RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
>Dust2 You should try this on Aztec or similar map because it's the one causing the issues, that and airstrip. Jeremy ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Our tests with 2.5.74 and 2.5.75 kernels showed improved results over the 2.4 kernel series. I used 2.5 kernels for sometime during 1.5 and beta 1.6. Good performance overall. Thats why we were anxious to start testing the 2.6 series as soon as the first test 2.6 came out. - Original Message - From: "James Sykes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:57 PM Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > Ignore the last mail - clicked send by accident! > > >I would appreciate feedback as to the benefits of increasing ticrate > arefor > >the client, and is it that significant? > > Generally the higher the FPS of the server the better performance you > get ingame. Lower more stable pings, and the infamous "bullet reg" tends > to improve. > > >So how does a windows 1.6 server compare to a linux/bsdone? > > Here are some stats from a single 2.4 - with nothing else running, and > with sys_ticrate 100. Slackware 8.2 with 2.5.75 kernel. > > CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers > 44.67 52.85 67.47 91283 90.92 14 > 45.00 51.42 65.07 91283 100.47 14 > 44.60 51.60 64.11 91283 90.92 14 > 41.00 52.24 65.36 91283 100.02 14 > 42.00 51.67 63.74 91283 90.74 14 > 42.67 50.97 63.41 91283 83.49 14 > 42.67 51.73 63.90 91283 90.92 14 > 43.25 51.10 63.03 91283 91.12 14 > 43.80 50.12 61.70 91283 83.35 14 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew > Donnon > Sent: 24 September 2003 00:27 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > > >HLDS shows the CPU usage for the processor it currently resides on. (ie > >just one) > > damn thats clever, didnt occur thats what it's showing > > >Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : > > > >Sys_ticrate 100: > >CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers > >34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 > >33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 > >25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 > >25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 > >28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 > >29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 > >27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 > > > >Sys_ticrate 1000: > >CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers > >39.06 86.77 125.99 252 301 254.00 18 > >40.23 88.21 132.32 252 301 203.00 18 > >34.38 86.23 131.11 252 301 230.70 18 > >38.91 87.44 138.51 252 301 346.05 18 > >50.00 93.13 143.64 252 301 256.06 18 > >40.10 87.81 129.61 252 301 260.15 18 > >39.06 81.82 118.45 252 301 206.69 18 > > > >Note : there are 3 other 20 player servers running on the box. > >Two are almost full (18/19 players), the other one just has 8 players. > > > >Currently there are 44 players total. > >Total CPU usage according to taskmgr is 45/50% > > > >Regards, > >James > > so what we are seeing here is that the standard sys_ticrate (100) is > chewing > between 25-35% per chip (xeon i assume) for a 19 player server. > Once ticrate is pushed to 1000 this rises to 35-50% which is > understandable. > > I would appreciate feedback as to the benefits of increasing ticrate are > for > the client, and is it that significant? > > I'm also assuming that the 8 player server is using very little cpu ;-) > > Now I'm sure the numbers are around here somewhere, but being on my > webmail > client I cant get to them, so how does a windows 1.6 server compare to a > linux/bsd one? > > Matt > > ___ > 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: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Then your simply not listening. Try "grep -i "lag" -r logs/ If you haven't seen a change in performance running the same number of servers on the same hardware, then your not paying attention. I been doing this since beta 5.2, I didn't just start this yesterday. What kernel are you running? What hardware? How many ACTIVE servers on that hardware? Pingboost? You say you have seen no difference, show us some of stats. Show us somethign other than, "no problem here". - Original Message - From: "Britt Priddy (PZGN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > Same here on the CPU usage - we've had no complaints yet. > > Britt > > - Original Message - > From: "Kevin J. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:44 PM > Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > > > > > > > > ->-Original Message- > > ->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > ->[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ->Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:28 PM > > ->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ->Subject: Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > > > > -> > > ->How long is valve gonna sit around with their dicks in their > > ->hands thinking > > ->we are either making this up or just not caring? I cant afford to wait 6 > > ->months for valve to fix this. If they are getting low cpu usage on their > > ->hardware with hlds_l then by god give us the specs down to the > > ->make/model of > > ->everything and lets see if they are bs'n us. > > -> > > ->You guys at valve gonna fix this at all? I know you read this list. We > are > > ->calling you out. We want an answer on this. > > -> > > ->PS - one last thing all you small time server admins (like > > ->myself) out there > > ->making all your money off cs servers. 3 words. Class Action Lawsuit. If > my > > ->business fails because of this and I cant find customers quick enough to > > ->make money still then i will look into this. My wife works at a lawfirm. > > froma previous email from alfred: > > > > These are the 3 machines we actively test with. None have revealed > anywhere > > near the CPU load other people report. > > > > Build Machine: > > >gcc -v > > Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.3/specs > > gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release) > > >uname -a > > Linux linuxbuild2 2.2.5 #1 Fri Apr 2 16:37:56 MEST 1999 i686 unknown > > SuSE Linux 6.1 (i386) > > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > > processor : 0 > > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD > > cpu family : 6 > > model : 8 > > model name : AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2200+ > > stepping: 0 > > cpu MHz : 1795.387510 > > fdiv_bug: no > > hlt_bug : no > > sep_bug : no > > f00f_bug: no > > fpu : yes > > fpu_exception : yes > > cpuid