Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
I hope "some people" recorded this testing and plan on posting the video of it somewhere :P --mauirixxx -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of msleeper Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:19 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware Assuming you are using towers with the power supply at the bottom and/or you have your towers upside down so that the power supply is at the bottom, it's really hard to tip a tower over. The PSU is where a lot of the weight is, and the center of gravity is really low when the PSU is at the bottom of a case. All in all, it's pretty hard to tip a tower case over or knock a tower case off of a bread rack. Let's just say that some people share this concern and "ample testing" went into these type of scenarios. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Assuming you are using towers with the power supply at the bottom and/or you have your towers upside down so that the power supply is at the bottom, it's really hard to tip a tower over. The PSU is where a lot of the weight is, and the center of gravity is really low when the PSU is at the bottom of a case. All in all, it's pretty hard to tip a tower case over or knock a tower case off of a bread rack. Let's just say that some people share this concern and "ample testing" went into these type of scenarios. If how a datacenter looks is a top priority in hosting for you, as opposed to say ambient temperatures, network uptime and power reliability, then maybe you should stick with gameservers.com and leave the colocation to the adults. Paying $120/hr for remote hands is just fine - when you colocate you shouldn't depend on your host for support. If your shit goes down and a reboot isn't fixing it, it's time to hop in the car and drive down to the DC. On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 15:53 +0930, Matt Lyons wrote: > Looking at DCs like this hosting stuff almost makes me cry. > > What happens when your removing one form the end and knock the one > next to it? > Anyone for a game of dominoes? > > ML > > On 22/09/2009, at 3:44 PM, Lane Eckley wrote: > > > Lol. I'll give you that. > > > > The chances of that happening are pretty slim, the chances of > > dropping a > > server as you pull it out of the rack is probably has about the same > > chance > > to fall as a server sitting on a shelf. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of > > DontWannaName! > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:12 AM > > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > " it is > > allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount server" > > > > Until it falls off the Baker shelve :P > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Lane Eckley > > wrote: > > > >> Lol. They are called Bakers shelves and they are more or less > >> industry > >> standard for datacenters where the cost of space is less than what > >> it is > >> worth to purchase rack mount servers. > >> > >> Take a look around at collocation and you will find them > >> everywhere, it is > >> allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount > >> server. So > >> in > >> comes baker shelves. > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of > >> DontWannaName! > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:53 AM > >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >> > >> They would probably find a way to put it upright so it falls off > >> their > >> costco bought racks. That host is just begging for the word sketchy. > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Matt Stanton < > >> inflatablesoulm...@brothersofchaos.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hahahah! I think you've probably got bigger problems associated > >>> with a > >>> datacenter being in a major earthquake than whether your server > >>> fell off > >>> the rack. Besides, wouldn't you just send them a nice 1U rack-mount > >>> server? > >>> > >>> DontWannaName! wrote: > >>>> Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake > > wouldnt > >>> all > >>>> the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it > >> shows > >>>> how tip-able they are. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Looking at DCs like this hosting stuff almost makes me cry. What happens when your removing one form the end and knock the one next to it? Anyone for a game of dominoes? ML On 22/09/2009, at 3:44 PM, Lane Eckley wrote: > Lol. I'll give you that. > > The chances of that happening are pretty slim, the chances of > dropping a > server as you pull it out of the rack is probably has about the same > chance > to fall as a server sitting on a shelf. > > -Original Message- > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of > DontWannaName! > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:12 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > " it is > allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount server" > > Until it falls off the Baker shelve :P > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Lane Eckley > wrote: > >> Lol. They are called Bakers shelves and they are more or less >> industry >> standard for datacenters where the cost of space is less than what >> it is >> worth to purchase rack mount servers. >> >> Take a look around at collocation and you will find them >> everywhere, it is >> allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount >> server. So >> in >> comes baker shelves. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of >> DontWannaName! >> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:53 AM >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >> >> They would probably find a way to put it upright so it falls off >> their >> costco bought racks. That host is just begging for the word sketchy. >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Matt Stanton < >> inflatablesoulm...@brothersofchaos.com> wrote: >> >>> Hahahah! I think you've probably got bigger problems associated >>> with a >>> datacenter being in a major earthquake than whether your server >>> fell off >>> the rack. Besides, wouldn't you just send them a nice 1U rack-mount >>> server? >>> >>> DontWannaName! wrote: >>>> Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake > wouldnt >>> all >>>> the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it >> shows >>>> how tip-able they are. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm >>> wrote: >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature >> database 4445 (20090921) __ >> >> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature >> database 4445 (20090921) __ >> >> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature > database 4445 (20090921) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > signature > database 4445 (20090921) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds -- Matt Lyons (Bsc CS & Soft Eng) Media Group, Internode 150 Grenfell St, Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: (08) 8228 2877 E-mail: mly...@internode.com.au WWW: www.internode.on.net "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is." ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Lol. I'll give you that. The chances of that happening are pretty slim, the chances of dropping a server as you pull it out of the rack is probably has about the same chance to fall as a server sitting on a shelf. -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:12 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware " it is allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount server" Until it falls off the Baker shelve :P On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Lane Eckley wrote: > Lol. They are called Bakers shelves and they are more or less industry > standard for datacenters where the cost of space is less than what it is > worth to purchase rack mount servers. > > Take a look around at collocation and you will find them everywhere, it is > allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount server. So > in > comes baker shelves. > > -Original Message- > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:53 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > They would probably find a way to put it upright so it falls off their > costco bought racks. That host is just begging for the word sketchy. > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Matt Stanton < > inflatablesoulm...@brothersofchaos.com> wrote: > > > Hahahah! I think you've probably got bigger problems associated with a > > datacenter being in a major earthquake than whether your server fell off > > the rack. Besides, wouldn't you just send them a nice 1U rack-mount > > server? > > > > DontWannaName! wrote: > > > Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake wouldnt > > all > > > the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it > shows > > > how tip-able they are. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm > >wrote: > > > > ___ > > 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 > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 4445 (20090921) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 4445 (20090921) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > ___ > 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 __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4445 (20090921) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4445 (20090921) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
" it is allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount server" Until it falls off the Baker shelve :P On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Lane Eckley wrote: > Lol. They are called Bakers shelves and they are more or less industry > standard for datacenters where the cost of space is less than what it is > worth to purchase rack mount servers. > > Take a look around at collocation and you will find them everywhere, it is > allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount server. So > in > comes baker shelves. > > -Original Message- > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:53 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > They would probably find a way to put it upright so it falls off their > costco bought racks. That host is just begging for the word sketchy. > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Matt Stanton < > inflatablesoulm...@brothersofchaos.com> wrote: > > > Hahahah! I think you've probably got bigger problems associated with a > > datacenter being in a major earthquake than whether your server fell off > > the rack. Besides, wouldn't you just send them a nice 1U rack-mount > > server? > > > > DontWannaName! wrote: > > > Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake wouldnt > > all > > > the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it > shows > > > how tip-able they are. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm > >wrote: > > > > ___ > > 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 > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 4445 (20090921) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 4445 (20090921) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > ___ > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Lol. They are called Bakers shelves and they are more or less industry standard for datacenters where the cost of space is less than what it is worth to purchase rack mount servers. Take a look around at collocation and you will find them everywhere, it is allot cheaper to build a tower in most cases than a rack mount server. So in comes baker shelves. -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of DontWannaName! Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:53 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware They would probably find a way to put it upright so it falls off their costco bought racks. That host is just begging for the word sketchy. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Matt Stanton < inflatablesoulm...@brothersofchaos.com> wrote: > Hahahah! I think you've probably got bigger problems associated with a > datacenter being in a major earthquake than whether your server fell off > the rack. Besides, wouldn't you just send them a nice 1U rack-mount > server? > > DontWannaName! wrote: > > Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake wouldnt > all > > the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it shows > > how tip-able they are. > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm >wrote: > > ___ > 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 __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4445 (20090921) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4445 (20090921) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
They would probably find a way to put it upright so it falls off their costco bought racks. That host is just begging for the word sketchy. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Matt Stanton < inflatablesoulm...@brothersofchaos.com> wrote: > Hahahah! I think you've probably got bigger problems associated with a > datacenter being in a major earthquake than whether your server fell off > the rack. Besides, wouldn't you just send them a nice 1U rack-mount > server? > > DontWannaName! wrote: > > Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake wouldnt > all > > the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it shows > > how tip-able they are. > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm >wrote: > > ___ > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Hahahah! I think you've probably got bigger problems associated with a datacenter being in a major earthquake than whether your server fell off the rack. Besides, wouldn't you just send them a nice 1U rack-mount server? DontWannaName! wrote: > Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake wouldnt all > the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it shows > how tip-able they are. > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm wrote: ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Sorry to go off topic, but if there was a really big earthquake wouldnt all the servers fall down off the racks, if you look at the live cam it shows how tip-able they are. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Derek Denholm wrote: > > Colo4Dallas is not ideal for someone looking to host one server as you will > be paying $120 / Hour for remote hands billed in 15 minute increments. If > you are not too concerned about the network / location and just looking into > a budget soultion take a look at something like: > http://joesdatacenter.com/server_colocation.php > > > > If you have any further questions feel free to shoot me an email at > de...@xfactorservers.com > > > > > > > From: dlin...@fragonline.net > > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:28:00 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > I colocated with Colo4Dallas for many years, and never had anything but > > awesome service. I don't colocate now, but if the need should ever arise, > > that's where I'd go again. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Michael > Krasnow > > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:07 AM > > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > i guess but they are highly customizable and the service isnt bad at all > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rens Ariens >wrote: > > > > > Leaseweb is known for their prices, not for their support. > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Krasnow schreef: > > > > you could also try leaseweb > > > > > > > > http://www.leaseweb.com/en/colocation > > > > > > > > they have great service > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, turb0z > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should > be > > > >> able > > > >> to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to > their > > > >> support structure around owning your own equipment (some places > won't > > > offer > > > >> much in support). > > > >> > > > >> I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very > > > satisfied. > > > >> > > > >> -Original Message- > > > >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > > > >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle > > > Sanderson > > > >> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM > > > >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > > > >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > >> > > > >> Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own > > > hardware > > > >> for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support > this? > > > >> > > > >> Kyle. > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb > of > > > >>> memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will > save > > > you > > > >>> alot of hassle. > > > >>> > > > >>>> From: ooksser...@zootal.com > > > >>>> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > > >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older > hardware > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a > fully > > > >>> loaded > > > >>>> OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if > it > > > >>> ain't > > > >>>> broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > > > >>> upgrading > > > >>>> the box. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> - Original Message - > > > >>>> From: "Bryce Quilley"
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Colo4Dallas is not ideal for someone looking to host one server as you will be paying $120 / Hour for remote hands billed in 15 minute increments. If you are not too concerned about the network / location and just looking into a budget soultion take a look at something like: http://joesdatacenter.com/server_colocation.php If you have any further questions feel free to shoot me an email at de...@xfactorservers.com > From: dlin...@fragonline.net > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:28:00 -0500 > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > I colocated with Colo4Dallas for many years, and never had anything but > awesome service. I don't colocate now, but if the need should ever arise, > that's where I'd go again. > > > > -Original Message- > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Michael Krasnow > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:07 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > i guess but they are highly customizable and the service isnt bad at all > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rens Ariens wrote: > > > Leaseweb is known for their prices, not for their support. > > > > > > > > Michael Krasnow schreef: > > > you could also try leaseweb > > > > > > http://www.leaseweb.com/en/colocation > > > > > > they have great service > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, turb0z wrote: > > > > > >> Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should be > > >> able > > >> to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to their > > >> support structure around owning your own equipment (some places won't > > offer > > >> much in support). > > >> > > >> I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very > > satisfied. > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > > >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle > > Sanderson > > >> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM > > >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > > >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >> > > >> Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own > > hardware > > >> for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? > > >> > > >> Kyle. > > >> > > >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of > > >>> memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save > > you > > >>> alot of hassle. > > >>> > > >>>> From: ooksser...@zootal.com > > >>>> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >>>> > > >>>> It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully > > >>> loaded > > >>>> OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it > > >>> ain't > > >>>> broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > > >>> upgrading > > >>>> the box. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> - Original Message - > > >>>> From: "Bryce Quilley" > > >>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB > > >> ram > > >>>>> for > > >>>>> it to function. > > >>>>> Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and > was > > >>>>> NEVER > > >>>>> intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Thanks for the tips guys ;) Kyle. On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:28 AM, DLinkOZ wrote: > I colocated with Colo4Dallas for many years, and never had anything but > awesome service. I don't colocate now, but if the need should ever arise, > that's where I'd go again. > > > > -Original Message- > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Michael Krasnow > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:07 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > i guess but they are highly customizable and the service isnt bad at all > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rens Ariens >wrote: > > > Leaseweb is known for their prices, not for their support. > > > > > > > > Michael Krasnow schreef: > > > you could also try leaseweb > > > > > > http://www.leaseweb.com/en/colocation > > > > > > they have great service > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, turb0z > wrote: > > > > > >> Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should > be > > >> able > > >> to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to their > > >> support structure around owning your own equipment (some places won't > > offer > > >> much in support). > > >> > > >> I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very > > satisfied. > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > > >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle > > Sanderson > > >> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM > > >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > > >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >> > > >> Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own > > hardware > > >> for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? > > >> > > >> Kyle. > > >> > > >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of > > >>> memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save > > you > > >>> alot of hassle. > > >>> > > >>>> From: ooksser...@zootal.com > > >>>> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >>>> > > >>>> It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a > fully > > >>> loaded > > >>>> OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it > > >>> ain't > > >>>> broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > > >>> upgrading > > >>>> the box. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> - Original Message - > > >>>> From: "Bryce Quilley" > > >>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB > > >> ram > > >>>>> for > > >>>>> it to function. > > >>>>> Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and > was > > >>>>> NEVER > > >>>>> intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB > > >> ram > > >>>>> will > > >>>>> run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up > > >> than > > >>>>>
