Re: [hlds] Voice Options Commands

[HoundDawg]

As part of building the new replacement site for UnitedAdmins.com, I've
created a page that covers the voice system cvars for the server:

http://hl.wwgaming.com/serving/view-page.php?i=5

HoundDawg
http://www.phpGamingSite.com
http://www.unitedadmins.com
http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
- Original Message -
From: Matrix11
To: HLDS List
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: [hlds] Voice Options Commands


All,

Any one know where I can find the commands associated with the new Voice
features in HL?

Thanks,

Matrix11

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

Re: [hlds] [OT] HLDS Listserv 452 Insufficient system storage

[Elminst]

If only it were that easy, Sys...

- Original Message -
From: "Sysop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "HLDS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] [OT] HLDS Listserv 452 Insufficient system storage


> Hello,
>
> I would like you to stop using AOL.
>
> On Sat, 2001-10-20 at 17:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like you to stop sending this mail.
>
>
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
please visit:
> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>

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

Re: [hlds] ATTN!!!!!!!! EVERYONE READ!!!! PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!$$$$$

[Eric Riden]

Not restartig on the same maps, Yes, I have rebooted Win 2000


>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [hlds] ATTN EVERYONE READ PLEASE HELP$
>Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:51:32 -0700
>
>Is it always crashing on the same map? Have you rebooted Win2000?
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Eric Riden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:10 PM
>Subject: [hlds] ATTN EVERYONE READ PLEASE HELP$
>
>
> > Maybe you can help me with this. EVERYDAY, sometime in the afternoon to
> > early evening, while I am at work, my server crashes. I restart it when 
>I
> > get home about 1am, and its fine till I leave for work the next evening
> > about 4pm. I have tried alot of troubleshooting such as determining if 
>one
> > of the plugins is causing it by ; each plugin one at a time for days 
>until
>I
> > ran out of plugins that I added after installing admin mod. I also shut
>the
> > server down and restarted it right before I left for work, and it still
> > crashed before 8pm sometime. So, I turned to reading the forums and saw 
>a
> > thread about having too much stuff in my servercfg file. I took out all
>the
> > unnecessary stuff, and left all the admin cvars with only a few of the 
>hl
> > cvars that are essential. Still crashed when I got home. I had logging 
>on,
> > and each time the server crashed, it had nothing in the log that I could
>see
> > may have caused it. I just recently turned debug mode on, but I am 
>unsure
> > where that file is kept, or what to do with it. Also, isnt there a file
>that
> > shows what error occurs when a server crashes? If so, where is it and
>whats
> > it called, cause I cant find it. Is there a possibility that someone is
> > causing the server to crash? If someone knows of a way that clients can
> > crash a server, please tell me how so I can look for it in the logs, and
>ban
> > the ass who may be doing it. I honestly think thats what may be 
>happening.
> > BTW, I had this same problem a while ago, but went away for a short 
>time.
>I
> > read back through the forums to my original post and Gerg said to post 
>my
> > log with debugging on, so thats what I will do after it crashes again. 
>The
> > last log I had at the crash (I deleted already ) just showd blank at the
> > very end of it. I think someone had just built an SG or something.
>Somebody
> > else posted to my original post saying there was a patch out for hlds? 
>Is
>it
> > for hlserver or just for cs server, cause I run a TFC server. If its for
> > hlds, the please post the link so I can try that next. Here is one of 
>the
> > logs that I got when server crashed. I was in the server window at the
>time
> > typing a message that I guess may have been too long and it created an
>error
> > in hlds.exe. Hope you can give me some insight.
> >
> > Attachment: l1018021.zip
> >
> > My buddy is having this same problem...
> >
> > Before the last patch my server would be up for days straight. Now i'm
>lucky
> > if it stays up for 12 hours. I have the latest version of admin mod plus
>the
> > latest hl patch. I run a dedicated server on a Windows 2000 machine. 
>Like
>i
> > said, it worked great till that last hl patch. Here are the last 2 lines
>of
> > my log before it went downit usually ends alot like this...;L
>10/16/2001
> > - 13:36:15: "[RB]Heretic<753><280117>" killed "Major Death
> > Dog<751><1362904>" with "supershotgun"
> > L 10/16/2001 - 13:36:17: "Major Death Dog<751><1362904>" triggered
> > "info_player_teamspawn"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
>please visit:
> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >
>
>___
>To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, 
>please visit:
>http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

Re: [hlds] [OT] HLDS Listserv 452 Insufficient system storage

[Sysop]

Hello, 

I would like you to stop using AOL.

On Sat, 2001-10-20 at 17:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like you to stop sending this mail.



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

Re: [hlds] [OT] HLDS Listserv 452 Insufficient system storage

[BlazinAzn100]

Hello,

I would like you to stop sending this mail.

[hlds] TFC: SERIOUS problems with TFC -- I'm REALLY frustrated

[Pete Claar]

To the folks at Valve,

I run a popular TFC server -- "Pete's Avanti/Dustbowl server at
64.81.165.122:27015"  I'm #6 for TFC servers on theclq.com.

I've been having nothing but problems with build 4108, and 4108b beta.
HoundDawg has stated them on the message boards before and I need to
underscore the seriousness of these bugs.  Players are getting increasingly
frustrated with the game play and are giving up on TFC.  I think TFC is a
great game but I'm about to chuck the whole thing in if these problems are
not addressed.

Here are the two big problems:

1.  Server crashes.  About twice a day, the server goes nuts and quits.  I'm
running serverdoc, which restarts the server.  But the server quits again
and again and again, maybe 5 times or more, before it finally "stabilizes"
and things work okay until the next hiccup.  Nothing is written to the logs,
but I did notice once that there was some sort of network error listed in
the hlds console window -- the problem is that the console window disappears
before I get a chance to read it!

2. I lose HALF my players on EVERY SINGLE map change.  These players have
trouble picking a team when a map starts.  The only way they can join the
game is to disconnect from the server and reconnect.

About my configuration:
-- I'm running on Windows 2000 Server
-- The server runs 24 players.
-- 4107 ran PERFECTLY for months and months without any problems
-- I'm running 4108b2 right now, but the problems exist in 4108 too.
-- I'm running hlstats on the same machine as the TFC server, which
collects stats from this and another server of mine.
-- My machine has plenty of CPU and memory  (over 100MB free physical
memory, CPU runs at about 30% with a full server)
-- I have plenty of spare bandwith (1.1MB SDSL)
-- sv_minrate is 3000 and sv_maxrate is 5000
-- I run the latest admin mod with some custom scripts (this is not the
culprit, see below)

I have tried a handful of things to try and isolate the problem.  I'll list
them below.

--Bad install: ruled out.  I reinstalled a virgin copy of 4108 FROM SCRATCH
and still have the same problems.
--Firewall: ruled out. I have a Sonicwall Soho2 Firewall. I took it
COMPLETELY out of my network for several hours and TFC was still having
problems
--Admin mod: ruled out.  I normally run the admin mod (latest version
2.50.07 with 1.10.0.0 metamod.dll)  I encountered the bugs *without* admin
mod installed, although I'm running the server now with admin mod.