level : 1 > > wp : yes > > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr 6 mce cx8 9 sep 12 pge 14 cmov > > fcmov 17 22 mmx 24 30 3dnow > > bogomips: 1789.13 > > > > GNU C Library production release version 2.0.7 > > > > > > 64 bit build machine: > > >gcc -v > > Thread model: posix > > gcc version 3.2.2 (SuSE Linux) > > > uname -a > > Linux 64bitcompiler 2.4.19 #1 Wed Apr 30 15:17:44 UTC 2003 x86_64 unknown > > UnitedLinux 1.0 (AMD64) > > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > > processor : 0 > > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD > > cpu family : 15 > > model : 4 > > model name : Athlon HX > > stepping: 0 > > cpu MHz : 1595.496 > > cache size : 1024 KB > > fpu : yes > > fpu_exception : yes > > cpuid level : 1 > > wp : yes > > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca > > cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext > 3dnow > > bogomips: 3185.04 > > TLB size: 1088 4K pages > > clflush size: 64 > > address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual > > power management: ts ttp > > > > GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5 > > > > > > Test1: > > >uname -a > > Linux alfred_linux 2.4.19-16mdkcustom #3 Fri Feb 21 14:26:04 PST 2003 i686 > > unknown unknown GNU/Linux > > Mandrake Linux release 9.0 (dolphin) for i586 > > >cat /proc/cpuinfo > > processor : 0 > > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > > cpu family : 6 > > model : 5 > > model name : Pentium II (Deschutes) > > stepping: 1 > > cpu MHz : 400.914 > > cache size : 512 KB > > fdiv_bug: no > > hlt_bug : no > > f00f_bug: no > > coma_bug: no > > fpu : yes > > fpu_exception : yes > > cpuid level : 2 > > wp : yes > > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca > > cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr > > bogomips: 799.53 > > > > > > GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5 >
Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
this stats output for a default rh9 install on a dual xeon 2ghz with 1.5 gb of ram. CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers 48.50 37.65 45.28 40 106 49.84 17 map is aztec jake Matthew Donnon wrote: Alfred: All the testing machines you have listed are AMD based, or older intel base. Given that all these architectures are more efficient per clock cycle is HLDS really emphasising the calc per clock cycle disparity between intel/amd cpus? Is there any oppurtunity for Valve testing on an Intel machine? I may be able to organise the loan of a current spec machine if you are still based in Aus. We have tested with other INTEL machines (in particular a dual PIII). Optmisation options at this time seem to be limited to choice of compiler (testing suggests that gcc 3.x doesn't provide any significant increase in performance). I wouldn't describe the p3 architecture as anywhere near current and in fact group it with p2/athlon as a more efficient per mhz chip than p4. Specifically, have you tested with the p4 core as that seems to be the one with the most performance issues. I do not think its an optimisation issue with GCC, rather that HLDS is in particular highlighting a weakness in the P4/xeon. The P4 is the architecture which intel sacrificed significant perf per mhz so they could ramp the mhz right through the roof. Looking at many benchmarks (admittedly none that have any real relevance in game serving) the P4 needs a 500-600 mhz boost over 32bit athlon, and nearly a 1ghz boost over 64bit athlon to post similar performances. SSE2 support appears to make the biggest difference in software performance and is something I'm sure hlds lacks. Matt ___ 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] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
->-Original Message- ->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin J. ->Anderson ->Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:16 PM ->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ->Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage -> ->On the flip side of that, I run a steam cs server, 32 players on windows ->server, and it uses the metamod plugin winhl booster to pump up ->the fps, and ->I dont think it uses anywhere near as much cpu as a comparable ->linux box... ->I dont have any scientific data, thats all just me looking at teh ->cpu usage ->when the server is reasonably full... rgr, dual xeon 2.4ghz, 20 players on inferno out of 32 possible, and its using roughly 6% cpu usage going by the processes list in taskmanager... this is even using winhlbooster trying to get 500fps... 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] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Unfortunately, "unmodified" hlds doesn't run decent. sys_ticrate does do much on a kernel compiled at 1000hz. Ive found its actually more stable near 100fps on 1000hz kernel if sys_ticate is left at 100. The new kernels, 2.6, not the 2.4 series are mostly going to be default at 500 or 1000hz. 100hz kernels are a thing of the past. We are currently testing another 2.6 kernel at 500hz. This one seems to give the pings/fps needed and has shown slightly lower load and cpu usage. Its not your kernels, its not your hardware, its HLDS. Ive ran the amd binary on the Intel just to see, and cpu usage was identical. win to linux is apple and oranges to begin with. Without doubt, win32 runs hlds better than linux does right now. Somehow linux has to be cleaned up and performance fixed. - Original Message - From: "Simon Garner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:17 AM [GMT+1200=NZT], > Destroyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Unfortunately without using pingboost or sys_ticrate or hz=1000 the > > ping/fps/user experience is shit. This has been an issue with hl for > > some time now even before the pingboost option was available. Why > > did ppl use the UDPsoft ping booster? Because your server absolutely > > kicked ass when you did and the pings were awesome. Now we have to > > use those things just to get decent play and the CPU is through the > > roof. > > > > I understand that but if you start using pingboost and fiddling with > sys_ticrate and hz then try comparing CPU usage back to Windows HLDS > then it's comparing apples with oranges. > > We need to try and get the "unmodified" Linux HLDS running at decent CPU > levels before worrying about tuning it. Anything you do to reduce pings > is going to increase CPU usage. > > -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
RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Dust2 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 September 2003 01:33 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage What map is this on? Jeremy -Original Message- Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : Sys_ticrate 100: CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers 34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 Sys_ticrate 1000: CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers 39.06 86.77 125.99 252 301 254.00 18 40.23 88.21 132.32 252 301 203.00 18 34.38 86.23 131.11 252 301 230.70 18 38.91 87.44 138.51 252 301 346.05 18 50.00 93.13 143.64 252 301 256.06 18 40.10 87.81 129.61 252 301 260.15 18 39.06 81.82 118.45 252 301 206.69 18 Note : there are 3 other 20 player servers running on the box. Two are almost full (18/19 players), the other one just has 8 players. Currently there are 44 players total. Total CPU usage according to taskmgr is 45/50% Regards, 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 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
I would never sue for something provided for free. They could have denied peoples use of their software for the purpose of making money. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > Valve has seriously f*cked us all. Strong statement but its true. > > I was able to run like 8 16 player servers on my p4 3.06ghz with HT. I have > optimized kernel and all that. now im getting complaints when they fill up > and i only have 4 running. > > I check usage and its at 90% on each processor that top shows. > > How are we supposed to stay alive on that kinda performance? > > How long is valve gonna sit around with their dicks in their hands thinking > we are either making this up or just not caring? I cant afford to wait 6 > months for valve to fix this. If they are getting low cpu usage on their > hardware with hlds_l then by god give us the specs down to the make/model of > everything and lets see if they are bs'n us. > > You guys at valve gonna fix this at all? I know you read this list. We are > calling you out. We want an answer on this. > > PS - one last thing all you small time server admins (like myself) out there > making all your money off cs servers. 3 words. Class Action Lawsuit. If my > business fails because of this and I cant find customers quick enough to > make money still then i will look into this. My wife works at a lawfirm. > > - Original Message - > From: "James Sykes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:57 PM > Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > > > > Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : > > > > Sys_ticrate 100: > > CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers > > 34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 > > 33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 > > 25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 > > 25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 > > 28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 > > 29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 > > 27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 > > > > Sys_ticrate 1000: > > CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers > > 39.06 86.77 125.99 252 301 254.00 18 > > 40.23 88.21 132.32 252 301 203.00 18 > > 34.38 86.23 131.11 252 301 230.70 18 > > 38.91 87.44 138.51 252 301 346.05 18 > > 50.00 93.13 143.64 252 301 256.06 18 > > 40.10 87.81 129.61 252 301 260.15 18 > > 39.06 81.82 118.45 252 301 206.69 18 > > > > Note : there are 3 other 20 player servers running on the box. > > Two are almost full (18/19 players), the other one just has 8 players. > > > > Currently there are 44 players total. > > Total CPU usage according to taskmgr is 45/50% > > > > Regards, > > 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 > ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:57 PM [GMT+1200=NZT], Matthew Donnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wouldn't describe the p3 architecture as anywhere near current and > in fact group it with p2/athlon as a more efficient per mhz chip than > p4. > > Specifically, have you tested with the p4 core as that seems to be > the one with the most performance issues. > I think the poor performance of the P4 is a totally separate issue and there's little Valve can do about this. If you're running P4s then that's your choice. The problem remains that on AMD and P3 systems the current Linux HLDS performs worse than the Windows version, and worse than previous versions. -Simon ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
> >> Alfred: All the testing machines you have listed are AMD based, or >> older intel base. Given that all these architectures are more >> efficient per clock cycle is HLDS really emphasising the calc per >> clock cycle disparity between intel/amd cpus? >> Is there any oppurtunity for Valve testing on an Intel machine? >> I may be able to organise the loan of a current spec machine if you >> are still based in Aus. >> > >We have tested with other INTEL machines (in particular a dual PIII). >Optmisation options at this time seem to be limited to choice of compiler >(testing suggests that gcc 3.x doesn't provide any significant increase in >performance). > I wouldn't describe the p3 architecture as anywhere near current and in fact group it with p2/athlon as a more efficient per mhz chip than p4. Specifically, have you tested with the p4 core as that seems to be the one with the most performance issues. I do not think its an optimisation issue with GCC, rather that HLDS is in particular highlighting a weakness in the P4/xeon. The P4 is the architecture which intel sacrificed significant perf per mhz so they could ramp the mhz right through the roof. Looking at many benchmarks (admittedly none that have any real relevance in game serving) the P4 needs a 500-600 mhz boost over 32bit athlon, and nearly a 1ghz boost over 64bit athlon to post similar performances. SSE2 support appears to make the biggest difference in software performance and is something I'm sure hlds lacks. Matt ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Here you basically say, that you won't bother to actually fix anything, since the hl-engine is about to die anyway? (Since you're only willing to change compiler, not the actual source.) And btw, I assume you use gcc 2.95 now, are you aware that it doesn't even have athlon optimizations? gcc 3.3 with -mcpu=athlon-xp -march=athlon-xp should REALLY do something about performance, give us numbers please :) - Sindre >Optmisation options at this time seem to be limited to choice of compiler >(testing suggests that gcc 3.x doesn't provide any significant increase in >performance). ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
