Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 09:19, Andy Hodges wrote: RedHat sucks. ;) -Andy Dont get into a distro pissing contest again. Redhat has its place, and that place it fills well. Slackware has its place (lack of people working on it has let it down) and that place it fits well. Debian has its place and that You get the point. Different flavours running the some kernel, the same libs, the same damn near everything. If you find major differences between 2 flavours in performance, you havent setup you benchmark right, because their wont be major differences. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
- - -Have you tried running kernel 2.2.x on any of the other distros? - -Tomorrow I will try to install 2.2.x on my gentoo server, since I have had -nothing but high pings since I swapped away from debian, but I totally in -love with gentoo, and since I run it on my own machine as well, I -don't want -to use debian on the server. I just tried to install the gentoo vanilla 2.2.22 kernel, but it wont work, because a) doesnt have ext3 support, and b) doesnt have /dev fs support. I dont see any other kernel ebuilds based off of the 2.2.x kernels, so if we want to try it, it would have to be a custom job. kev ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
Well you don't need EXT3 for a game server. But you're right, it would have to be a custom job. -Andy - Original Message - From: Kevin J. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:31 PM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - -Have you tried running kernel 2.2.x on any of the other distros? - -Tomorrow I will try to install 2.2.x on my gentoo server, since I have had -nothing but high pings since I swapped away from debian, but I totally in -love with gentoo, and since I run it on my own machine as well, I -don't want -to use debian on the server. I just tried to install the gentoo vanilla 2.2.22 kernel, but it wont work, because a) doesnt have ext3 support, and b) doesnt have /dev fs support. I dont see any other kernel ebuilds based off of the 2.2.x kernels, so if we want to try it, it would have to be a custom job. kev ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
haha! And I really need to have a floppy drive because I have it on all my servers... bah! Kevin J. Anderson wrote: --Original Message- -From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Hodges -Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:40 PM -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - -Well you don't need EXT3 for a game server. But you're right, it -would have -to be a custom job. - well, i do because I have ext3 on all my servers. : P kev ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
Kevin J. Anderson wrote: well, i do because I have ext3 on all my servers. : P That shouldn't matter. The good thing about Ext3 is that you can mount it as Ext2. Florian. -- Want to produce professional emails and Usenet postings? http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
Kevin J. Anderson said: well, i do because I have ext3 on all my servers. : P You can mount an ext3 filesystem as ext2. It just won't keep a journal. Mount it sync and you shouldn't have a problem. -Mad ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
Opinion. My redhat boxes, 2ghz P4's with a gig of ram and the 2.4.9 kernel see about 20-30% cpu load with a full 18 player CS or TFC server. This is with all the annoying plugins people like to use. - Original Message - From: Andy Hodges [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance RedHat sucks. ;) -Andy - Original Message - From: Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance rofl Install redhat on 2min ;) lol! Andy Hodges wrote: They were tested on several.. 1.7 GHZ Celeron / 512mb 1.13 GHZ (non-Celeron) / 512mb 850 MHZ / 512mb Just test it yourself. Doesn't take but 2 minutes to run the install and another 5 minutes to setup your game. -Andy - Original Message - From: Kevin J. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:56 PM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance --Original Message- -From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Hodges -Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:42 PM -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - -All of your questions can be answered by installing Debian 3.0 and kernel -2.2.20. This was not a LAN server, this was on the Internet. The -users loved -the pings. Just install and run your own test. I'm sure you'll -come up with -the same findings. :) - --Andy - Im sure we would all like to know the system specs of the machines you are talking about etc. kev ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
Yes, as far as serving hlds is concerned (and in my experience). Anyone running redhat owes it to themself to at least try the 2.4.9x kernel rpm. Worst case, they lose 20 minutes and a reboot and can go back to whatever kernel they were prviously using. - Original Message - From: Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance Didn't someone discovered that the cpu usage changed very much in the kernel version above 2.4.9 or something like that? But there's nothing wrong with using 2.2.0 :) /Oscar Andy Hodges wrote: Debian's TOP works fine. Even the user pings stayed normal with 20 users compared to RH, etc. Give Debian a try with Kernel 2.2.20 .. don't take my word for it, find out for yourself. -Andy Hodges - Original Message - From: Jonas Andrén [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance sounds really strange that a 20player server under linux would only take 10-15% cpu id rather think that there is something wrong with top in debian :) cs_assault is one of the heaviest maps for my server to run, while aztec is one of the least heavy. which map are the procentages from? file://Jonas - Original Message - From: Andy Hodges [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance During the past week I have done some research and ran a few tests using different platforms. Initially, I asked what Linux flavor everyone was using and most people said RedHat, FreeBSD, and Debian. I installed all of these flavors on different linux machines. This testing was done on the Counter-Strike MOD using 20 players. The maps were cs_assault, and de_aztec. All Linux flavors performed the same except for Debian. Debian's performance was much better than the other machines. I used RedHat v7.2, RedHat v 7.3, RedHat v8.0, Debian v3.0, and FreeBSD v4.7. 20 player Counter-Strike Tests: RedHat v7.2, 7.3, and 8.0 = 80-90% CPU usage FreeBSD = 60-70% CPU usage Debian = 10-15% CPU usage The difference I found was the Kernel. RedHat installs the latest Kernel which is v 2.4.18x. Debian installed v 2.2.20 as the default. I found this very interesting. So I installed Kernel 2.4.18x and the CPU usage went up to 25%-35%. Still, beating RedHat and FreeBSD. I'm going to use Debian 3.0, and Kernel 2.2.20 (or 2.2.24) as my kernel. I'm not saying that Debian is the best Linux out there, however, my tests prove that Debian and Kernel 2.2.x make great harmony. Just thought I would pass the info. -Andy Hodges ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth
4Kbytes/users/sec 3600 change 1 sec on 1 h 24 1 day 30 days 4k X 8 = 32 Kbites 32Kbites X 20 Players = 640 Kbites/sec or 80KBytes/sec 640Kb X 3600 = 2304000 Kbites /H or 80KB X 3600 = 288000 KBytes /H 2304000 Kb/H X 24 H = 55296000 Kbites /24H or 288000KB/H X 24 H = 6912000 KBytes /24H 55296000Kb/24H X 30 Days = 165888 Kbites / 30 Days or 6912000KB/24H X 30 Days = 20736 KBytes /30 Days resulte 165888 Kbites / 30 Days = 1.65888 Tbites /30 Days / 20 PLayers or 20736 KBytes /30 Days = 207.36 GoBytes /30 Days /20 Players OR 165888 Kbites / 30 Days /Divise 8 = 207.36 GoBytes /30 Days /20 Players - Original Message - From: Me [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth I don't know where Terabites comes from? 32kB * 3600 = 115200 kB 11520 * 24 = 2764800 kB 2764800 * 30 = 82944000 kB 82944000 / 1024 = 81000 MB 81000 /1024 = ~79.1 GB I personally like to use more than 4 kB. I think 5 kB is more accurate. 5 * 20 = 100 kB 100 * 60 = 6000 kB 6000 * 60 = 36 kB 36 * 24 = 864 kB 864 * 30 = 25920 kB 25920 / 1024 = 253125 MB 253125 / 1024 = 247.19 GB (rounded) Now say your server is full 1/2 the time: 247.19 / 2 = 123.6 GB (rounded) 32kb * 3600 * 24H * 30d = 82,944 Terabites / month - Original Message - From: kama [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, DaiTengu wrote: hey all, just curious ... I'm getting conflicting reports... How much bandwith does a 20 person server use over the course of a month? Simple math: Say every user takes 4kB/s.. 4kB * 60s * 60m * 24h * 30d * 20players = ~210GB/month /Bjorn Whoa...she's got a nice set of unary operators! ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance
you have a link to that rpm by chance? I cant find a dl anywhere. (to try on my gentoo box) --Original Message- -From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DLinkOZ -Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:14 PM -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - -Yes, as far as serving hlds is concerned (and in my experience). Anyone -running redhat owes it to themself to at least try the 2.4.9x kernel rpm. -Worst case, they lose 20 minutes and a reboot and can go back to whatever -kernel they were prviously using. - - -- Original Message - -From: Oscar N aka 'Dreadful' [EMAIL PROTECTED] -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:54 AM -Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - -Didn't someone discovered that the cpu usage changed very much in the -kernel version above 2.4.9 or something like that? -But there's nothing wrong with using 2.2.0 :) - -/Oscar - -Andy Hodges wrote: - -Debian's TOP works fine. Even the user pings stayed normal with 20 users -compared to RH, etc. - -Give Debian a try with Kernel 2.2.20 .. don't take my word for -it, find out -for yourself. - --Andy Hodges - -- Original Message - -From: Jonas Andrén [EMAIL PROTECTED] -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:37 AM -Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - - - -sounds really strange that a 20player server under linux would only take -10-15% cpu id rather think that there is something wrong with top in -debian :) - -cs_assault is one of the heaviest maps for my server to run, while aztec - - -is - - -one of the least heavy. -which map are the procentages from? - -file://Jonas -- Original Message - -From: Andy Hodges [EMAIL PROTECTED] -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:21 PM -Subject: [hlds_linux] Linux Results - Performance - - - - -During the past week I have done some research and ran a few -tests using -different platforms. Initially, I asked what Linux flavor everyone was - - -using - - -and most people said RedHat, FreeBSD, and Debian. I installed all of - - -these - - -flavors on different linux machines. This testing was done on the -Counter-Strike MOD using 20 players. - -The maps were cs_assault, and de_aztec. - -All Linux flavors performed the same except for Debian. Debian's - - -performance - - -was much better than the other machines. I used RedHat v7.2, RedHat v - - -7.3, - - -RedHat v8.0, Debian v3.0, and FreeBSD v4.7. - -20 player Counter-Strike Tests: - -RedHat v7.2, 7.3, and 8.0 = 80-90% CPU usage -FreeBSD = 60-70% CPU usage -Debian = 10-15% CPU usage - -The difference I found was the Kernel. RedHat installs the -latest Kernel -which is v 2.4.18x. Debian installed v 2.2.20 as the default. I found - - -this - - -very interesting. So I installed Kernel 2.4.18x and the CPU usage went - - -up - - -to - - -25%-35%. Still, beating RedHat and FreeBSD. - -I'm going to use Debian 3.0, and Kernel 2.2.20 (or 2.2.24) as -my kernel. - - -I'm - - -not saying that Debian is the best Linux out there, however, my tests - - -prove - - -that Debian and Kernel 2.2.x make great harmony. - -Just thought I would pass the info. - --Andy Hodges - - -___ -To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, - - -please visit: - - -http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux - - - -___ -To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, - - -please visit: - - -http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux - - - -___ -To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, -please visit: -http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux - - - - - -___ -To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, -please visit: -http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux - - -___ -To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list -archives, please visit: -http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] What's wrong with my Outlook?