I think it really boils down to problems with build 4108.

I am more than happy to provide anyone at Valve anything else they need to
help fix these problems!!  TFC's a great game, but we're starting to lose
people to other mp games.  It's frustrating for me, and especially
frustrating for the players, who complain to me bitterly about it.

I appreciate any help.  Thanks in advance!

Pete Claar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

[hlds] Bots recommendations?

[Frank Mann]

I tried using realbots on 1108hlds and it really screwed up... The server
woudlnt let anyone connect and then exited after loading the map. Anyone
recommend a good..trouble free bots program?

Grampa

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of HL Server
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds] [OT] Re: LinuxList: The Penguin promised land]


I posted the availability of the new LinuxList in another mailing list I
belong to ...  That message follows:

[QUOTE]
With regard to what has transpired a couple months ago on this very list,
and with the current state of Microsoft's impending releases, a LOT of
people are looking into Linux ...  Even another list I'm on full of Windows
Admins are asking the question why not give Linux a shot ...

In response to this, I have set up a list for Linux Newbie's coming from
the Microsoft world.  If you would like to join this list, simply send an
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and instructions on how to post to the
list will be sent to you ...  Linux admins that have experience are
encouraged to join and show us the way ...

I apologize for this off topic message, but I think coming from the IMS
background and knowing the pain of software prices, it's time for us to
explore Linux as an alternative ...  I only ask and offer that we help each
other out by sharing our information together ...
[/QUOTE]

The people on this list are ISPs all around the world ...  Overnight some
subscribed and I see a couple .au and .uk domains in there ... While typing
this, a guy from Hawaii joined ... Another messaged me back as follows:

[QUOTE]
I just joined your list. I've already moved some stuff to
Linux and will be moving mail soon. I think David Glynn's
ready too - you still around David? I'll try and get my
new SA to join too. He's pretty knowledgable about Linux
but not about mail servers.
[/QUOTE]

So if anyone is interested in getting into Linux and sharing their trials
and tribulations, please join the list and share this information ...

Send an email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be joined ...
or visit the web site at http://linux.wombatsweb.com ...

At 07:17 AM 10/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:

>How about those network drives that decide to disconnect themselves
>after a period of non use?  Gotta love that...
>
>On Wed, 2001-10-17 at 02:12, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> > > LOL, why do I feel like the scout?  Running ahead, look guys,
> > > it works!
> > > and they all come following
> > >
> > > Seriously tho, I'd be willing to put up a bbs or mailing list for us
> > > winders guys that are trying to make the transition over to the
> > > promise/penguin land...
> >
> > That would be cool.  And thanks to Sysop for that link.  Added it to my
fav
> > list in my Linux folder.Should make a good reference.
> >
> > Hey, here's just one example of why I hate the direction Microsoft
> > moves/thinks in.  I have 2 NT4 Server machines and 1 Linux machine on a
> > manual (non powered) DIN-5 KB/Serial Mouse KVM switch.  Both NT4 and
Linux
> > work just fine with it, with the occasional device timeout message in
the
> > NT4 system log, because it hasn't "heard from" the keyboard in a while.
No
> > big deal.  It still works.
> >
> > I threw a W2K server machine, 233MMX with DIN-5 KB and serial mouse on
this
> > KVM.  Guess what?  Switching the KVM away from the W2K machine after
> booting
> > it kills the serial mouse driver, and the cursor is gone from the
screen!
> > Only way to get it back is by rebooting, because you can't manually
restart
> > the mouse driver.  WTF Microsoft??  What are your engineers thinking?
> > Apparently they never considered anyone would install W2K on a non PS/2
> > kb/mouse machine.
> >
> > This is just one more chink in the MS armor, and another on the long
> list of
> > reasons I'm wanting to become a penguin user...
> >
> > StanTheMan
> > TheHardwareFreak
> > www.hardwarefreak.devastation.cc
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>
>
>
>___
>To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
>please visit:
>http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds

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

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

RE: [hlds] Other Questions from: HLDS Win2k Server/ Networking Post

[-AbFab-ShAdy]

I looked through my archives from past discussions on this matter, and found
the attached e-mail from a member, I hope it helps

Adrian


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Parrot
Sent: 20 October 2001 21:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [hlds] Other Questions from: HLDS Win2k Server/ Networking Post


Thanks for all the clarification about switches and hubs, but could anyone
give me any words of wisdom on the heart of my  earlier post?  I would sure
appreciate your help on any of the rest of it.

Thanks,
Mikee

Please Note: This is a Duplicate of my first post=
I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network with a
full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a Cisco...it was
only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View" menu
interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not Advanced
Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink Server
(3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for MS
Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the settings
Manuel had also said below.

I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have "TCP/IP"
enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect the
Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the Server and
LAN PC.   These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard that a
switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the
differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the router CAT
cable connects into.

===Note: Now I'm glad I chose a switch!!===

Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more
simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and running
it with a custom user profile.  I also Ghosted and image in case it gets
hacked.  I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of maps!) pretty
quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC.

How does this setup sound to you?  The pings for people are superba lot
are getting pings under 50!  I am also now running a second HLDS, both
running as shortcuts..not as services.  So far the most people I have had
connected to both games running is about 35...and no crashes or other
problems have come up running this for about a week straight (have not had
to reboot, or restart, etc.).

Sorry this is so long...I'm getting to the heart of my question, but another
thought I had was at some point to get another (a third) dedicated (used) PC
box from someone, and use that as a dedicated game server, running Win2k
Pro,  put 2 NIC's in it, also plug them both into the switch, and then
configure one NIC to directly connect to the Internet (only using TCP/IP)
with another one of the block of public IP's.  Then have the 2nd NIC connect
in to the LAN so I could have configuring access from the network.  If I did
that I would also likely get one of those keyboard/mouse/monitor A/B
switches so I didn't have to put up another monitor.

I guess my real question is:  Is there anything wrong with having the Win2k
Server box that is also the gateway NAT routing PC run the HLDS games if
that's all I have on it?  People are getting excellent pings, with many
under 50!  I understand that the Server PC will get a bit more "stressed" if
I do file transfers, surfing, emailing, play HL as client, etc. from the LAN
PC I have now...but I thought that most all of these LAN requests just get
passed right through the Win2K Server box out to the Internet.  Is there any
point to setting up a third PC as a dedicated game server which would have a
less powerful OS on it?

Again, my apologies for this being so long, and many thanks for any
feedback.
==End of Previously posted note

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




Actually, If one over looks some of the
attitude in the list content, there is
good conversation within it.

Answer: Switch  (regardless of the application)

The only time I have ever seen a "hub"
win the performance edge over a "switch"
was when there was mis-configuration.
I use my Protocol Analyzer pretty much
every day in corporate world. I trouble
shoot backbones as a living, so I kind of
know what I'm talking about.

A "hub" is shared media half-duplex
all shared media is half duplex. This
means that stations connected to it
can't talk and listen at that same time.
It also means that every station has
to see, pickup, and process every
packet on the wire, even it is not
the intended recipient. Kind of like
a conference call.