no, they should all be ran at 100 fps :) - Sindre >= Original Message From "Simon Garner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = >On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:34 AM [GMT+1200=NZT], >Marco Balle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Now there are 16 players on the server, started with pingboost 1, >> sys_ticrate 100 and renice -10: >> >> CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >> 62.20 33.49 37.71 2465 95.71 16 >> >> > >Can we please agree to do testing using default settings, ie NO >pingboost, sys_ticrate 100 and no nicing? Otherwise the results are not >really meaningful and it is difficult to make comparisons. > >-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
RE: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
->-Original Message- ->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Simon ->Garner ->Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:39 PM ->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ->Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage ->> -> ->I understand that but if you start using pingboost and fiddling with ->sys_ticrate and hz then try comparing CPU usage back to Windows HLDS ->then it's comparing apples with oranges. -> ->We need to try and get the "unmodified" Linux HLDS running at decent CPU ->levels before worrying about tuning it. Anything you do to reduce pings ->is going to increase CPU usage. On the flip side of that, I run a steam cs server, 32 players on windows server, and it uses the metamod plugin winhl booster to pump up the fps, and I dont think it uses anywhere near as much cpu as a comparable linux box... I dont have any scientific data, thats all just me looking at teh cpu usage when the server is reasonably full... kev ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
> Alfred: All the testing machines you have listed are AMD based, or > older intel base. Given that all these architectures are more > efficient per clock cycle is HLDS really emphasising the calc per > clock cycle disparity between intel/amd cpus? > Is there any oppurtunity for Valve testing on an Intel machine? > I may be able to organise the loan of a current spec machine if you > are still based in Aus. > We have tested with other INTEL machines (in particular a dual PIII). Optmisation options at this time seem to be limited to choice of compiler (testing suggests that gcc 3.x doesn't provide any significant increase in performance). > Matt > >>> So how does a windows 1.6 server compare to a linux/bsdone? >> >> Here are some stats from a single 2.4 - with nothing else running, >> and with sys_ticrate 100. Slackware 8.2 with 2.5.75 kernel. >> >> CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >> 44.67 52.85 67.47 91283 90.92 14 >> 45.00 51.42 65.07 91283 100.47 14 >> 44.60 51.60 64.11 91283 90.92 14 >> 41.00 52.24 65.36 91283 100.02 14 >> 42.00 51.67 63.74 91283 90.74 14 >> 42.67 50.97 63.41 91283 83.49 14 >> 42.67 51.73 63.90 91283 90.92 14 >> 43.25 51.10 63.03 91283 91.12 14 >> 43.80 50.12 61.70 91283 83.35 14 > > <<>> > >>> Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : >>> >>> Sys_ticrate 100: >>> CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >>> 34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 >>> 33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 >>> 25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 >>> 25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 >>> 28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 >>> 29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 >>> 27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 > > <<>> > > ___ > 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: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
ouch! so the nix version is using approx 10 MORE% cpu with 25% FEWER players compared to the win32. Thats not such a good advertisement for the linux port on intel hardware. You dont perchance happen to have an AMD based machine to perform the same testing on? I do, but am lacking the pipe to test with. Alfred: All the testing machines you have listed are AMD based, or older intel base. Given that all these architectures are more efficient per clock cycle is HLDS really emphasising the calc per clock cycle disparity between intel/amd cpus? Is there any oppurtunity for Valve testing on an Intel machine? I may be able to organise the loan of a current spec machine if you are still based in Aus. Matt >>So how does a windows 1.6 server compare to a linux/bsdone? > >Here are some stats from a single 2.4 - with nothing else running, and >with sys_ticrate 100. Slackware 8.2 with 2.5.75 kernel. > >CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >44.67 52.85 67.47 91283 90.92 14 >45.00 51.42 65.07 91283 100.47 14 >44.60 51.60 64.11 91283 90.92 14 >41.00 52.24 65.36 91283 100.02 14 >42.00 51.67 63.74 91283 90.74 14 >42.67 50.97 63.41 91283 83.49 14 >42.67 51.73 63.90 91283 90.92 14 >43.25 51.10 63.03 91283 91.12 14 >43.80 50.12 61.70 91283 83.35 14 <<>> >>Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : >> >>Sys_ticrate 100: >>CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >>34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 >>33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 >>25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 >>25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 >>28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 >>29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 >>27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 <<>> ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
