RE: [hlds_linux] [OT] Anyone running UT2K3 Dedicated side by side with HLDS?
Thank you! -Original Message- From: mumbo$jumbo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] [OT] Anyone running UT2K3 Dedicated side by side with HLDS? Heya, Was wondering if anyone has been running UT2K3 Dedicated Server side by side I run one small hlds_l together with two UT2k3 servers (one demo and retail) among other things. They all run fine for me. with HLDS? I'm having some issues and could use some help. On isntall it keeps giving me extraction failure.. I'm wondering if anyone knows how to fix this.. and on top of that if UT2K3 is a huge resource hog? The HLDS server has priority over it.. If you have extraction problem whith the ut2k3 dedicated installer - it's probably because it tries to use /tmp and there isn't room. This oneliner should fix it: 'sed s/\/tmp/\/usr\/tmp/g ut2003lnxded.sh.bin ut2003-fixed.sh.bin % chmod 755 ut2003-fixed.sh.bin' Yes, and ut2k3 is a hog. Have fun. --- marius ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] [OT] Xeon vs P3
Dual Xeon MP 2,8 vs Dual P3 1,4 Tualatin (that means 0,13 microns and 512 L2 cache) its only 22% improvement on Citrix Metaframe (Terminal Services). Thats QUITE dissapointing. See link http://activeanswers.compaq.com/ActiveAnswers/Render/1,1027,5684-6-100-2 25-1,00.htm /me waits anxiously for Athlon64 (Clawhammer). ToP CaT =^..^= ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [OT] Xeon vs P3
ToP CaT =^..^= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dual Xeon MP 2,8 vs Dual P3 1,4 Tualatin (that means 0,13 microns and 512 L2 cache) its only 22% improvement on Citrix Metaframe (Terminal Services). Thats QUITE dissapointing. See link http://activeanswers.compaq.com/ActiveAnswers/Render/1,1027,5684-6-100-2 25-1,00.htm /me waits anxiously for Athlon64 (Clawhammer). ToP CaT =^..^= Sounds like this may be more due to the operating system than the processor? Test results validated HP's belief that, as processor speeds increase, the System Page Table Entry (PTE)/System Address Pool limitation inherent in the 32-bit Windows 2000 operating system would be reached. In this particular test environment, two-way ProLiant DL380 G3 2.8GHz servers with hyper-threading enabled were limited to 175 users. This is the first time that a two-way server has been able to sustain such a workload while demonstrating the impact of the System PTE/System Address Pool limitation on server performance. (Somebody want to explain what that means - Stan?) -Simon ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] [OT] Xeon vs P3
Yep... Seems to be a limitation that raises when managing huge amounts of memory (4GB) in such services like Metaframe. But maybe its a limitation of the 32 bit memory addresing scheme rather than the OS itself. Yes, it can manage 4GB but its just a patch. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q247904 -Mensaje original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] En nombre de Simon Garner Enviado el: martes, 03 de diciembre de 2002 0:14 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: [hlds_linux] [OT] Xeon vs P3 Sounds like this may be more due to the operating system than the processor? Test results validated HP's belief that, as processor speeds increase, the System Page Table Entry (PTE)/System Address Pool limitation inherent in the 32-bit Windows 2000 operating system would be reached. In this particular test environment, two-way ProLiant DL380 G3 2.8GHz servers with hyper-threading enabled were limited to 175 users. This is the first time that a two-way server has been able to sustain such a workload while demonstrating the impact of the System PTE/System Address Pool limitation on server performance. (Somebody want to explain what that means - Stan?) -Simon ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] [OT] kkrcon
Has anyone seen this before? -- KKrcon version 2.11 running in interactive mode Server: blah.blah.co.nz Port: 27015 Type 'q' to quit. kkrcon status Error: No challenge response -- FROM CHANGELOG:- *) Fixed module bug: No error would be returned if you try to Rcon to a working IP on an incorrect port. This can only be caught for type=new, and gives error No challenge response. (S. Garner) Unless I'm going crazy 27015 is the right port... It used to work which is what has me puzzled. I'm thinking possible firewall issue? Cheers, James. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [OT] kkrcon
Looks to me like you don't have data connectivity to that server (because of a firewall?) Rcon is a stateless, UDP based protocol. You send it a challenge packet and then it sends back a magic number. From the error message it sounds like the magic number is not making it back to you. James Clark wrote: Has anyone seen this before? -- KKrcon version 2.11 running in interactive mode Server: blah.blah.co.nz Port: 27015 Type 'q' to quit. kkrcon status Error: No challenge response -- FROM CHANGELOG:- *) Fixed module bug: No error would be returned if you try to Rcon to a working IP on an incorrect port. This can only be caught for type=new, and gives error No challenge response. (S. Garner) Unless I'm going crazy 27015 is the right port... It used to work which is what has me puzzled. I'm thinking possible firewall issue? Cheers, James. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] access restriction