Switches hook two ports directly together
so the transmitting/listening stations
can hold a private packet exchange session.
While they exchange their  packets, no one
else on the switc

[hlds] Other Questions from: HLDS Win2k Server/ Networking Post

[Mike Parrot]

Thanks for all the clarification about switches and hubs, but could anyone
give me any words of wisdom on the heart of my  earlier post?  I would sure
appreciate your help on any of the rest of it.

Thanks,
Mikee

Please Note: This is a Duplicate of my first post=
I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network with a
full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a Cisco...it was
only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View" menu
interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not Advanced
Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink Server
(3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for MS
Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the settings
Manuel had also said below.

I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have "TCP/IP"
enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect the
Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the Server and
LAN PC.   These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard that a
switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the
differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the router CAT
cable connects into.

===Note: Now I'm glad I chose a switch!!===

Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more
simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and running
it with a custom user profile.  I also Ghosted and image in case it gets
hacked.  I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of maps!) pretty
quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC.

How does this setup sound to you?  The pings for people are superba lot
are getting pings under 50!  I am also now running a second HLDS, both
running as shortcuts..not as services.  So far the most people I have had
connected to both games running is about 35...and no crashes or other
problems have come up running this for about a week straight (have not had
to reboot, or restart, etc.).

Sorry this is so long...I'm getting to the heart of my question, but another
thought I had was at some point to get another (a third) dedicated (used) PC
box from someone, and use that as a dedicated game server, running Win2k
Pro,  put 2 NIC's in it, also plug them both into the switch, and then
configure one NIC to directly connect to the Internet (only using TCP/IP)
with another one of the block of public IP's.  Then have the 2nd NIC connect
in to the LAN so I could have configuring access from the network.  If I did
that I would also likely get one of those keyboard/mouse/monitor A/B
switches so I didn't have to put up another monitor.

I guess my real question is:  Is there anything wrong with having the Win2k
Server box that is also the gateway NAT routing PC run the HLDS games if
that's all I have on it?  People are getting excellent pings, with many
under 50!  I understand that the Server PC will get a bit more "stressed" if
I do file transfers, surfing, emailing, play HL as client, etc. from the LAN
PC I have now...but I thought that most all of these LAN requests just get
passed right through the Win2K Server box out to the Internet.  Is there any
point to setting up a third PC as a dedicated game server which would have a
less powerful OS on it?

Again, my apologies for this being so long, and many thanks for any
feedback.
==End of Previously posted note

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

RE: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

[Robert J Mitchell]

:)
It's cool. It's just that a lot of people have the luxury of their
company's servers, etc. They forget about the rest of us.

 
-
Robert J Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Wrath_of_Ace
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

I was just pointing something out to him that is a lot faster than
Firewire
AKA IEEE 1394.

Dan

PS Saves you the trouble and *THWACKS* Myself.

- Original Message -
From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


> For the home user, dude. Not everyone feels like gearing their home
> network for fiber optics.
> Now, back to the main topic before I start thwackin'...
>
> -
> Robert J Mitchell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Wrath_of_Ace
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
> I think it is called Fibre Optical Network?  Just a guess here.
>
> Dan
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:24 PM
> Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
>
> > Now if only we could get Cat 5 to haul ass like firewire
(400MBps)...
> >
> >
> > -
> > Robert J Mitchell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 10:13 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> >
> > This is not correct. I have a 4 port hub. One of the ports goes to a
> > 10mbps
> > connection, the other 3 are 100mbps connections. The bandwidth from
> one
> > 100mbps connection to another 100mbps connection is exactly what you
> > would
> > expect, and is the same whether or not the 10mbps cable is plugged
in.
> > The
> > 10mbps connection lopes along at the slow 10mbps speed. Having one
> > 10mbps
> > connection does not effect the speed of the other ports at all. I've
> had
> > it
> > like this for a while - the 10mbps connection has no effect at all
on
> > the
> > speed of the 100mbps connections - they are lightning fast, while
the
> > 10mbps
> > is s slow.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Kelly Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:32 PM
> > Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> >
> >
> > > In response to Hubs vs Switches.
> > > One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub
runs
> > > all connections at the speed of the slowest connection.  Thus if
you
> > have
> > a
> > > 4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1
> > 10mb/sec
> > > connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at
> > 10mb/sec.
> > > However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed.
> Thus
> > if
> > you
> > > have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it,
> and
> > 1
> > > 10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections
> will
> > all
> > > run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at
10mb/sec.
> > >
> > > (To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded
> > controller,
> > > this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes
to
> > their
> > > configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the
> like.
> > The
> > > configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer.
Hubs
> > however,
> > > typically have no controller and thus typically are not
> configurable.)
> > >
> > > Kelly
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple
network
> > with
> > a
> > > full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a
> > Cisco...it
> > was
> > > only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View"
> > menu
> > > interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not
> > Advanced
> > > Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the hi

Re: [hlds] Voice Options Commands

[ANGELINA SAN]

for the server  or  game ??

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Matrix11 
  To: HLDS List 
  Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 3:50 
  PM
  Subject: [hlds] Voice Options 
  Commands
  
  All,
   
  Any one know where I can find the commands 
  associated with the new Voice features in HL?
   
  Thanks, 
   
  Matrix11

Re: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

[Wrath_of_Ace]

I was just pointing something out to him that is a lot faster than Firewire
AKA IEEE 1394.

Dan

PS Saves you the trouble and *THWACKS* Myself.

- Original Message -
From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


> For the home user, dude. Not everyone feels like gearing their home
> network for fiber optics.
> Now, back to the main topic before I start thwackin'...
>
> -
> Robert J Mitchell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Wrath_of_Ace
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
> I think it is called Fibre Optical Network?  Just a guess here.
>
> Dan
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:24 PM
> Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
>
> > Now if only we could get Cat 5 to haul ass like firewire (400MBps)...
> >
> >
> > -
> > Robert J Mitchell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 10:13 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> >
> > This is not correct. I have a 4 port hub. One of the ports goes to a
> > 10mbps
> > connection, the other 3 are 100mbps connections. The bandwidth from
> one
> > 100mbps connection to another 100mbps connection is exactly what you
> > would
> > expect, and is the same whether or not the 10mbps cable is plugged in.
> > The
> > 10mbps connection lopes along at the slow 10mbps speed. Having one
> > 10mbps
> > connection does not effect the speed of the other ports at all. I've
> had
> > it
> > like this for a while - the 10mbps connection has no effect at all on
> > the
> > speed of the 100mbps connections - they are lightning fast, while the
> > 10mbps
> > is s slow.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Kelly Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:32 PM
> > Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> >
> >
> > > In response to Hubs vs Switches.
> > > One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub runs
> > > all connections at the speed of the slowest connection.  Thus if you
> > have
> > a
> > > 4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1
> > 10mb/sec
> > > connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at
> > 10mb/sec.
> > > However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed.
> Thus
> > if
> > you
> > > have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it,
> and
> > 1
> > > 10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections
> will
> > all
> > > run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at 10mb/sec.
> > >
> > > (To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded
> > controller,
> > > this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes to
> > their
> > > configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the
> like.
> > The
> > > configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer.   Hubs
> > however,
> > > typically have no controller and thus typically are not
> configurable.)
> > >
> > > Kelly
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network
> > with
> > a
> > > full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a
> > Cisco...it
> > was
> > > only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View"
> > menu
> > > interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not
> > Advanced
> > > Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink
> Server
> > > (3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for
> MS
> > > Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the
> > settings
> > > Manuel had also said below.
> > >
> > > I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have
> > "TCP/IP"
> > > enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect
> > the
> > > Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the
> > Server
> > and
> > > LAN PC.   Th

RE: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

[Robert J Mitchell]

For the home user, dude. Not everyone feels like gearing their home
network for fiber optics.
Now, back to the main topic before I start thwackin'...
 