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
I colocated with Colo4Dallas for many years, and never had anything but awesome service. I don't colocate now, but if the need should ever arise, that's where I'd go again. -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Michael Krasnow Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:07 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware i guess but they are highly customizable and the service isnt bad at all On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rens Ariens wrote: > Leaseweb is known for their prices, not for their support. > > > > Michael Krasnow schreef: > > you could also try leaseweb > > > > http://www.leaseweb.com/en/colocation > > > > they have great service > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, turb0z wrote: > > > >> Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should be > >> able > >> to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to their > >> support structure around owning your own equipment (some places won't > offer > >> much in support). > >> > >> I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very > satisfied. > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle > Sanderson > >> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM > >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >> > >> Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own > hardware > >> for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? > >> > >> Kyle. > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of > >>> memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save > you > >>> alot of hassle. > >>> > >>>> From: ooksser...@zootal.com > >>>> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >>>> > >>>> It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully > >>> loaded > >>>> OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it > >>> ain't > >>>> broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > >>> upgrading > >>>> the box. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Original Message - > >>>> From: "Bryce Quilley" > >>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > >>>> > >>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB > >> ram > >>>>> for > >>>>> it to function. > >>>>> Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was > >>>>> NEVER > >>>>> intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB > >> ram > >>>>> will > >>>>> run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up > >> than > >>>>>> 2003. > >>>>>> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I > >> would > >>> be > >>>>>> shocked if it did), please let us know! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kyle. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has > >>>>>>> as-is. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
i guess but they are highly customizable and the service isnt bad at all On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rens Ariens wrote: > Leaseweb is known for their prices, not for their support. > > > > Michael Krasnow schreef: > > you could also try leaseweb > > > > http://www.leaseweb.com/en/colocation > > > > they have great service > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, turb0z wrote: > > > >> Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should be > >> able > >> to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to their > >> support structure around owning your own equipment (some places won't > offer > >> much in support). > >> > >> I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very > satisfied. > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle > Sanderson > >> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM > >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >> > >> Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own > hardware > >> for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? > >> > >> Kyle. > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of > >>> memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save > you > >>> alot of hassle. > >>> > >>>> From: ooksser...@zootal.com > >>>> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >>>> > >>>> It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully > >>> loaded > >>>> OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it > >>> ain't > >>>> broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > >>> upgrading > >>>> the box. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Original Message - > >>>> From: "Bryce Quilley" > >>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > >>>> > >>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB > >> ram > >>>>> for > >>>>> it to function. > >>>>> Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was > >>>>> NEVER > >>>>> intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB > >> ram > >>>>> will > >>>>> run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up > >> than > >>>>>> 2003. > >>>>>> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I > >> would > >>> be > >>>>>> shocked if it did), please let us know! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kyle. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has > >>>>>>> as-is. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there > >> empty > >>> - > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>> it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the > >>> linux > >>>>>>> hlds > >>>>>>> binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to > >>>>>>> optimize > >>>>>>> them fo
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Leaseweb is known for their prices, not for their support. Michael Krasnow schreef: > you could also try leaseweb > > http://www.leaseweb.com/en/colocation > > they have great service > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, turb0z wrote: > >> Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should be >> able >> to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to their >> support structure around owning your own equipment (some places won't offer >> much in support). >> >> I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very satisfied. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com >> [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Sanderson >> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM >> To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >> >> Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own hardware >> for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? >> >> Kyle. >> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm >> wrote: >> >>> Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of >>> memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save you >>> alot of hassle. >>> >>>> From: ooksser...@zootal.com >>>> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >>>> >>>> It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully >>> loaded >>>> OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it >>> ain't >>>> broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money >>> upgrading >>>> the box. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Bryce Quilley" >>>> To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" >>>> >>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >>>> >>>> >>>>> Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB >> ram >>>>> for >>>>> it to function. >>>>> Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was >>>>> NEVER >>>>> intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB >> ram >>>>> will >>>>> run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up >> than >>>>>> 2003. >>>>>> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I >> would >>> be >>>>>> shocked if it did), please let us know! >>>>>> >>>>>> Kyle. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has >>>>>>> as-is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there >> empty >>> - >>>>>> and >>>>>>> it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the >>> linux >>>>>>> hlds >>>>>>> binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to >>>>>>> optimize >>>>>>> them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm >>> leaning >>>>>>> towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server >> 2008 >>>>>>> that >>>>>> I >>>>>>> think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone >> how >>>>>> lousy >>>>>>> it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and >>>>>>> actually >>>>>>> work good? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Original Message - >>