What map is this on? Jeremy -Original Message- Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : Sys_ticrate 100: CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers 34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 Sys_ticrate 1000: CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers 39.06 86.77 125.99 252 301 254.00 18 40.23 88.21 132.32 252 301 203.00 18 34.38 86.23 131.11 252 301 230.70 18 38.91 87.44 138.51 252 301 346.05 18 50.00 93.13 143.64 252 301 256.06 18 40.10 87.81 129.61 252 301 260.15 18 39.06 81.82 118.45 252 301 206.69 18 Note : there are 3 other 20 player servers running on the box. Two are almost full (18/19 players), the other one just has 8 players. Currently there are 44 players total. Total CPU usage according to taskmgr is 45/50% Regards, 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: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Same here on the CPU usage - we've had no complaints yet. Britt - Original Message - From: "Kevin J. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:44 PM Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > > > ->-Original Message- > ->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > ->[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ->Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:28 PM > ->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ->Subject: Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > > -> > ->How long is valve gonna sit around with their dicks in their > ->hands thinking > ->we are either making this up or just not caring? I cant afford to wait 6 > ->months for valve to fix this. If they are getting low cpu usage on their > ->hardware with hlds_l then by god give us the specs down to the > ->make/model of > ->everything and lets see if they are bs'n us. > -> > ->You guys at valve gonna fix this at all? I know you read this list. We are > ->calling you out. We want an answer on this. > -> > ->PS - one last thing all you small time server admins (like > ->myself) out there > ->making all your money off cs servers. 3 words. Class Action Lawsuit. If my > ->business fails because of this and I cant find customers quick enough to > ->make money still then i will look into this. My wife works at a lawfirm. > froma previous email from alfred: > > These are the 3 machines we actively test with. None have revealed anywhere > near the CPU load other people report. > > Build Machine: > >gcc -v > Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.3/specs > gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release) > >uname -a > Linux linuxbuild2 2.2.5 #1 Fri Apr 2 16:37:56 MEST 1999 i686 unknown > SuSE Linux 6.1 (i386) > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD > cpu family : 6 > model : 8 > model name : AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2200+ > stepping: 0 > cpu MHz : 1795.387510 > fdiv_bug: no > hlt_bug : no > sep_bug : no > f00f_bug: no > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 1 > wp : yes > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr 6 mce cx8 9 sep 12 pge 14 cmov > fcmov 17 22 mmx 24 30 3dnow > bogomips: 1789.13 > > GNU C Library production release version 2.0.7 > > > 64 bit build machine: > >gcc -v > Thread model: posix > gcc version 3.2.2 (SuSE Linux) > > uname -a > Linux 64bitcompiler 2.4.19 #1 Wed Apr 30 15:17:44 UTC 2003 x86_64 unknown > UnitedLinux 1.0 (AMD64) > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > vendor_id : AuthenticAMD > cpu family : 15 > model : 4 > model name : Athlon HX > stepping: 0 > cpu MHz : 1595.496 > cache size : 1024 KB > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 1 > wp : yes > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca > cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow > bogomips: 3185.04 > TLB size: 1088 4K pages > clflush size: 64 > address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual > power management: ts ttp > > GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5 > > > Test1: > >uname -a > Linux alfred_linux 2.4.19-16mdkcustom #3 Fri Feb 21 14:26:04 PST 2003 i686 > unknown unknown GNU/Linux > Mandrake Linux release 9.0 (dolphin) for i586 > >cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > cpu family : 6 > model : 5 > model name : Pentium II (Deschutes) > stepping: 1 > cpu MHz : 400.914 > cache size : 512 KB > fdiv_bug: no > hlt_bug : no > f00f_bug: no > coma_bug: no > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 2 > wp : yes > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca > cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr > bogomips: 799.53 > > > GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5 > > > > dual_bereta_r0x wrote: > > Alfred Reynolds wrote: > >> The "stats" command uses the value from /proc//stat , which is > >> the same value that top uses. Perhaps the difference you are > >> encountering is due to the sampling intervals (hlds smoothes the > >> usage over a 5 second window but top simply shows the instantaneous > >> value). > >> > >> - Alfred > > > > Would you mind to send us what are the base distro used by Valve to > > test/deploy hlds? I mean, kernel version, glibc, utils, and stuff. > > Even if we hack all the possible distros and kernels, we could have > > YOURS as a base value. > > > ___ > 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:
Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
A lot of us are out here trying to help Valve - they only have so many people to tend to the 1's of people that use this software...We're testing new binaries, experimenting with different things to provide them some input. Instead of weathered threats, how about some support. Yeah - I was frustrated as hell myself at all this and yes as a hosting provider - we've invested alot of equipment/bandwidth into this deal... Knowing the software was free... The only choice we have is to either shutup or help. My wife doesn't work at a law firm, but I know many Attorneys and they'd laugh at those 3 words. Think * what can you do to help solve the problems at hand - what input can you provide? They're not doing this to be asses, but to improve and succeed what they've already done... Gotta let go of the old to bring in the new - :-) Like a guy at Valve says: "Good things come to those that wait":-) Britt - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > PS - one last thing all you small time server admins (like myself) out there > making all your money off cs servers. 3 words. Class Action Lawsuit. If my > business fails because of this and I cant find customers quick enough to > make money still then i will look into this. My wife works at a lawfirm. Ok, I was going to stay out of all this, but this statement's just plain ridiculous. Look, you're running a FREE PIECE OF SOFTWARE. FREE. You've paid no money to VALVe to run the *server* (if you wanna grip about the client, that's another story). They are not obliged to provide services to you, just as you're not obliged to stick to a platform with which you're obviously unsatisfied. HLDS is one of the few multiplayer games available where the server is not required to be commercially licensed (i.e., no CD key, no purchases necessary). That VALVe have supported your industry (your industry being server rental, I'll assume) for years now, for ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY, is pretty friggin spectacular. I don't know of another commercial entity out there that has chosen to devote as many resources to a free