-
Robert J Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Wrath_of_Ace
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

I think it is called Fibre Optical Network?  Just a guess here.

Dan
- Original Message -
From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


> Now if only we could get Cat 5 to haul ass like firewire (400MBps)...
>
>
> -
> Robert J Mitchell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 10:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
> This is not correct. I have a 4 port hub. One of the ports goes to a
> 10mbps
> connection, the other 3 are 100mbps connections. The bandwidth from
one
> 100mbps connection to another 100mbps connection is exactly what you
> would
> expect, and is the same whether or not the 10mbps cable is plugged in.
> The
> 10mbps connection lopes along at the slow 10mbps speed. Having one
> 10mbps
> connection does not effect the speed of the other ports at all. I've
had
> it
> like this for a while - the 10mbps connection has no effect at all on
> the
> speed of the 100mbps connections - they are lightning fast, while the
> 10mbps
> is s slow.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kelly Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
>
> > In response to Hubs vs Switches.
> > One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub runs
> > all connections at the speed of the slowest connection.  Thus if you
> have
> a
> > 4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1
> 10mb/sec
> > connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at
> 10mb/sec.
> > However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed.
Thus
> if
> you
> > have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it,
and
> 1
> > 10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections
will
> all
> > run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at 10mb/sec.
> >
> > (To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded
> controller,
> > this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes to
> their
> > configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the
like.
> The
> > configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer.   Hubs
> however,
> > typically have no controller and thus typically are not
configurable.)
> >
> > Kelly
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> >
> >
> > I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network
> with
> a
> > full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a
> Cisco...it
> was
> > only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View"
> menu
> > interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not
> Advanced
> > Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink
Server
> > (3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for
MS
> > Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the
> settings
> > Manuel had also said below.
> >
> > I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have
> "TCP/IP"
> > enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect
> the
> > Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the
> Server
> and
> > LAN PC.   These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard
that
> a
> > switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the
> > differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the
router
> CAT
> > cable connects into.
> >
> > Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more
> > simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and
> running
> > it with a custom user profile.  I also Ghosted and image in case it
> gets
> > hacked.  I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of
maps!)
> pretty
> > quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC.
> >
> > How does th

[OT]Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

[Wrath_of_Ace]

I think it is called Fibre Optical Network?  Just a guess here.

Dan
- Original Message -
From: "Robert J Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


> Now if only we could get Cat 5 to haul ass like firewire (400MBps)...
>
>
> -
> Robert J Mitchell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 10:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
> This is not correct. I have a 4 port hub. One of the ports goes to a
> 10mbps
> connection, the other 3 are 100mbps connections. The bandwidth from one
> 100mbps connection to another 100mbps connection is exactly what you
> would
> expect, and is the same whether or not the 10mbps cable is plugged in.
> The
> 10mbps connection lopes along at the slow 10mbps speed. Having one
> 10mbps
> connection does not effect the speed of the other ports at all. I've had
> it
> like this for a while - the 10mbps connection has no effect at all on
> the
> speed of the 100mbps connections - they are lightning fast, while the
> 10mbps
> is s slow.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kelly Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
>
> > In response to Hubs vs Switches.
> > One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub runs
> > all connections at the speed of the slowest connection.  Thus if you
> have
> a
> > 4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1
> 10mb/sec
> > connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at
> 10mb/sec.
> > However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed.  Thus
> if
> you
> > have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and
> 1
> > 10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections will
> all
> > run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at 10mb/sec.
> >
> > (To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded
> controller,
> > this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes to
> their
> > configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the like.
> The
> > configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer.   Hubs
> however,
> > typically have no controller and thus typically are not configurable.)
> >
> > Kelly
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> >
> >
> > I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network
> with
> a
> > full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a
> Cisco...it
> was
> > only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View"
> menu
> > interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not
> Advanced
> > Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink Server
> > (3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for MS
> > Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the
> settings
> > Manuel had also said below.
> >
> > I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have
> "TCP/IP"
> > enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect
> the
> > Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the
> Server
> and
> > LAN PC.   These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard that
> a
> > switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the
> > differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the router
> CAT
> > cable connects into.
> >
> > Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more
> > simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and
> running
> > it with a custom user profile.  I also Ghosted and image in case it
> gets
> > hacked.  I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of maps!)
> pretty
> > quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC.
> >
> > How does this setup sound to you?  The pings for people are
> superba
> lot
> > are getting pings under 50!  I am also now running a second HLDS, both
> > running as shortcuts..not as services.  So far the most people I have
> had
> > connected to both games running is about 35...and no crashes or other
> > problems have come up running this for about a week straight (have not
> had
> > to reboot, or restart, etc.).
> >
> > Sorry this is so long...I'm getting to the heart of my question, but
> another
> > thought I had was at some point to

[hlds] Voice Options Commands

[Matrix11]

All,
 
Any one know where I can find the commands 
associated with the new Voice features in HL?
 
Thanks, 
 
Matrix11

RE: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?

[David Hammon]

Actually, it was removed from the 9v9 Open and Expert ladders the 18th,
as seen here: http://www.worldogl.com/ladderpanel.php?compid=96 and
here: http://www.worldogl.com/ladderpanel.php?compid=98  as well as the
5v5 open: http://www.worldogl.com/ladderpanel.php?compid=71  That pretty
much makes up all of the team TFC OGL competitions.

--Dave

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of HoundDawg
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 8:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?

Ah, finally, something more specific.  So, they haven't made it a rule
everywhere yet, just in the tfc 5v5 expert ladder.  So far, OGL, as a
whole,
hasn't made that determination yet.

HoundDawg
http://www.phpGamingSite.com
http://www.unitedadmins.com
http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
- Original Message -
From: "Richard C. Ryzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?