I think earlier Florian mentioned that adminmod could be used to restrict access to a server. Is that with using something like the users or ip.ini files? I'm still having trouble sorting out this private players thing and need to find an answer quickly... Here's hoping. Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] access restriction
Admin Mod can restrict users via the users.ini (for names and wonid's) and via the ips.ini file for ips addresses (and ranges). http://www.adminmod.org/help/online/Configuration/Setting_up_your_users.ini_file.htm has more details about the users.ini one. Use the amv_private_server cvar to make it private (see: http://www.adminmod.org/help/online/Admin_Mod_Reference/Admin_Mod_Configuration_Variables_CVARs.htm#amv_private_server for more details). Alfred Jay Anstiss wrote: I think earlier Florian mentioned that adminmod could be used to restrict access to a server. Is that with using something like the users or ip.ini files? I'm still having trouble sorting out this private players thing and need to find an answer quickly... Here's hoping. Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] access restriction
Thanks Alfred, but from what I've read on those links I don't think it will help me much (I maybe wrong - I don't know). The beauty - supposedly - of the p2 plugin is that unless you're added to a config file you won't be able to join at all. I don't know if adminmod will do the same. I've got my admins added to my users.ini file, but players are still able to join. It would be great if adminmod would stop anyone from joining unless added to the users file, but I don't know if this can be done. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] access restriction
Your wrong I think. Link...same as Alfred Posted: http://www.adminmod.org/help/online/Admin_Mod_Reference/Admin_Mod_Configuration_Variables_CVARs.htm#amv_private_server On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 20:46, Jay Anstiss wrote: Thanks Alfred, but from what I've read on those links I don't think it will help me much (I maybe wrong - I don't know). The beauty - supposedly - of the p2 plugin is that unless you're added to a config file you won't be able to join at all. I don't know if adminmod will do the same. I've got my admins added to my users.ini file, but players are still able to join. It would be great if adminmod would stop anyone from joining unless added to the users file, but I don't know if this can be done. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] access restriction
Please read before posting: Admin Mod can restrict users via the users.ini (for names and wonid's) and via the ips.ini file for ips addresses (and ranges). http://www.adminmod.org/help/online/Configuration/Setting_up_your_users.ini_file.htm has more details about the users.ini one. Use the amv_private_server cvar to make it private (see: http://www.adminmod.org/help/online/Admin_Mod_Reference/Admin_Mod_Configuration_Variables_CVARs.htm#amv_private_server for more details). Alfred POSTED Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:26:11 /POSTED On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 19:46, Jay Anstiss wrote: Thanks Alfred, but from what I've read on those links I don't think it will help me much (I maybe wrong - I don't know). The beauty - supposedly - of the p2 plugin is that unless you're added to a config file you won't be able to join at all. I don't know if adminmod will do the same. I've got my admins added to my users.ini file, but players are still able to join. It would be great if adminmod would stop anyone from joining unless added to the users file, but I don't know if this can be done. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux -- Brad Schulteis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] access restriction
Jay Anstiss wrote: Thanks Alfred, but from what I've read on those links I don't think it will help me much (I maybe wrong - I don't know). The beauty - supposedly - of the p2 plugin is that unless you're added to a config file you won't be able to join at all. I don't know if adminmod will do the same. Jay, the second link he posted had this as the 1st sentace: Enables private server mode. This allows only users who have authorisation either via the users.ini. Did you read it? I've got my admins added to my users.ini file, but players are still able to join. The cvar in question is amv_private_server. Do you have this set on your server? As in amv_private_server 1? This would be in your server.cfg file. -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] access restriction
To Mogely and Brad - thanks for pointing out the mistake to me. You'll have to forgive my ignorance as I've been running around most of yesterday looking after an elderly neighbour - I am tired! :/ Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] [OT]Memory management- WAS Xeon vs P3