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
you could also try leaseweb http://www.leaseweb.com/en/colocation they have great service On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, turb0z wrote: > Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should be > able > to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to their > support structure around owning your own equipment (some places won't offer > much in support). > > I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very satisfied. > > -Original Message- > From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com > [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Sanderson > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM > To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own hardware > for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? > > Kyle. > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm > wrote: > > > > > Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of > > memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save you > > alot of hassle. > > > > > From: ooksser...@zootal.com > > > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > > > It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully > > loaded > > > OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it > > ain't > > > broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > > upgrading > > > the box. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Bryce Quilley" > > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > > > > > > > Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB > ram > > > > for > > > > it to function. > > > > Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was > > > > NEVER > > > > intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB > ram > > > > will > > > > run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up > than > > > >> 2003. > > > >> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I > would > > be > > > >> shocked if it did), please let us know! > > > >> > > > >> Kyle. > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has > > > >> > as-is. > > > >> > > > > >> > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there > empty > > - > > > >> and > > > >> > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the > > linux > > > >> > hlds > > > >> > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to > > > >> > optimize > > > >> > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm > > leaning > > > >> > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server > 2008 > > > >> > that > > > >> I > > > >> > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone > how > > > >> lousy > > > >> > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and > > > >> > actually > > > >> > work good? > > > >> > > > > >> > - Original Message - > > > >> > From: "Kyle Sanderson" > > > >> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > > >> > > > > >> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM > > > >> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Depends on the case form factor. If you have a rack case you should be able to find a host to take your hardware, just be ready to agree to their support structure around owning your own equipment (some places won't offer much in support). I host my 1U Quad Core with colocrossing.com and have been very satisfied. -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Sanderson Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:26 AM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own hardware for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? Kyle. On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm wrote: > > Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of > memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save you > alot of hassle. > > > From: ooksser...@zootal.com > > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully > loaded > > OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it > ain't > > broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > upgrading > > the box. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bryce Quilley" > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > > > > Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB ram > > > for > > > it to function. > > > Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was > > > NEVER > > > intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB ram > > > will > > > run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > > > wrote: > > > > > >> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than > > >> 2003. > > >> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would > be > > >> shocked if it did), please let us know! > > >> > > >> Kyle. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > > >> > > >> > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has > > >> > as-is. > > >> > > > >> > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty > - > > >> and > > >> > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the > linux > > >> > hlds > > >> > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to > > >> > optimize > > >> > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm > leaning > > >> > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 > > >> > that > > >> I > > >> > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how > > >> lousy > > >> > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and > > >> > actually > > >> > work good? > > >> > > > >> > - Original Message - > > >> > From: "Kyle Sanderson" > > >> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > >> > > > >> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM > > >> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? > > >> > > > > >> > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only > gets > > >> > > sloppier > > >> > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from > my > > >> > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) > > >> > > Kyle. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen > > >
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Derek, I've been trying to find a datacenter that will take my own hardware for quite a while now. Do you know of any off hand that support this? Kyle. On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Derek Denholm wrote: > > Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of > memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save you > alot of hassle. > > > From: ooksser...@zootal.com > > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully > loaded > > OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it > ain't > > broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money > upgrading > > the box. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Bryce Quilley" > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > > > > Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB ram > > > for > > > it to function. > > > Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was > > > NEVER > > > intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB ram > > > will > > > run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > > > wrote: > > > > > >> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than > > >> 2003. > > >> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would > be > > >> shocked if it did), please let us know! > > >> > > >> Kyle. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > > >> > > >> > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has > > >> > as-is. > > >> > > > >> > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty > - > > >> and > > >> > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the > linux > > >> > hlds > > >> > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to > > >> > optimize > > >> > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm > leaning > > >> > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 > > >> > that > > >> I > > >> > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how > > >> lousy > > >> > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and > > >> > actually > > >> > work good? > > >> > > > >> > - Original Message - > > >> > From: "Kyle Sanderson" > > >> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > >> > > > >> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM > > >> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? > > >> > > > > >> > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only > gets > > >> > > sloppier > > >> > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from > my > > >> > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) > > >> > > Kyle. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> Add more RAM. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook > wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for > to > > >> run > > >> > >> > an > > >> > >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With > Win2000 > > >> > >> > and > > >> > >> > both > > >&
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
IF you want to use Win2008 then be sure to get a mainboard that is very up-to-date (released in the last 12 months). My DataCenter had to change the Mainboard three times until there were no more crashes. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Hell, you can get used P4 desktops for as cheap as $50... On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Derek Denholm wrote: > > Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of memory > for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save you alot of > hassle. > >> From: ooksser...@zootal.com >> To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com >> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >> >> It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully loaded >> OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it ain't >> broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money upgrading >> the box. >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Bryce Quilley" >> To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" >> >> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >> >> >> > Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB ram >> > for >> > it to function. >> > Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was >> > NEVER >> > intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB ram >> > will >> > run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson >> > wrote: >> > >> >> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than >> >> 2003. >> >> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would be >> >> shocked if it did), please let us know! >> >> >> >> Kyle. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: >> >> >> >> > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has >> >> > as-is. >> >> > >> >> > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty - >> >> and >> >> > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the linux >> >> > hlds >> >> > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to >> >> > optimize >> >> > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm leaning >> >> > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 >> >> > that >> >> I >> >> > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how >> >> lousy >> >> > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and >> >> > actually >> >> > work good? >> >> > >> >> > - Original Message - >> >> > From: "Kyle Sanderson" >> >> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" >> >> > >> >> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM >> >> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? >> >> > > >> >> > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets >> >> > > sloppier >> >> > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my >> >> > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) >> >> > > Kyle. >> >> > > >> >> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > >> Add more RAM. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to >> >> run >> >> > >> > an >> >> > >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 >> >> > >> > and >> >> > >> > both >> >> > >> > servers full, cpu is about 30%. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I >> >> > >> > noticed >> >> a
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Honestly, it is very cheap now to buy an old used dual core / 2gb of memory for ~$120 and then send it off to a data center and will save you alot of hassle. > From: ooksser...@zootal.com > To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:04:12 -0700 > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully loaded > OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it ain't > broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money upgrading > the box. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Bryce Quilley" > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB ram > > for > > it to function. > > Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was > > NEVER > > intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB ram > > will > > run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > > wrote: > > > >> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than > >> 2003. > >> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would be > >> shocked if it did), please let us know! > >> > >> Kyle. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > >> > >> > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has > >> > as-is. > >> > > >> > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty - > >> and > >> > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the linux > >> > hlds > >> > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to > >> > optimize > >> > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm leaning > >> > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 > >> > that > >> I > >> > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how > >> lousy > >> > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and > >> > actually > >> > work good? > >> > > >> > - Original Message - > >> > From: "Kyle Sanderson" > >> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM > >> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > >> > > >> > > >> > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? > >> > > > >> > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets > >> > > sloppier > >> > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my > >> > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) > >> > > Kyle. > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Add more RAM. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to > >> run > >> > >> > an > >> > >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 > >> > >> > and > >> > >> > both > >> > >> > servers full, cpu is about 30%. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I > >> > >> > noticed > >> a > >> > >> > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 > >> > >> > box, > >> it > >> > >> used > >> > >> > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server > >> > >> > 2003 > >> > >> > has > >> > >> > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra > >> > cpu. > >> > &