> Are you slow or what, dated 10-19 in all tfc 5v5, expert and team.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "HoundDawg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
>
>
> > Do you guys even read what it says besides that it has the name
Punkbuster
> > in it?  First off, the last news posted was 8/20.  And in that,
where it
> > talks about the new rules, it states that PB is now required.
> >
> > Once again, provide some valid official backing to your rumors.
> >
> > *shakes head and roles eyes*
> >
> > HoundDawg
> > http://www.phpGamingSite.com
> > http://www.unitedadmins.com
> > http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Richard C. Ryzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> >
> >
> > > Ogl's halflife, teamfortress, 5v5 has it on its news page.
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "HoundDawg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 7:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> > >
> > >
> > > > =P
> > > >
> > > > HoundDawg
> > > > http://www.phpGamingSite.com
> > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com
> > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "Sysop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:27 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ROFL..
> > > > >
> > > > > PS there is a virus attached to this email
> > > > >
> > > > > FORWARD TO EVERYBODY THAT YOU KNOW, and even those that you
don't!!
> > (;
> > > > >
> > > > > HoundDawg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > well, before you go on spreading this rumor please back
it
up
> > with
> > > > > > some sort of official news release link or something.
Neither
> > > > > > PunkBuster or OGL has anything posted regarding what you
just
> > > > mentioned...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HoundDawg
> > > > > > http://www.phpGamingSite.com
> > > > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com
> > > > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > * From:* Richard C. Ryzner 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *To:* HLDS 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Sent:* Friday, October 19, 2001 4:55 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Subject:* [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It has started. OGL announced today that PB is no longer
required.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list
> archives,
> > > > please visit:
> > > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list
archives,
> > > please visit:
> > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> > >
> > > ___
> > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list
archives,
> > please visit:
> > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list
archives,
> please visit:
> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
please visit:
> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>
>

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

__

RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

[Robert J Mitchell]

Now if only we could get Cat 5 to haul ass like firewire (400MBps)...

 
-
Robert J Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
 
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 10:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

This is not correct. I have a 4 port hub. One of the ports goes to a
10mbps
connection, the other 3 are 100mbps connections. The bandwidth from one
100mbps connection to another 100mbps connection is exactly what you
would
expect, and is the same whether or not the 10mbps cable is plugged in.
The
10mbps connection lopes along at the slow 10mbps speed. Having one
10mbps
connection does not effect the speed of the other ports at all. I've had
it
like this for a while - the 10mbps connection has no effect at all on
the
speed of the 100mbps connections - they are lightning fast, while the
10mbps
is s slow.


- Original Message -
From: "Kelly Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


> In response to Hubs vs Switches.
> One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub runs
> all connections at the speed of the slowest connection.  Thus if you
have
a
> 4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1
10mb/sec
> connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at
10mb/sec.
> However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed.  Thus
if
you
> have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and
1
> 10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections will
all
> run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at 10mb/sec.
>
> (To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded
controller,
> this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes to
their
> configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the like.
The
> configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer.   Hubs
however,
> typically have no controller and thus typically are not configurable.)
>
> Kelly
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
>
> I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network
with
a
> full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a
Cisco...it
was
> only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View"
menu
> interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not
Advanced
> Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink Server
> (3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for MS
> Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the
settings
> Manuel had also said below.
>
> I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have
"TCP/IP"
> enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect
the
> Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the
Server
and
> LAN PC.   These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard that
a
> switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the
> differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the router
CAT
> cable connects into.
>
> Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more
> simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and
running
> it with a custom user profile.  I also Ghosted and image in case it
gets
> hacked.  I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of maps!)
pretty
> quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC.
>
> How does this setup sound to you?  The pings for people are
superba
lot
> are getting pings under 50!  I am also now running a second HLDS, both
> running as shortcuts..not as services.  So far the most people I have
had
> connected to both games running is about 35...and no crashes or other
> problems have come up running this for about a week straight (have not
had
> to reboot, or restart, etc.).
>
> Sorry this is so long...I'm getting to the heart of my question, but
another
> thought I had was at some point to get another (a third) dedicated
(used)
PC
> box from someone, and use that as a dedicated game server, running
Win2k
> Pro,  put 2 NIC's in it, also plug them both into the switch, and then
> configure one NIC to directly connect to the Internet (only using
TCP/IP)
> with another one of the block of public IP's.  Then have the 2nd NIC
connect
> in to the LAN so I could have configuring access from the network.  If
I
did
> that I would also likely get one of those keyboard/mouse/monitor A/B
> switches so I didn't have to put 

Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam commands

[Matrix11]

Sweet!
 
Many thanks
 
Martix11

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mad Ad 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 9:59 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
  commands
  
  Yes!  
   
  What you want is these (values shown are 
  default)
   
  tfc_spam_limit 20  (sets number of messages 
  allowed per minute)
  tfc_spam_penalty1 8  (level1 gagging 
  punishment)
  
  tfc_spam_penalty2 2  (level2 gagging 
  punishment)
   
   
  The limit sets the max text messages they can do 
  in one minute.  Default is 20, somewhere about 12-14 is sensible.  
  Penalty one sets the amount of time they are initially gagged for, and penaly2 
  sets the additional time added for each extra spammed message.
   
  E.g.  Someone hits their 
  '!!!LOL--Headshot!!--LOL!!! bind 20 times in a minute.  the 21st time 
  they will recieve a message saying they have been quietened for 9 seconds for 
  spamming (yeah i know its set at 8, but it always does 9) ... If they shut up, 
  9 secs will pass, and they can talk again.  IF they continue tryiing to 
  spam, each message adds 2 secs gagging to their total gag time.
   
  Ours are now set up at _limit 12  _penalty1 
  20  _penalty2 30.  12 spams a minute allowed, on 13th gets a 20 sec 
  gag, and each extra spam after that gets them an extra 30 secs.
   
  Hope its clear now :)
   
  Ad
  {mad Ad]
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Matrix11 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:19 
PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
commands

Thanks for the info, do you know if this works 
in OZ-Death match?  I used to have a really great server.cfg that came 
with a Linux HDLS tool i was using (when i ran Linux) but i lost it and the 
tool isn't available any more.  If I remember correctly, set a wait 
period that had to expire before you could write another 
message. 
 
Ring any one's bell?
 
Matrix
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Mad Ad 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 
  10:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
  commands
  
  HAHAHAHA!!!  Im sorry Matrix - For some 
  reason this went in my GSP admin mail, probably cuz we have a matrix too, 
  so Ive replied as If it was talking to him.  I didnt realise till I 
  saw the reply on here.
   
  What you want is these (values shown are 
  default)
   
  tfc_spam_limit 20  (sets number of 
  messages allowed per minute)
  tfc_spam_penalty1 8  (level1 gagging 
  punishment)
  
  tfc_spam_penalty2 2  (level2 
  gagging punishment)
   
   
  Sorry for the confusion
   
  Ad
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Mad 
Ad 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 
5:10 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
commands

I'll including a reduction to the per 
minute count in the next update - id already seen that it could be 
reduced, but that needs adding to the server cfgs - ty for reminding 
me.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Matrix11 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 
  1:22 AM
  Subject: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
  commands
  
   
  I'm getting a lot of idiots spamming 
  messages while playing.  Any one know the variable to limit 
  this?
   
