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
> more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
> GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
> think the whole output might have been false.
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
>> "performance"?
>>
>> I can has performance?
>>
>>
>> Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 you are
>>> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be able
>>> to feel the drops on your server.
>>>
>>> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to rent
>>> HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't know
>>> how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they give is
>>> just amazing.
>>>
>>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>>> en3my
>>>  www.2Po.eu
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>> I have no other services running but opensshserver,
>>>> Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
>>>> have speeded servers.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kveri wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kveri
>>>>>
>>>>> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to
>>>>>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the
>>>>>> 
>>> output
>>>   
>>>>>> of "rcon stats".
>>>>>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>>>>>>>> resources from the server?
>>>>>>>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about
>>>>>>>> 970-985fps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time..
>>>>>>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things
>>>>>>> cause the drops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> --
>> -
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ___
>> 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] The 1000fps problem

[Faustas Buškevičius]

-pingboost 3 only gives "speeded servers" when used in combination
with "sys_ticrate 1".
Using -pingboost 3 with sys_ticrate 1000 will not cause any "speed
related" problems at all.

On an unrelated, personal and subjective side note, I haven't seen
more than 0.75% CPU usage via "rcon stats" on any of the mentioned
GSPs HLDS servers with 10 players on them two years ago. Which made me
think the whole output might have been false.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, J T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
> "performance"?
>
> I can has performance?
>
>
> Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri
>
> ?
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 you are
>> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be able
>> to feel the drops on your server.
>>
>> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to rent
>> HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't know
>> how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they give is
>> just amazing.
>>
>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>> en3my
>>  www.2Po.eu
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
>> 
>> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>>
>>
>> >I have no other services running but opensshserver,
>> > Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
>> > have speeded servers.
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> >
>> >
>> > Kveri wrote:
>> >> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>> >>
>> >> Kveri
>> >>
>> >> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>> >>
>> >>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to
>> >>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the
>> output
>> >>> of "rcon stats".
>> >>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>> >>>
>> >>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi.
>> >>>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>> >>>>> resources from the server?
>> >>>>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about
>> >>>>> 970-985fps.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time..
>> >>>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things
>> >>>> cause the drops.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___
> 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] The 1000fps problem

[J T]

I don't get it? Are you advertising that game-hosting.com gives better
"performance"?

I can has performance?


Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1, Kveri

?


On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 you are
> lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be able
> to feel the drops on your server.
>
> Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to rent
> HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't know
> how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they give is
> just amazing.
>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
> en3my
>  www.2Po.eu
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list"
> 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem
>
>
> >I have no other services running but opensshserver,
> > Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
> > have speeded servers.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> >
> > Kveri wrote:
> >> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
> >>
> >> Kveri
> >>
> >> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
> >>
> >>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to
> >>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the
> output
> >>> of "rcon stats".
> >>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
> >>>
> >>> So youre telling me its not possible?
> >>>
> >>> Regards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gary Stanley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi.
> >>>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
> >>>>> resources from the server?
> >>>>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about
> >>>>> 970-985fps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time..
> >>>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things
> >>>> cause the drops.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
>



-- 
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

Use sys_ticrate 1000 not 1

Kveri

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Nov 2008, at 12:43, xLnT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I have no other services running but opensshserver,
> Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
> have speeded servers.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Kveri wrote:
>> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>>
>>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops  
>>> down to
>>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the  
>>> output
>>> of "rcon stats".
>>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>>>
>>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>>
 At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:



> Hi.
> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
> resources from the server?
> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about  
> 970-985fps.
>
>
>
 You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time..
 Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things
 cause the drops.



>>> ___
>>> 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] The 1000fps problem

[en3my]

If you've managed to get 970+ FPS without constant drops to 500-750 you are 
lucky one or linux/HLDS guru :) I belive even CS pro-players won't be able 
to feel the drops on your server.