(Somebody want to explain what that means - Stan?) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q247904 That article explains the windows terminal services problem thoroughly. Why are we discussing a microsoft OS memory management problem on this list? Oh, maybe memory management needs some explanation: Programs are written today in portable, high level languages (C, C++). Programmers do not explicitly manage memory locations, as modern OS's handle this for them. This is because systems run many programs simultaneously (multitasking), and thus one programmer cannot take into account what other programs (and what physical memory locations they are using) may be running on the system. So programmers use virtual addresses, which the operating system memory management code translates into physical memory addresses at run time. The problem described in the article above arises because the OS comsumes memory in order to manage the virtual-physical mapping of memory locations. The consumed memory stores the translation tables, which map virtual memory addresses to physical memory addresses. Kind of a double edged sword, eh? The more memory a system has (thus allowing more processes to run, or larger processes, i.e. databases), the more of that memory is consumed just to manage memory. This is the price we pay for progress... ;) Oh, wasn't this thread about P4 Xeon performance (or lack thereof :)? Answer in next post... StanTheMan TheHardwareFreak rcon admin at: Beer for Breakfast servershttp://bfb.bogleg.org/ 209.41.98.2:27016 (CS multi-map) 209.41.98.2:27015 (DoD) 209.41.98.2:27017 (CS militia/dust2)Dallas, TX ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] [OT] Xeon vs P3
Xeons could be better. They're not just an SMP capable P4. Ahh, but that's exactly what the new Xeon is-- an SMP capable P4. The only differences are SMP and the optional L3 cache sizes (and hyperthreading, although the latest--3Ghz--P4 has it also). Also keep in mind that the XeonDP doesn't have an L3 cache option, and that its L2 cache is the same size as the P4. So, the XeonDP *IS* merely a P4 with 2-way SMP support: http://developer.intel.com/design/Xeon/prodbref/ And, regarding hyperthreading, is seems safe to assume that no one read the links I posted before. sigh... At this point, Intel's Hyperthreading (again, generically called Simultaneous Multithreading, or SMT) is nothing more than marketing hype. As Intel plainly states, Linux does not support it, nor do any of MS's current server OSs. Don't waste any brain cycles on it. The 10.0Ghz Xeon (yes, ten, equal to ~2 years) will be out before hyperthreading enjoys *cough* widespread *cough* support anyway. By that time Hammer will be out, and then, well, all bets are off. Early indications are that Hammer will run Xeon into the ground, and will only have serious competetion from Itanium3/4. Can anyone here afford an Itanium machine? I can't. And I'd bet that AMD will price at least one Hammer variant in the mere mortal category. The Xeon is an overpriced, under performing (as far as user expectations go) processor. It'll cost you ~double a comparable AthlonMP platform, and give you little or no performance gain for server work. From PriceScan: AMD Athlon MP 1900+ 1.60GHz/Socket A/266 FSB/384K (Box) $147.00 AMD Athlon MP 2000+ 1.67/Socket A /266 FSB/384K (Box) $156.00 AMD Athlon MP 2200+ 1.8GHz/Socket A/ 266 FSB/384K (Box) $216.00 Tyan S2460 Tiger MP $159.00 Asus A7M266 DPA Multi Processor $209.00 Giga-Byte GA-7DPXDWP $240.71 Intel Xeon 2.0GHz/Socket 603/400 FST/512K (Box) $218.00 Intel Xeon 2.2GHz/Socket 603/400 FST/512K (Box) $218.00 Intel Xeon 2.4GHz/Socket 603/400 FST/512K (Box) $255.50 Intel Xeon 2.6GHz/Socket 603/400 FST/512K (Box) $367.11 Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/Socket 603/400 FST/512K (Box) $481.05 Intel SE7500CW2 $373.47 SuperMicro P4DCE+ $380.00 Tyan S2720GN $384.87 I'd suggest (since a suggestion is what the original question asked for, iirc) acquiring a dual AthlonMP 2000+ based on a Tyan S2460/2466 mobo. You'll get far better performance per clock tic than a Xeon system, and save a ton of money. Hell, for some applications, a dual AthlonMP 2000+ may out perform a dual P4 Xeon 2.8Ghz. To date, I've never owned an AMD system. I've been all Intel. However, any new system I build will be AMD based, because of the phenomenal price/performance advantage, ESPECIALLY regarding SMP systems. Intel shot itself in the foot when it decided to strip 2-way SMP suppport from the P4, and force one to go Xeon. This created an enormous cost hurdle for those of us who build 2-way boxen from components. Even if Intel had left regular P4s with 2-way capability, I'd still go AthlonMP due to price/performance. StanTheMan TheHardwareFreak rcon admin at: Beer for Breakfast servershttp://bfb.bogleg.org/ 209.41.98.2:27016 (CS multi-map) 209.41.98.2:27015 (DoD) 209.41.98.2:27017 (CS militia/dust2)Dallas, TX ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] Re: Xeon vs P3
Hi Stefan, The primart difference between the P3 and the ZEON is the Cache. As some else suggested, the XEON comes with a larger cache. The cache most commomly seen on the XEON is 2M verses the 512k of the P3, and I assume the advantages of this is clear. The second area that make the XEON the preffered processor is the construction. As the XEON is designed specifically for servers, the thermal characteristics as well as the reliablity are far superior to that of the PIII or P4. All in all, the XEON is the better investment for a system that is expected to carry a large load for prolonged periods. But make sure to choose a quality server mother board and please don't even consider trying to use Pro as an OS It would be a waste. Good luck. Bull's_Eye ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