  Thanks
   
  Matirx11

Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

[emberts]

This is not correct. I have a 4 port hub. One of the ports goes to a 10mbps
connection, the other 3 are 100mbps connections. The bandwidth from one
100mbps connection to another 100mbps connection is exactly what you would
expect, and is the same whether or not the 10mbps cable is plugged in. The
10mbps connection lopes along at the slow 10mbps speed. Having one 10mbps
connection does not effect the speed of the other ports at all. I've had it
like this for a while - the 10mbps connection has no effect at all on the
speed of the 100mbps connections - they are lightning fast, while the 10mbps
is s slow.


- Original Message -
From: "Kelly Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


> In response to Hubs vs Switches.
> One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub runs
> all connections at the speed of the slowest connection.  Thus if you have
a
> 4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1 10mb/sec
> connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at 10mb/sec.
> However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed.  Thus if
you
> have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1
> 10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections will all
> run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at 10mb/sec.
>
> (To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded controller,
> this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes to their
> configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the like.  The
> configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer.   Hubs
however,
> typically have no controller and thus typically are not configurable.)
>
> Kelly
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
>
>
> I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network with
a
> full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a Cisco...it
was
> only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View" menu
> interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not Advanced
> Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink Server
> (3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for MS
> Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the
settings
> Manuel had also said below.
>
> I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have "TCP/IP"
> enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect the
> Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the Server
and
> LAN PC.   These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard that a
> switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the
> differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the router CAT
> cable connects into.
>
> Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more
> simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and
running
> it with a custom user profile.  I also Ghosted and image in case it gets
> hacked.  I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of maps!)
pretty
> quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC.
>
> How does this setup sound to you?  The pings for people are superba
lot
> are getting pings under 50!  I am also now running a second HLDS, both
> running as shortcuts..not as services.  So far the most people I have had
> connected to both games running is about 35...and no crashes or other
> problems have come up running this for about a week straight (have not had
> to reboot, or restart, etc.).
>
> Sorry this is so long...I'm getting to the heart of my question, but
another
> thought I had was at some point to get another (a third) dedicated (used)
PC
> box from someone, and use that as a dedicated game server, running Win2k
> Pro,  put 2 NIC's in it, also plug them both into the switch, and then
> configure one NIC to directly connect to the Internet (only using TCP/IP)
> with another one of the block of public IP's.  Then have the 2nd NIC
connect
> in to the LAN so I could have configuring access from the network.  If I
did
> that I would also likely get one of those keyboard/mouse/monitor A/B
> switches so I didn't have to put up another monitor.
>
> I guess my real question is:  Is there anything wrong with having the
Win2k
> Server box that is also the gateway NAT routing PC run the HLDS games if
> that's all I have on it?  People are getting excellent pings, with many
> under 50!  I understand that the Server PC will get a bit more "stressed"
if
> I do file transfers, surfing, emailing, play HL as client, etc. from the
LAN
> PC I have now...but I thought that most all of thes

Re: [hlds] ATTN!!!!!!!! EVERYONE READ!!!! PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!$$$$$

[emberts]

Is it always crashing on the same map? Have you rebooted Win2000?

- Original Message -
From: "Eric Riden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:10 PM
Subject: [hlds] ATTN EVERYONE READ PLEASE HELP$


> Maybe you can help me with this. EVERYDAY, sometime in the afternoon to
> early evening, while I am at work, my server crashes. I restart it when I
> get home about 1am, and its fine till I leave for work the next evening
> about 4pm. I have tried alot of troubleshooting such as determining if one
> of the plugins is causing it by ; each plugin one at a time for days until
I
> ran out of plugins that I added after installing admin mod. I also shut
the
> server down and restarted it right before I left for work, and it still
> crashed before 8pm sometime. So, I turned to reading the forums and saw a
> thread about having too much stuff in my servercfg file. I took out all
the
> unnecessary stuff, and left all the admin cvars with only a few of the hl
> cvars that are essential. Still crashed when I got home. I had logging on,
> and each time the server crashed, it had nothing in the log that I could
see
> may have caused it. I just recently turned debug mode on, but I am unsure
> where that file is kept, or what to do with it. Also, isnt there a file
that
> shows what error occurs when a server crashes? If so, where is it and
whats
> it called, cause I cant find it. Is there a possibility that someone is
> causing the server to crash? If someone knows of a way that clients can
> crash a server, please tell me how so I can look for it in the logs, and
ban
> the ass who may be doing it. I honestly think thats what may be happening.
> BTW, I had this same problem a while ago, but went away for a short time.
I
> read back through the forums to my original post and Gerg said to post my
> log with debugging on, so thats what I will do after it crashes again. The
> last log I had at the crash (I deleted already ) just showd blank at the
> very end of it. I think someone had just built an SG or something.
Somebody
> else posted to my original post saying there was a patch out for hlds? Is
it
> for hlserver or just for cs server, cause I run a TFC server. If its for
> hlds, the please post the link so I can try that next. Here is one of the
> logs that I got when server crashed. I was in the server window at the
time
> typing a message that I guess may have been too long and it created an
error
> in hlds.exe. Hope you can give me some insight.
>
> Attachment: l1018021.zip
>
> My buddy is having this same problem...
>
> Before the last patch my server would be up for days straight. Now i'm
lucky
> if it stays up for 12 hours. I have the latest version of admin mod plus
the
> latest hl patch. I run a dedicated server on a Windows 2000 machine. Like
i
> said, it worked great till that last hl patch. Here are the last 2 lines
of
> my log before it went downit usually ends alot like this...;L
10/16/2001
> - 13:36:15: "[RB]Heretic<753><280117>" killed "Major Death
> Dog<751><1362904>" with "supershotgun"
> L 10/16/2001 - 13:36:17: "Major Death Dog<751><1362904>" triggered
> "info_player_teamspawn"
>
>
>
>
> _
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
please visit:
> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>

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

[hlds] RE: Anti spam commands

[Sankey, Luke]

There is a plugin for Adminmod that limits flooding, or spamming, and it
works with any mod. Maybe it does what you are looking for?

http://www.adminmod.org/ascript/plugin.php#3698138031

Luke Sankey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Thanks for the info, do you know if this works in OZ-Death match?  I =
used to have a really great server.cfg that came with a Linux HDLS tool =
i was using (when i ran Linux) but i lost it and the tool isn't =
available any more.  If I remember correctly, set a wait period that had =
to expire before you could write another message.=20

Ring any one's bell?

Matrix

- Original Message -=20
  From: Mad Ad=20
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
  Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam commands


  HAHAHAHA!!!  Im sorry Matrix - For some reason this went in my GSP =
admin mail, probably cuz we have a matrix too, so Ive replied as If it =
was talking to him.  I didnt realise till I saw the reply on here.

  What you want is these (values shown are default)

  tfc_spam_limit 20  (sets number of messages allowed per minute)
  tfc_spam_penalty1 8  (level1 gagging punishment)
  tfc_spam_penalty2 2  (level2 gagging punishment)


  Sorry for the confusion

  Ad
- Original Message -=20
From: Mad Ad=20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam commands


I'll including a reduction to the per minute count in the next =
update - id already seen that it could be reduced, but that needs adding =
to the server cfgs - ty for reminding me.
  - Original Message -=20
  From: Matrix11=20
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
  Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:22 AM
  Subject: [hlds] Anti-Spam commands



  I'm getting a lot of idiots spamming messages while playing.  Any =
one know the variable to limit this?

  Thanks

  Matirx11
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds

Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam commands

[Mad Ad]

Yes!  
 
What you want is these (values shown are 
default)
 
tfc_spam_limit 20  (sets number of messages 
allowed per minute)
tfc_spam_penalty1 8  (level1 gagging 
punishment)

tfc_spam_penalty2 2  (level2 gagging 
punishment)
 
 
The limit sets the max text messages they can do in 
one minute.  Default is 20, somewhere about 12-14 is sensible.  
Penalty one sets the amount of time they are initially gagged for, and penaly2 
sets the additional time added for each extra spammed message.
 
E.g.  Someone hits their 
'!!!LOL--Headshot!!--LOL!!! bind 20 times in a minute.  the 21st time they 
will recieve a message saying they have been quietened for 9 seconds for 
spamming (yeah i know its set at 8, but it always does 9) ... If they shut up, 9 
secs will pass, and they can talk again.  IF they continue tryiing to spam, 
each message adds 2 secs gagging to their total gag time.
 
Ours are now set up at _limit 12  _penalty1 
20  _penalty2 30.  12 spams a minute allowed, on 13th gets a 20 sec 
gag, and each extra spam after that gets them an extra 30 secs.
 
Hope its clear now :)
 
Ad
{mad Ad]
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Matrix11 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:19 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
  commands
  
  Thanks for the info, do you know if this works in 
  OZ-Death match?  I used to have a really great server.cfg that came with 
  a Linux HDLS tool i was using (when i ran Linux) but i lost it and the tool 
  isn't available any more.  If I remember correctly, set a wait period 
  that had to expire before you could write another message. 
   
  Ring any one's bell?
   
  Matrix
   
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
Mad Ad 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:39 
AM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
commands

HAHAHAHA!!!  Im sorry Matrix - For some 
reason this went in my GSP admin mail, probably cuz we have a matrix too, so 
Ive replied as If it was talking to him.  I didnt realise till I saw 
the reply on here.
 
What you want is these (values shown are 
default)
 
tfc_spam_limit 20  (sets number of 
messages allowed per minute)
tfc_spam_penalty1 8  (level1 gagging 
punishment)

tfc_spam_penalty2 2  (level2 gagging 
punishment)
 
 
Sorry for the confusion
 
Ad

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mad Ad 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 
  5:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
  commands
  
  I'll including a reduction to the per 
  minute count in the next update - id already seen that it could be 
  reduced, but that needs adding to the server cfgs - ty for reminding 
  me.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Matrix11 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 
1:22 AM
Subject: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
commands

 
I'm getting a lot of idiots spamming 
messages while playing.  Any one know the variable to limit 
this?
 
Thanks
 
Matirx11

RE: [hlds] ATTN!!!!!!!! EVERYONE READ!!!! PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!$$$$$

[-AbFab-ShAdy]

Have you thought to check for dodgy maps?  Alter you mapcycle maybe

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Riden
Sent: 20 October 2001 06:10
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [hlds] ATTN EVERYONE READ PLEASE HELP$


Maybe you can help me with this. EVERYDAY, sometime in the afternoon to
early evening, while I am at work, my server crashes. I restart it when I
get home about 1am, and its fine till I leave for work the next evening
about 4pm. I have tried alot of troubleshooting such as determining if one
of the plugins is causing it by ; each plugin one at a time for days until I
ran out of plugins that I added after installing admin mod. I also shut the
server down and restarted it right before I left for work, and it still
crashed before 8pm sometime. So, I turned to reading the forums and saw a
thread about having too much stuff in my servercfg file. I took out all the
unnecessary stuff, and left all the admin cvars with only a few of the hl
cvars that are essential. Still crashed when I got home. I had logging on,
and each time the server crashed, it had nothing in the log that I could see
may have caused it. I just recently turned debug mode on, but I am unsure
where that file is kept, or what to do with it. Also, isnt there a file that
shows what error occurs when a server crashes? If so, where is it and whats
it called, cause I cant find it. Is there a possibility that someone is
causing the server to crash? If someone knows of a way that clients can
crash a server, please tell me how so I can look for it in the logs, and ban
the ass who may be doing it. I honestly think thats what may be happening.
BTW, I had this same problem a while ago, but went away for a short time. I
read back through the forums to my original post and Gerg said to post my
log with debugging on, so thats what I will do after it crashes again. The
last log I had at the crash (I deleted already ) just showd blank at the
very end of it. I think someone had just built an SG or something. Somebody
else posted to my original post saying there was a patch out for hlds? Is it
for hlserver or just for cs server, cause I run a TFC server. If its for
hlds, the please post the link so I can try that next. Here is one of the
logs that I got when server crashed. I was in the server window at the time
typing a message that I guess may have been too long and it created an error
in hlds.exe. Hope you can give me some insight.

Attachment: l1018021.zip

My buddy is having this same problem...

Before the last patch my server would be up for days straight. Now i'm lucky
if it stays up for 12 hours. I have the latest version of admin mod plus the
latest hl patch. I run a dedicated server on a Windows 2000 machine. Like i
said, it worked great till that last hl patch. Here are the last 2 lines of
my log before it went downit usually ends alot like this...;L 10/16/2001
- 13:36:15: "[RB]Heretic<753><280117>" killed "Major Death
Dog<751><1362904>" with "supershotgun"
L 10/16/2001 - 13:36:17: "Major Death Dog<751><1362904>" triggered
"info_player_teamspawn"




_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?

[HoundDawg]

Ah, finally, something more specific.  So, they haven't made it a rule
everywhere yet, just in the tfc 5v5 expert ladder.  So far, OGL, as a whole,
hasn't made that determination yet.

HoundDawg
http://www.phpGamingSite.com
http://www.unitedadmins.com
http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
- Original Message -
From: "Richard C. Ryzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?