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
It may not be much of a cpu by today's standards, but it runs a fully loaded OP4 server and a fully loaded L4D server at 30% cpu. You know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I"ll go back to W2K before I'll spend money upgrading the box. - Original Message - From: "Bryce Quilley" To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB ram > for > it to function. > Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was > NEVER > intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB ram > will > run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson > wrote: > >> The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than >> 2003. >> However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would be >> shocked if it did), please let us know! >> >> Kyle. >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: >> >> > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has >> > as-is. >> > >> > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty - >> and >> > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the linux >> > hlds >> > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to >> > optimize >> > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm leaning >> > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 >> > that >> I >> > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how >> lousy >> > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and >> > actually >> > work good? >> > >> > - Original Message - >> > From: "Kyle Sanderson" >> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" >> > >> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM >> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware >> > >> > >> > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? >> > > >> > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets >> > > sloppier >> > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my >> > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) >> > > Kyle. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Add more RAM. >> > >> >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to >> run >> > >> > an >> > >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 >> > >> > and >> > >> > both >> > >> > servers full, cpu is about 30%. >> > >> > >> > >> > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I >> > >> > noticed >> a >> > >> > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 >> > >> > box, >> it >> > >> used >> > >> > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server >> > >> > 2003 >> > >> > has >> > >> > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra >> > cpu. >> > >> My >> > >> > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both >> > >> > installations >> > >> > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. >> > >> > >> > >> > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too >> old >> > >> > to >> > >> > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not >> sure >> > >> > it >> > >> > would be any better under 2008. >> > >> > >> > >> > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware >> re. >> > >> > performance? >> > >> > >> > >> > >
Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
If you don't have enough RAM, the programs end up in virtual memory (HDD) and the CPU works it's ass paging it back and forth. I wouldn't even try to running WIN2003 or 2008 server on an old tired desktop board like that. Server OS's really work great on server hardware. Save your pennies: Intel starting server board $240, 2x2GB =total of 4GB ECC RAM $80, Xeon X3220 $180, (2)250GB HDD $100, PS $60 use an old case and DVD and you have a mirrored server that will work just fine. I fact I have a test box running SBS2008 with 103 processes running a 2-5% CPU use. Mike -Original Message- From: hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlds-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Sanderson Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:54 PM To: Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets sloppier with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) Kyle. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen wrote: > Add more RAM. > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: > > > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to run an > > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and both > > servers full, cpu is about 30%. > > > > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed a > > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, it > used > > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 has > > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra cpu. > My > > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both > > installations > > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. > > > > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too old to > > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not sure it > > would be any better under 2008. > > > > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware re. > > performance? > > > > > > ___ > > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Installing Win2k8 will make things worse. You need a minimum of 2GB ram for it to function. Upgrade your CPU man, a Sempron is the cheapest piece of crap and was NEVER intended for server operation. At a bare minimum a P4 2.8 with 1GB ram will run Win2k3 perfectly. Win2k8 will need dual core with 2GB ram. On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Kyle Sanderson wrote: > The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than > 2003. > However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would be > shocked if it did), please let us know! > > Kyle. > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > > > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has as-is. > > > > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty - > and > > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the linux > > hlds > > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to optimize > > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm leaning > > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 that > I > > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how > lousy > > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and actually > > work good? > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kyle Sanderson" > > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > > > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? > > > > > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets > > > sloppier > > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my > > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) > > > Kyle. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Add more RAM. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: > > >> > > >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to > run > > >> > an > > >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and > > >> > both > > >> > servers full, cpu is about 30%. > > >> > > > >> > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed > a > > >> > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, > it > > >> used > > >> > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 > > >> > has > > >> > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra > > cpu. > > >> My > > >> > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both > > >> > installations > > >> > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. > > >> > > > >> > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too > old > > >> > to > > >> > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not > sure > > >> > it > > >> > would be any better under 2008. > > >> > > > >> > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware > re. > > >> > performance? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > ___ > > >> > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than 2003. However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would be shocked if it did), please let us know! Kyle. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook wrote: > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has as-is. > > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty - and > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the linux > hlds > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to optimize > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm leaning > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 that I > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how lousy > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and actually > work good? > > - Original Message - > From: "Kyle Sanderson" > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? > > > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets > > sloppier > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) > > Kyle. > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen > > wrote: > > > >> Add more RAM. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: > >> > >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to run > >> > an > >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and > >> > both > >> > servers full, cpu is about 30%. > >> > > >> > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed a > >> > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, it > >> used > >> > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 > >> > has > >> > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra > cpu. > >> My > >> > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both > >> > installations > >> > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. > >> > > >> > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too old > >> > to > >> > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not sure > >> > it > >> > would be any better under 2008. > >> > > >> > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware re. > >> > performance? > >> > > >> > > >> > ___ > >> > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has as-is. I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty - and it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the linux hlds binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to optimize them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm leaning towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 that I think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how lousy it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and actually work good? - Original Message - From: "Kyle Sanderson" To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets > sloppier > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) > Kyle. > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen > wrote: > >> Add more RAM. >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: >> >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to run >> > an >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and >> > both >> > servers full, cpu is about 30%. >> > >> > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed a >> > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, it >> used >> > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 >> > has >> > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra cpu. >> My >> > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both >> > installations >> > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. >> > >> > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too old >> > to >> > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not sure >> > it >> > would be any better under 2008. >> > >> > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware re. >> > performance? >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets sloppier with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) Kyle. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen wrote: > Add more RAM. > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: > > > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to run an > > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and both > > servers full, cpu is about 30%. > > > > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed a > > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, it > used > > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 has > > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra cpu. > My > > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both > > installations > > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. > > > > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too old to > > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not sure it > > would be any better under 2008. > > > > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware re. > > performance? > > > > > > ___ > > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
Add more RAM. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook wrote: > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to run an > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and both > servers full, cpu is about 30%. > > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed a > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, it used > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 has > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra cpu. My > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both > installations > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. > > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too old to > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not sure it > would be any better under 2008. > > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware re. > performance? > > > ___ > 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] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware
I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to run an OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and both servers full, cpu is about 30%. I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed a significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, it used 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 has more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra cpu. My second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both installations I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too old to run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not sure it would be any better under 2008. Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware re. performance? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