product. I know they're not doing it out of some sacrificial altruistic motives here, but to claim injury from a free piece of software, and to further suggest litigation over it, is just ludicrous. If you want a leg to stand on, go shell out the $40-50 to run a server instance for Battlefield 1942. -- Tim ___ 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: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Ignore the last mail - clicked send by accident! >I would appreciate feedback as to the benefits of increasing ticrate arefor >the client, and is it that significant? Generally the higher the FPS of the server the better performance you get ingame. Lower more stable pings, and the infamous "bullet reg" tends to improve. >So how does a windows 1.6 server compare to a linux/bsdone? Here are some stats from a single 2.4 - with nothing else running, and with sys_ticrate 100. Slackware 8.2 with 2.5.75 kernel. CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers 44.67 52.85 67.47 91283 90.92 14 45.00 51.42 65.07 91283 100.47 14 44.60 51.60 64.11 91283 90.92 14 41.00 52.24 65.36 91283 100.02 14 42.00 51.67 63.74 91283 90.74 14 42.67 50.97 63.41 91283 83.49 14 42.67 51.73 63.90 91283 90.92 14 43.25 51.10 63.03 91283 91.12 14 43.80 50.12 61.70 91283 83.35 14 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Donnon Sent: 24 September 2003 00:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage >HLDS shows the CPU usage for the processor it currently resides on. (ie >just one) damn thats clever, didnt occur thats what it's showing >Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : > >Sys_ticrate 100: >CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 >33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 >25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 >25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 >28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 >29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 >27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 > >Sys_ticrate 1000: >CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >39.06 86.77 125.99 252 301 254.00 18 >40.23 88.21 132.32 252 301 203.00 18 >34.38 86.23 131.11 252 301 230.70 18 >38.91 87.44 138.51 252 301 346.05 18 >50.00 93.13 143.64 252 301 256.06 18 >40.10 87.81 129.61 252 301 260.15 18 >39.06 81.82 118.45 252 301 206.69 18 > >Note : there are 3 other 20 player servers running on the box. >Two are almost full (18/19 players), the other one just has 8 players. > >Currently there are 44 players total. >Total CPU usage according to taskmgr is 45/50% > >Regards, >James so what we are seeing here is that the standard sys_ticrate (100) is chewing between 25-35% per chip (xeon i assume) for a 19 player server. Once ticrate is pushed to 1000 this rises to 35-50% which is understandable. I would appreciate feedback as to the benefits of increasing ticrate are for the client, and is it that significant? I'm also assuming that the 8 player server is using very little cpu ;-) Now I'm sure the numbers are around here somewhere, but being on my webmail client I cant get to them, so how does a windows 1.6 server compare to a linux/bsd one? Matt ___ 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: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Donnon Sent: 24 September 2003 00:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage >HLDS shows the CPU usage for the processor it currently resides on. (ie >just one) damn thats clever, didnt occur thats what it's showing >Ive just tested 1.6 on a dual 2.4ghz windows 2000 server : > >Sys_ticrate 100: >CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >34.54 88.42 113.58 250 300 92.71 19 >33.72 91.46 119.78 250 300 92.25 19 >25.00 89.28 117.30 250 300 93.17 19 >25.00 85.09 111.37 250 300 93.21 19 >28.91 82.59 105.89 250 300 100.39 19 >29.53 80.77 103.04 250 300 87.23 19 >27.69 80.03 100.04 250 300 85.20 19 > >Sys_ticrate 1000: >CPU InOut Uptime Users FPSPlayers >39.06 86.77 125.99 252 301 254.00 18 >40.23 88.21 132.32 252 301 203.00 18 >34.38 86.23 131.11 252 301 230.70 18 >38.91 87.44 138.51 252 301 346.05 18 >50.00 93.13 143.64 252 301 256.06 18 >40.10 87.81 129.61 252 301 260.15 18 >39.06 81.82 118.45 252 301 206.69 18 > >Note : there are 3 other 20 player servers running on the box. >Two are almost full (18/19 players), the other one just has 8 players. > >Currently there are 44 players total. >Total CPU usage according to taskmgr is 45/50% > >Regards, >James so what we are seeing here is that the standard sys_ticrate (100) is chewing between 25-35% per chip (xeon i assume) for a 19 player server. Once ticrate is pushed to 1000 this rises to 35-50% which is understandable. I would appreciate feedback as to the benefits of increasing ticrate are for the client, and is it that significant? I'm also assuming that the 8 player server is using very little cpu ;-) Now I'm sure the numbers are around here somewhere, but being on my webmail client I cant get to them, so how does a windows 1.6 server compare to a linux/bsd one? Matt ___ 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: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
->-Original Message- ->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ->[EMAIL PROTECTED] ->Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:28 PM ->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ->Subject: Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage -> ->How long is valve gonna sit around with their dicks in their ->hands thinking ->we are either making this up or just not caring? I cant afford to wait 6 ->months for valve to fix this. If they are getting low cpu usage on their ->hardware with hlds_l then by god give us the specs down to the ->make/model of ->everything and lets see if they are bs'n us. -> ->You guys at valve gonna fix this at all? I know you read this list. We are ->calling you out. We want an answer on this. -> ->PS - one last thing all you small time server admins (like ->myself) out there ->making all your money off cs servers. 