> Are you slow or what, dated 10-19 in all tfc 5v5, expert and team.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "HoundDawg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
>
>
> > Do you guys even read what it says besides that it has the name
Punkbuster
> > in it?  First off, the last news posted was 8/20.  And in that, where it
> > talks about the new rules, it states that PB is now required.
> >
> > Once again, provide some valid official backing to your rumors.
> >
> > *shakes head and roles eyes*
> >
> > HoundDawg
> > http://www.phpGamingSite.com
> > http://www.unitedadmins.com
> > http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Richard C. Ryzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> >
> >
> > > Ogl's halflife, teamfortress, 5v5 has it on its news page.
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "HoundDawg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 7:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> > >
> > >
> > > > =P
> > > >
> > > > HoundDawg
> > > > http://www.phpGamingSite.com
> > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com
> > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "Sysop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:27 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ROFL..
> > > > >
> > > > > PS there is a virus attached to this email
> > > > >
> > > > > FORWARD TO EVERYBODY THAT YOU KNOW, and even those that you
don't!!
> > (;
> > > > >
> > > > > HoundDawg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > well, before you go on spreading this rumor please back it
up
> > with
> > > > > > some sort of official news release link or something.  Neither
> > > > > > PunkBuster or OGL has anything posted regarding what you just
> > > > mentioned...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HoundDawg
> > > > > > http://www.phpGamingSite.com
> > > > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com
> > > > > > http://www.unitedadmins.com/hlbp
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > * From:* Richard C. Ryzner 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *To:* HLDS 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Sent:* Friday, October 19, 2001 4:55 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Subject:* [hlds] A slow demise for PB?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It has started. OGL announced today that PB is no longer
required.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list
> archives,
> > > > please visit:
> > > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list
archives,
> > > please visit:
> > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> > >
> > > ___
> > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> > please visit:
> > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
> please visit:
> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
> >
>
> ___
> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
please visit:
> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
>
>

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

Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam commands

[Matrix11]

Thanks for the info, do you know if this works in 
OZ-Death match?  I used to have a really great server.cfg that came with a 
Linux HDLS tool i was using (when i ran Linux) but i lost it and the tool isn't 
available any more.  If I remember correctly, set a wait period that had to 
expire before you could write another message. 
 
Ring any one's bell?
 
Matrix
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Mad Ad 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:39 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
  commands
  
  HAHAHAHA!!!  Im sorry Matrix - For some 
  reason this went in my GSP admin mail, probably cuz we have a matrix too, so 
  Ive replied as If it was talking to him.  I didnt realise till I saw the 
  reply on here.
   
  What you want is these (values shown are 
  default)
   
  tfc_spam_limit 20  (sets number of messages 
  allowed per minute)
  tfc_spam_penalty1 8  (level1 gagging 
  punishment)
  
  tfc_spam_penalty2 2  (level2 gagging 
  punishment)
   
   
  Sorry for the confusion
   
  Ad
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Mad Ad 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 5:10 
AM
Subject: Re: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
commands

I'll including a reduction to the per 
minute count in the next update - id already seen that it could be 
reduced, but that needs adding to the server cfgs - ty for reminding 
me.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Matrix11 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:22 
  AM
  Subject: [hlds] Anti-Spam 
  commands
  
   
  I'm getting a lot of idiots spamming messages 
  while playing.  Any one know the variable to limit this?
   
  Thanks
   
  Matirx11

RE: [hlds] Newbie Admin I am!

[Frank Mann]

You can stay here and read ur mail. There are quite a few topics that
discuss installation and maintenance

Frank

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of FFC
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:46 AM
To: H L DS
Subject: [hlds] Newbie Admin I am!


Soz chaps but I am new to the Admin game and would like to know where I can
get a comprehensive idiots guide on the subject.


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

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

RE: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question

[Kelly Johnson]

Nope.  That pretty much sums up what half and full duplex mean.

Kelly
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Elminst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


I always get confused on what those two terms actually mean...
I've always thought that half-dupe meant that packets only went one
direction at a time (in or out), and that full meant that you had packets
going both ways at the same time
Am i totally off on this?

- Original Message -
From: "Sysop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question


> Don't forget that hubs operate at half duplex, while switches operate at
> full duplex.
>
> Kelly Johnson wrote:
>
> >In response to Hubs vs Switches.
> > One of the biggest differences between the two is this, the hub runs
> >all connections at the speed of the slowest connection.  Thus if you have
a
> >4 port hub with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1 10mb/sec
> >connection plugged into it, all 4 connections will only run at 10mb/sec.
> >However a switch will run each connection at its maximum speed.  Thus if
you
> >have a 4 port switch with 3 100mb/sec connections plugged into it, and 1
> >10mb/sec connection plugged into it, the 3 100mb/sec connections will all
> >run at 100mb/sec while the 10mb/sec connection will run at 10mb/sec.
> >
> >(To achieve this most switches also have some sort of imbedded
controller,
> >this means that many switches also allow you to make some changes to
their
> >configuration, such as Nat translation, port forwarding and the like.
The
> >configuration changes available vary by switch manufacturer.   Hubs
however,
> >typically have no controller and thus typically are not configurable.)
> >
> >Kelly
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Mike Parrot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:09 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: [hlds] HLDS Win2k Server follow Networking Question
> >
> >
> >I'm not as experienced as most of you, but I set up a simple network with
a
> >full T-1 coming through the Intel Express 8220 Router (vs. a Cisco...it
was
> >only $700 new, has the CSU/DSU built in, and a slick "Device View" menu
> >interface) to a 650 Athlon w/ 256 RAM running Win2k Server (not Advanced
> >Server) with 2 NIC's.  I put the higher quality 3Com Etherlink Server
> >(3CR990SV97 model) as the LAN NIC, and set this up with "Client for MS
> >Networks," "File and Print Sharing" and "TCP/IP" protocols with the
settings
> >Manuel had also said below.
> >
> >I then use the 3Com "3C905C-TX-M" NIC for the WAN, but only have "TCP/IP"
> >enabled (no Client for MS Networks or File/Print Sharing) to protect the
> >Server PC and insulate the LAN.  I also run BID & NAV on both the Server
and
> >LAN PC.   These are all networked to a 10/100 SMC switch (I heard that a
> >switch is faster than a HUB...but am still confused about what the
> >differences and indications of Hubs vs. Switches is), where the router
CAT
> >cable connects into.
> >
> >Because I know that Win2k Server has much faster, and allows more
> >simultaneous connections, I put my HLDS on the Win2k Server box, and
running
> >it with a custom user profile.  I also Ghosted and image in case it gets
> >hacked.  I can restore it back from the 3 CD's (I have lots of maps!)
pretty
> >quick. I have nothing else on the Win2k Server PC.
> >
> >How does this setup sound to you?  The pings for people are superba
lot
> >are getting pings under 50!  I am also now running a second HLDS, both
> >running as shortcuts..not as services.  So far the most people I have had
> >connected to both games running is about 35...and no crashes or other
> >problems have come up running this for about a week straight (have not
had
> >to reboot, or restart, etc.).
> >
> >Sorry this is so long...I'm getting to the heart of my question, but
another
> >thought I had was at some point to get another (a third) dedicated (used)
PC
> >box from someone, and use that as a dedicated game server, running Win2k
> >Pro,  put 2 NIC's in it, also plug them both into the switch, and then
> >configure one NIC to directly connect to the Internet (only using TCP/IP)
> >with another one of the block of public IP's.  Then have the 2nd NIC
connect
> >in to the LAN so I could have configuring access from the network.  If I
did
> >that I would also likely get one of those keyboard/mouse/monitor A/B
> >switches so I didn't have to put up another monitor.
> >
> >I guess my real question is:  Is there anything wrong with having the
Win2k
> >Server box that is also the gateway NAT routing PC run the HLDS games if
> >that's all I have on it?  People are getting excellent pings, with many
> >under 50!  I understand that the Server PC will get a bit more "stressed"
if
> >I do file tra