Ok, lemme flip a few birds with one email... 1) This is a Linux mailing list. Right. It's a mailing list. And I have some questions about the mailing list. More specifically, I have ONE question that I was hoping the generally knowledgeable users of this list could help me with. 2) Use client X. You know, that's great too. Sorry, I know nothing about your client would have sufficed. My car won't start. Buy a new one. Not exactly a useful or appreciated answer. I use Outlook because I do the majority of my work from a Windows box. And I have a Palm Pilot that works wonderfully with it. Outlook, as a suite, does wonders for me. But I have this one little problem that I was hoping for some possible fixes or hints and tips on. Switching clients for this is not exactly my idea of a logically sound suggestion. 3) Thankyou Eric and others. I'm using Outlook 2000, and threading does seem to work for the most part, but as I discussed like a month ago, there is the occasional post that does really screwy things. I guess I'll just have to live with it. Thanks for understanding why I'm asking here and not being a Sylthe. I mean a dick. - Tyler [TASF]Overkill Schwend Semper facere bonum, an a amare odium, vita mors. --- Server operator of [LCGA]Telefragged: Counter-Strike: telefragged.lynchburg.edu:27015 http://schwend-t.web.lynchburg.edu ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth OT
Hahah. Uglycs is great! I used to use mrtg or rrdtool, but uglycs makes it so easy to add extra servers! You're welcome to put that on there if you like, but the link will change soon. I'll send you the new link as soon as our site goes live. Justin - Original Message - From: Kingsley Foreman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth OT that looks a lot like some software i wrote :) anyone using uglygs who wants it listed on my site pm me a link and ill put it up - Original Message - From: Justin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth http://cali.modkillers.com/monitor/servers/HLS64.5.44.97%3A27015.html u server not populaire man my server is full 18h / 24h per day - Original Message - From: Justin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth If you have maxrate set at 8000, the theoretical maximum is about 400GB. My servers (which are fairly popular) average about 125GB/month. Most servers (i hear) average about 60GB/month. Back when I had a 32 man server it was going about 12GB/day, and it was full 24/7. HTH, Justin - Original Message - From: Bloodrayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth 4Kbytes/users/sec 3600 change 1 sec on 1 h 24 1 day 30 days 4k X 8 = 32 Kbites 32Kbites X 20 Players = 640 Kbites/sec or 80KBytes/sec 640Kb X 3600 = 2304000 Kbites /H or 80KB X 3600 = 288000 KBytes /H 2304000 Kb/H X 24 H = 55296000 Kbites /24H or 288000KB/H X 24 H = 6912000 KBytes /24H 55296000Kb/24H X 30 Days = 165888 Kbites / 30 Days or 6912000KB/24H X 30 Days = 20736 KBytes /30 Days resulte 165888 Kbites / 30 Days = 1.65888 Tbites /30 Days / 20 PLayers or 20736 KBytes /30 Days = 207.36 GoBytes /30 Days /20 Players OR 165888 Kbites / 30 Days /Divise 8 = 207.36 GoBytes /30 Days /20 Players - Original Message - From: Me [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth I don't know where Terabites comes from? 32kB * 3600 = 115200 kB 11520 * 24 = 2764800 kB 2764800 * 30 = 82944000 kB 82944000 / 1024 = 81000 MB 81000 /1024 = ~79.1 GB I personally like to use more than 4 kB. I think 5 kB is more accurate. 5 * 20 = 100 kB 100 * 60 = 6000 kB 6000 * 60 = 36 kB 36 * 24 = 864 kB 864 * 30 = 25920 kB 25920 / 1024 = 253125 MB 253125 / 1024 = 247.19 GB (rounded) Now say your server is full 1/2 the time: 247.19 / 2 = 123.6 GB (rounded) 32kb * 3600 * 24H * 30d = 82,944 Terabites / month - Original Message - From: kama [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Server Bandwidth On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, DaiTengu wrote: hey all, just curious ... I'm getting conflicting reports... How much bandwith does a 20 person server use over the course of a month? Simple math: Say every user takes 4kB/s.. 4kB * 60s * 60m * 24h * 30d * 20players = ~210GB/month /Bjorn Whoa...she's got a nice set of unary operators! ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe,