3 words. Class Action Lawsuit. If my ->business fails because of this and I cant find customers quick enough to ->make money still then i will look into this. My wife works at a lawfirm. froma previous email from alfred: These are the 3 machines we actively test with. None have revealed anywhere near the CPU load other people report. Build Machine: >gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.3/specs gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release) >uname -a Linux linuxbuild2 2.2.5 #1 Fri Apr 2 16:37:56 MEST 1999 i686 unknown SuSE Linux 6.1 (i386) > cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 6 model : 8 model name : AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2200+ stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 1795.387510 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no sep_bug : no f00f_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr 6 mce cx8 9 sep 12 pge 14 cmov fcmov 17 22 mmx 24 30 3dnow bogomips: 1789.13 GNU C Library production release version 2.0.7 64 bit build machine: >gcc -v Thread model: posix gcc version 3.2.2 (SuSE Linux) > uname -a Linux 64bitcompiler 2.4.19 #1 Wed Apr 30 15:17:44 UTC 2003 x86_64 unknown UnitedLinux 1.0 (AMD64) > cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : Athlon HX stepping: 0 cpu MHz : 1595.496 cache size : 1024 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow bogomips: 3185.04 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5 Test1: >uname -a Linux alfred_linux 2.4.19-16mdkcustom #3 Fri Feb 21 14:26:04 PST 2003 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux Mandrake Linux release 9.0 (dolphin) for i586 >cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 5 model name : Pentium II (Deschutes) stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 400.914 cache size : 512 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr bogomips: 799.53 GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5 dual_bereta_r0x wrote: > Alfred Reynolds wrote: >> The "stats" command uses the value from /proc//stat , which is >> the same value that top uses. Perhaps the difference you are >> encountering is due to the sampling intervals (hlds smoothes the >> usage over a 5 second window but top simply shows the instantaneous >> value). >> >> - Alfred > > Would you mind to send us what are the base distro used by Valve to > test/deploy hlds? I mean, kernel version, glibc, utils, and stuff. > Even if we hack all the possible distros and kernels, we could have > YOURS as a base value. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
I dunno, IBM spends a lot of time and effort on Linux these days.. But anyway, Tim is correct. Go read the EULA you accepted when you installed HLDS. Theres a little section in there limiting Valves liability to the cost of the product. i.e, nothing. -EvilGrin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OT] [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > PS - one last thing all you small time server admins (like myself) out there > making all your money off cs servers. 3 words. Class Action Lawsuit. If my > business fails because of this and I cant find customers quick enough to > make money still then i will look into this. My wife works at a lawfirm. Ok, I was going to stay out of all this, but this statement's just plain ridiculous. Look, you're running a FREE PIECE OF SOFTWARE. FREE. You've paid no money to VALVe to run the *server* (if you wanna grip about the client, that's another story). They are not obliged to provide services to you, just as you're not obliged to stick to a platform with which you're obviously unsatisfied. HLDS is one of the few multiplayer games available where the server is not required to be commercially licensed (i.e., no CD key, no purchases necessary). That VALVe have supported your industry (your industry being server rental, I'll assume) for years now, for ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY, is pretty friggin spectacular. I don't know of another commercial entity out there that has chosen to devote as many resources to a free product. I know they're not doing it out of some sacrificial altruistic motives here, but to claim injury from a free piece of software, and to further suggest litigation over it, is just ludicrous. If you want a leg to stand on, go shell out the $40-50 to run a server instance for Battlefield 1942. -- Tim ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:17 AM [GMT+1200=NZT], Destroyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unfortunately without using pingboost or sys_ticrate or hz=1000 the > ping/fps/user experience is shit. This has been an issue with hl for > some time now even before the pingboost option was available. Why > did ppl use the UDPsoft ping booster? Because your server absolutely > kicked ass when you did and the pings were awesome. Now we have to > use those things just to get decent play and the CPU is through the > roof. > I understand that but if you start using pingboost and fiddling with sys_ticrate and hz then try comparing CPU usage back to Windows HLDS then it's comparing apples with oranges. We need to try and get the "unmodified" Linux HLDS running at decent CPU levels before worrying about tuning it. Anything you do to reduce pings is going to increase CPU usage. -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] hud_capturemouse 0 does not work?!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: help me pls This isn't a client list. Try the Steampowered forums or some other place. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
Hi! I tried today the kernel 2.4.9 + ac9 + ext3 patch. Specs: Dual Intel P3 1GHz 1,28GB SDRam 133MHz SCSI HD's RH 7.2 (with all patches and fixes) 16 Slot CS Server / HL Server version: 46/1.1.2.0/Stdio 2511 secure / Clanmod + VAC Kernel 2.4.20, full Server (16Slots): 60-75% of one CPU / Ping 90-300 / FPS: 10-35 Today I tested with the 2.4.9er Kernel: Kernel 2.4.9, full Server (16Slots): 60-75% of one CPU / Ping 90-300 / FPS 10-35 I can say, the kernel 2.4.9 does not help for me. There is exactly the same high CPU usage. And with the new Linux HL engine, my dual P3 1GHz is too weak, to handle one 16Slot Server. A ping of 90-300 is too bad for playing. Before, two 16Slot servers was no problem for it. Very bad, this new HL Linux Server Engine! Best regards, Marco Balle ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
AW: [hlds_linux] More errors?
old... -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von Britt Priddy (PZGN) Gesendet: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 17:51 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [hlds_linux] More errors? Now I'm getting this message when trying to update - is it me or Valve? Checking bootstrapper version ... Updating Installation Checking/Installing 'Linux Server Engine' version 0 ContentServer rejected client's protocol version Checking bootstrapper version ... Updating Installation Checking/Installing 'Linux Server Engine' version 0 ContentServer rejected client's protocol version Britt ___ 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] More errors?
Now I'm getting this message when trying to update - is it me or Valve? Checking bootstrapper version ... Updating Installation Checking/Installing 'Linux Server Engine' version 0 ContentServer rejected client's protocol version Checking bootstrapper version ... Updating Installation Checking/Installing 'Linux Server Engine' version 0 ContentServer rejected client's protocol version Britt ___ 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] hud_capturemouse 0 does not work?!
help me pls > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag > von [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Montag, 22. September 2003 20:23 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: [hlds_linux] [OT] > > > hi, > is "hud_capturemouse" "0" no more working for the > commandmenu.txt??? i still get a mouse pointer and my 1...0 > keays are not working :( > > thx4anyhelp > > splaTTer > > > ___ > 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] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
congrats to valve, they managed to screw their customers again, I just reformatted and reinstalled with reiferfs last week and it looks like this week I am going to have another party and be installing win2k3, I am sad to say I am moving over to the dark side =( I really love linux but my little box can't handle these crazy cpu issues =( From: "Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:40:02 +0100 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:44 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > >moving to windows 2k3 will take away this cpu usage issue ? > > Yes, go subscribe to the windows version of the list and ask around. Heres > one example from a large server company about what they are getting. Those > numbers are for both cpus combined he said in later email. So aztec taking > 10% of a 2.6ghz Xeon chip. I know this is not the case for DOD both linux ( under FreeBSD ) and Win32 ( under win2k ) both use the same amount of CPU. Steve / K ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:44 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] Valve's Response to CPU Usage > >moving to windows 2k3 will take away this cpu usage issue ? > > Yes, go subscribe to the windows version of the list and ask around. Heres > one example from a large server company about what they are getting. Those > numbers are for both cpus combined he said in later email. So aztec taking > 10% of a 2.6ghz Xeon chip. I know this is not the case for DOD both linux ( under FreeBSD ) and Win32 ( under win2k ) both use the same amount of CPU. Steve / K ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] Did log files change with Steam hlds?
Add 'log on' -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Dupler Sent: September 23, 2003 7:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [hlds_linux] Did log files change with Steam hlds? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Hello, I can't seem to get my Psyco Stats to work with new Steam hlds, anyone else having this problem? <--- Server.cfg ---> //--- // Log settings //--- // Logging mp_logfile 1 // logaddress 0.0.0.0 28000 sv_stats 0 sv_logbans 1 // Log Detail mp_logdetail 2 // Log chat mp_logmessages 1 DoD - (LGSO) Killing Fields v1.0b - dod.lgsocentral.com Thanks, Jeff Dupler Get Wired Solutions 2948 43rd St. Sacramento, CA. 95817 http://www.getwired.net/ -- ___ 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] hlds_run Command line Options?
Hi! I Downloaded the full Half-Life Dedicated Server v1.1.2.0 (you know the one containing CS, DOD, etc. etc.) But i can't find any readme files containing the command line options, all there is is a linuxreadme.txt from the v3.1.1.1, are there any new important ones someone could summerize? Or is there a webpage with them all. Tnx Rentz ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] Did log files change with Steam hlds?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Hello, I can't seem to get my Psyco Stats to work with new Steam hlds, anyone else having this problem? <--- Server.cfg ---> //--- // Log settings //--- // Logging mp_logfile 1 // logaddress 0.0.0.0 28000 sv_stats 0 sv_logbans 1 // Log Detail mp_logdetail 2 // Log chat mp_logmessages 1 DoD - (LGSO) Killing Fields v1.0b - dod.lgsocentral.com Thanks, Jeff Dupler Get Wired Solutions 2948 43rd St. Sacramento, CA. 95817 http://www.getwired.net/ -- ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] hltv with full linux.bin
You need to have the current working directory (./) in your library search path - otherwise half-life won't it's .so files. For the hlds itself this is done in hlds_run, but for hltv you have to export it manually before: export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.:$LDC_LIBRARY_PATH Regards, Dominic On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Obsessed wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > hi, I just installed the full steam binary for linux. > Unfortunately I only find one hltv executable in my hlds_l dir .. > where is the hltv.cfg ? where is the hltv readme ? > Also I get errors starting it : > Console initialized. > FileSystem initialized. > Error:libSteamValidateUserIDTickets_i386.so: cannot open shared object file: No such > file or directory > * FATAL ERROR * > Proxy::Init: couldn't load network module. > *** STOPPING SYSTEM *** > ERROR! System::AddModule: couldn't initialize module (null). > Type 'help' for a list of commands. > > > -- > > > ___ > 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