Best example to ensure yourself that stable 1000FPS is possible is to rent 
HLDS from www.game-hosting.com (im using hosting in Sweden). I don't know 
how many HLDSs they have on one box/cpu core, but performance they give is 
just amazing.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
en3my
 www.2Po.eu

- Original Message - 
From: "xLnT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" 

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem


>I have no other services running but opensshserver,
> Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't
> have speeded servers.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Kveri wrote:
>> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>>
>> Kveri
>>
>> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>>
>>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to
>>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the output
>>> of "rcon stats".
>>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>>>
>>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>>>>> resources from the server?
>>>>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 
>>>>> 970-985fps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time..
>>>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things
>>>> cause the drops.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] The 1000fps problem

[xLnT]

I have no other services running but opensshserver,
Using -pingboost 3 you get a speeded server. And this provider don't 
have speeded servers.

Regards.


Kveri wrote:
> but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.
>
> Kveri
>
> xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
>   
>> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to 
>> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the output 
>> of "rcon stats".
>> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>>
>> So youre telling me its not possible?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> Gary Stanley wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
 Hi.
 I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
 resources from the server?
 A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.
 
   
 
>>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time.. 
>>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things 
>>> cause the drops.
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>> ___
>> 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] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

but with no other services running, like apache mysql etc. Just hlds.

Kveri

xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to 
> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the output 
> of "rcon stats".
> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>
> So youre telling me its not possible?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Gary Stanley wrote:
>   
>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> Hi.
>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>>> resources from the server?
>>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.
>>> 
>>>   
>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time.. 
>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things 
>> cause the drops.
>>   
>> 
>
> ___
> 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] The 1000fps problem

[Kveri]

it is possible.

linux hernel 1000Hz, low latency desktop, -pingboost 3, sys_ticrate 1000

xLnT  wrote / napísal(a):
> There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to 
> 500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the output 
> of "rcon stats".
> I have tried asking them, but no luck.
>
> So youre telling me its not possible?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Gary Stanley wrote:
>   
>> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> Hi.
>>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>>> resources from the server?
>>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.
>>> 
>>>   
>> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time.. 
>> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things 
>> cause the drops.
>>   
>> 
>
> ___
> 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] The 1000fps problem

[xLnT]

There is one provider that have 1000fps constantly (with drops down to 
500fps sometimes) on their server, or perhaps they are faking the output 
of "rcon stats".
I have tried asking them, but no luck.

So youre telling me its not possible?

Regards.


Gary Stanley wrote:
> At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>   
>> Hi.
>> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>> resources from the server?
>> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.
>> 
>
> You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time.. 
> Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things 
> cause the drops.
>   

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>Hi.
>I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>resources from the server?
>A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.

You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time.. 
Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things 
cause the drops.


G. "Monk" Stanley

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~gary

"There currently are 7 different ways to get time from a computer. 
All of them can't agree on how long a second is supposed to be" -Me







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Gary Stanley]

At 05:52 AM 11/9/2008, xLnT wrote:
>Hi.
>I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max
>resources from the server?
>A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.

You're not going to able be able to run it that high all the time.. 
Interrupt latency, scheduler latency, and a bunch of other things 
cause the drops.


G. "Monk" Stanley

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~gary

"There currently are 7 different ways to get time from a computer. 
All of them can't agree on how long a second is supposed to be" -Me







___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[Marcel]

xLnT schrieb:
> Hi.
> I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max 
> resources from the server?
> A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.
> 
> Here's a paste from a server.
> 
> http://paste.prco23.org/32971
> 
> This is a single server on a Debian Lenny setup, Dual Quadcore 2.5Ghz, 
> 8GB RAM, 73GB SAS 15krpm.
> 
> Anyone got their server to run 1000fps stable.. with few drops?
> 
> Regards.


You should test your server with 10 players. I think no one then reaches 
stable >950FPS.

- Marcel

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux

[hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem

[xLnT]

Hi.
I am really bothered, what is it that makes hlds NOT to use max 
resources from the server?
A gameserver reaches 1000fps sometimes.. but mostly its about 970-985fps.

Here's a paste from a server.

http://paste.prco23.org/32971

This is a single server on a Debian Lenny setup, Dual Quadcore 2.5Ghz, 
8GB RAM, 73GB SAS 15krpm.

Anyone got their server to run 1000fps stable.. with few drops?

Regards.

___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please 
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux