Re: [hlds_linux] metamod for hlds_amd64
Are my problems perhaps related to this: -rwxr--r--1 yo users 232529 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd -rwxr--r--1 yo users 78782 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd64 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 234609 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i486 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 233841 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i686 hlds_amd64 is a lot smaller than the rest of them, it must be missing something. This could be what is causing metamod to have problems. My metamod compile for AMD64 bit is available if anyone else wishes to do some testing: http://www.holcroft.net/~cheesy/metamod_amd64.so Peter. Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: All you have to do is change -march=i386 to -march=k8 and recompile apparently. There's was an .so posted in the metamod list that again apparently worked. I say this because I have tried that version too and got a load of errors. I recompiled it myself and got exactly the same errors again. They make no sense to me, perhaps they do to someone else: Metamod version 1.17 Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Will Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] Metamod comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `meta gpl'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `meta gpl' for details. File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitAuthentication() : Sys_ShutdownAuthentication() Missing shutdown function for Host_Init( host_parms ) : Host_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitLauncherInterface() : Sys_ShutdownLauncherInterface() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitMemory() : Sys_ShutdownMemory() Missing shutdown function for Sys_Init() : Sys_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for FileSystem_Init(basedir, (void *)filesystemFactory) : FileSystem_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitArgv( m_OrigCmd ) : Sys_ShutdownArgv() My system: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz : 1991.478 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: 3971.48 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp processor : 1 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz : 1991.478 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: 3971.48 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp Quoting Alastair Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It is possible, but as of yet, I haven't figured out how to compile metamod. 64-bit or not. There is some dark art in getting the directories correct, mixing it with various different SDK's and so on. If somebody gives me a step by step guide on how you should compile it I will knock up a 64-bit binary, but then again, anybody who gives me the guide could probably just do it themself. kt wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Does anyone know if metamod will work for a opteron, or hlds_amd64 binaries? For linux that is.. if so, where could i download them? or will the current metamod_i386.so work just fine? Is it possible for me to compile metamod for the opteron? Regards, Tariq -- ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux -- Wireplay Official http://www.wireplay.co.uk/ ___ 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 the meaning of the pingboost-values ?
Alastair Grant wrote: For those of you with pingboost questions, here's the old explanation of how the -pingboost options work, as posted by Alfred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 12, 2002: All the pingboot modes attempt to reduce the latency caused by the server. The default implementation adds around 20msec to each players ping (under linux). Mode 1 reduces this by using a different wait method (a select() call). This method reduces the latency to 10msec. Mode 2 uses a similar but slightly different method (and alarm() type call). Again, the result it 10msec worth of latency being added. NOTE that this method has the potential to hang a server in certain (terminal) situations. If anyone has used this mode recently (not the first test we did!) and it hangs please speak up :) Mode 3 minimises the latency to the minimum possible level by processing a frame EVERY time a packet arrives. This causes the lowest possible latency, but can also cause extreme CPU usages (it does a complete frame for every packet, with each player sending lots of packets per second and 30 players this adds up to insane amounts of frames). Use this mode at your own risk, it will consume all available CPU, don't complain that cstrike uses too much CPU if you use this mode :-) In a future release this mode will be tweaked to let the admin balance latencies agains CPU usage (by processing a frame every N packets). There is also an external modules called pingbooster by UDPSoft (or is it UDPSoftware?). They implement something like mode 3. As this is an external module, and was built for an older version of HL (1108) it may not work properly any longer, and future releases may (accidently) break it. -- Wireplay Official http://www.wireplay.co.uk/ In fact, this old explantation is simply wrong, while was quoted many and many times on hlds_linux last year. Should be: [...] Mode 2 reduces this by using a different wait method (a select() call). This method reduces the latency to 10msec. Mode 1 uses a similar but slightly different method (and alarm() type call). Again, the result it 10msec worth of latency being added. NOTE that this method has the potential to hang a server in certain (terminal) situations. If anyone has used this mode recently (not the first test we did!) and it hangs please speak up :) [...] For those, who still doubts in my words - simply run strace on a hlds process and look on output. Yury Pshenichny. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] intel cpu w/ 1m L2 cache.
i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before? http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=857353,857995,852351catID=7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 further, for intel 3.2G, there are models with 1. (3.2GEE) 512k L2 + 2M L3, 2. (3.2GE) 1M L2 + no L3 and 3. (3.2G) 512k L2 + no L3. any comments on performance with recent HLDS performance? btw, i got an 2.8C already running an dod 32ppl server, just fine w/ 75% CPU loading but low enough ping for local users (~40). i will purchase an 2.8E in the next few days with the same intel D865PERL main board as my old one. just wonder is there any performance gain with larger L2 cache. the theory ppl taught a while for internal cahce vs HLDS performance. any comments? chris ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] intel cpu w/ 1m L2 cache.
UPDATE: should be 3.2G(E) with 1M L2 cache, not 3.2G(EE). Christopher Luk wrote: i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before? http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=857353,857995,852351catID=7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 further, for intel 3.2G, there are models with 1. (3.2GEE) 512k L2 + 2M L3, 2. (3.2GE) 1M L2 + no L3 and 3. (3.2G) 512k L2 + no L3. any comments on performance with recent HLDS performance? btw, i got an 2.8C already running an dod 32ppl server, just fine w/ 75% CPU loading but low enough ping for local users (~40). i will purchase an 2.8E in the next few days with the same intel D865PERL main board as my old one. just wonder is there any performance gain with larger L2 cache. the theory ppl taught a while for internal cahce vs HLDS performance. any comments? chris ___ 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] DoD 1.1 Server Crash: uninitialized sizebuf_t: ???
Folks: Have any of y'all seen this one: L 02/22/2004 - 10:17:39: FATAL ERROR (shutting down): SZ_GetSpace: Tried to write to an uninitialized sizebuf_t: ??? FATAL ERROR (shutting down): SZ_GetSpace: Tried to write to an uninitialized sizebuf_t: ??? Insane Husayn ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] DoD 1.1 Server Crash: uninitialized sizebuf_t: ???
Husayn ibn al-Samarqandi wrote: Have any of y'all seen this one: Are you runnig bots on that server? This happens when some functions are executed on bots. Florian ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] intel cpu w/ 1m L2 cache.
yes, you will see a speed increase with the larger cache sizes. kev Christopher Luk wrote: UPDATE: should be 3.2G(E) with 1M L2 cache, not 3.2G(EE). Christopher Luk wrote: i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before? http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=857353,857995,852351catID=7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 further, for intel 3.2G, there are models with 1. (3.2GEE) 512k L2 + 2M L3, 2. (3.2GE) 1M L2 + no L3 and 3. (3.2G) 512k L2 + no L3. any comments on performance with recent HLDS performance? btw, i got an 2.8C already running an dod 32ppl server, just fine w/ 75% CPU loading but low enough ping for local users (~40). i will purchase an 2.8E in the next few days with the same intel D865PERL main board as my old one. just wonder is there any performance gain with larger L2 cache. the theory ppl taught a while for internal cahce vs HLDS performance. any comments? chris ___ 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] DoD 1.1 Server Crash: uninitialized sizebuf_t: ???
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Florian Zschocke wrote: Husayn ibn al-Samarqandi wrote: Have any of y'all seen this one: Are you runnig bots on that server? This happens when some functions are executed on bots. Florian Aha! Yep. Sturmbots. The buggers. Thanks! Insane Husayn ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] reliable channel overflow
hello! i keep getting this error after appx 1 day of uptime of my servers... it blocks new clients from connecting, but already connected players are not affected by that. however once it occured it stays and i have to restart hlds ### SZ_GetSpace: overflow on netchan-message WARNING: reliable overflow for urclientsnickhere ### ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] All ip's banned in DoD
Hey all Tonight a customer complained that all IPs were banned on his server. I investigated and found no banned.cfg in the dod server dir. I restarted the server and all ips were still banned. I then wrote listip and listid in the console and it showed no bans at all. I then deletede the entire server and created a new - still same problem. if I start CS from the same server dir everything is fine. The DoD server starts normally and everything looks just fine in logs/console. I have no idea what to do, please advice :] - Miklos Clanhost.dk hostname: [CH] #Won.id @ Quakenet version : 47/1.1.2.4/Stdio 2637 secure tcp/ip : 217.116.241.3:1 map : dod_donner at: 0 x, 0 y, 0 z players : 0 active (12 max) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] All ip's banned in DoD
Global key / ip bans? Steve / K - Original Message - From: Mikkel Georgsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:36 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] All ip's banned in DoD Hey all Tonight a customer complained that all IPs were banned on his server. I investigated and found no banned.cfg in the dod server dir. I restarted the server and all ips were still banned. I then wrote listip and listid in the console and it showed no bans at all. I then deletede the entire server and created a new - still same problem. if I start CS from the same server dir everything is fine. The DoD server starts normally and everything looks just fine in logs/console. I have no idea what to do, please advice :] - Miklos Clanhost.dk hostname: [CH] #Won.id @ Quakenet version : 47/1.1.2.4/Stdio 2637 secure tcp/ip : 217.116.241.3:1 map : dod_donner at: 0 x, 0 y, 0 z players : 0 active (12 max) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to [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] metamod for hlds_amd64
Looks like that's your problem. My hlds_amd64 is 2053126 bytes. All you should have to do is delete that file and run the steam update command. On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my problems perhaps related to this: -rwxr--r--1 yo users 232529 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd -rwxr--r--1 yo users 78782 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd64 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 234609 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i486 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 233841 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i686 hlds_amd64 is a lot smaller than the rest of them, it must be missing something. This could be what is causing metamod to have problems. My metamod compile for AMD64 bit is available if anyone else wishes to do some testing: http://www.holcroft.net/~cheesy/metamod_amd64.so Peter. Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: All you have to do is change -march=i386 to -march=k8 and recompile apparently. There's was an .so posted in the metamod list that again apparently worked. I say this because I have tried that version too and got a load of errors. I recompiled it myself and got exactly the same errors again. They make no sense to me, perhaps they do to someone else: Metamod version 1.17 Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Will Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] Metamod comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `meta gpl'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `meta gpl' for details. File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitAuthentication() : Sys_ShutdownAuthentication() Missing shutdown function for Host_Init( host_parms ) : Host_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitLauncherInterface() : Sys_ShutdownLauncherInterface() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitMemory() : Sys_ShutdownMemory() Missing shutdown function for Sys_Init() : Sys_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for FileSystem_Init(basedir, (void *)filesystemFactory) : FileSystem_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitArgv( m_OrigCmd ) : Sys_ShutdownArgv() My system: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz : 1991.478 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: 3971.48 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp processor : 1 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz : 1991.478 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: 3971.48 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp Quoting Alastair Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It is possible, but as of yet, I haven't figured out how to compile metamod. 64-bit or not. There is some dark art in getting the directories correct, mixing it with various different SDK's and so on. If somebody gives me a step by step guide on how you should compile it I will knock up a 64-bit binary, but then again, anybody who gives me the guide could probably just do it themself. kt wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Does anyone know if metamod will work for a opteron, or hlds_amd64 binaries? For linux that is.. if so, where could i download them? or will the current metamod_i386.so work just fine? Is it possible for me to compile metamod for the opteron? Regards, Tariq -- ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux -- Wireplay Official http://www.wireplay.co.uk/ ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit
Re: [hlds_linux] intel cpu w/ 1m L2 cache.
while the EE (extreme edition) P4 is certainly faster at pretty much everything, the E class (prescott) P4's may not be *any* faster at HLDS than the older C (northwood) P4's. These new E pentium 4 are a totally new design on the core, and as such have been desgned to run at higher frequencies. Essentially they are - same speed as equivalent clock C P4 - much greater heat output 10-20% more (and way more than ANY athlon ;-) - longer pipeline to enable greater clockspeeds - larger L2 cache to improve performance The larger cache should make the core faster, but this gets offset by the deeper pipeline which is a performance penalty, especially when cache preloads are incorrect (cache misses). There are about a bazillion reviews on the various hardware sites that all say the same thing...at identical clock speeds the E prescott is a bad buy due to the heat penalty with no performance gain, but once the clock speed ramps up, the prescott architecture will be worthwhile The Extreme Edition P4 (avaliable in both 3.2 and 3.4ghz variants) is essentially a gallatin xeon with 2 mb L2 cache shoehorned into the normal P4 socket 478, otherwise architecturally its identical to the northwood P4.** The extra cache seems to make a fairly appreciable difference to many things, including serving games, I've used mine to do 64 player WolfET with much success. Matt **note: the fact that intel can take a xeon and make it into a desktop chip is more evidence to suggest that P4 and xeon are pretty much identical cpus in different packages. The biggest performance difference between the two is the mobo chipset that connects them to the rest of the world. yes, you will see a speed increase with the larger cache sizes. kev Christopher Luk wrote: UPDATE: should be 3.2G(E) with 1M L2 cache, not 3.2G(EE). Christopher Luk wrote: i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before? http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=857353 ,857995,852351catID=7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 further, for intel 3.2G, there are models with 1. (3.2GEE) 512k L2 + 2M L3, 2. (3.2GE) 1M L2 + no L3 and 3. (3.2G) 512k L2 + no L3. any comments on performance with recent HLDS performance? btw, i got an 2.8C already running an dod 32ppl server, just fine w/ 75% CPU loading but low enough ping for local users (~40). i will purchase an 2.8E in the next few days with the same intel D865PERL main board as my old one. just wonder is there any performance gain with larger L2 cache. the theory ppl taught a while for internal cahce vs HLDS performance. any comments? chris ___ 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] metamod for hlds_amd64
I did just before I posted this to be sure. Send me your version in a email please? :D Quoting Tony Bussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Looks like that's your problem. My hlds_amd64 is 2053126 bytes. All you should have to do is delete that file and run the steam update command. On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my problems perhaps related to this: -rwxr--r--1 yo users 232529 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd -rwxr--r--1 yo users 78782 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd64 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 234609 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i486 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 233841 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i686 hlds_amd64 is a lot smaller than the rest of them, it must be missing something. This could be what is causing metamod to have problems. My metamod compile for AMD64 bit is available if anyone else wishes to do some testing: http://www.holcroft.net/~cheesy/metamod_amd64.so Peter. Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: All you have to do is change -march=i386 to -march=k8 and recompile apparently. There's was an .so posted in the metamod list that again apparently worked. I say this because I have tried that version too and got a load of errors. I recompiled it myself and got exactly the same errors again. They make no sense to me, perhaps they do to someone else: Metamod version 1.17 Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Will Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] Metamod comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `meta gpl'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `meta gpl' for details. File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitAuthentication() : Sys_ShutdownAuthentication() Missing shutdown function for Host_Init( host_parms ) : Host_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitLauncherInterface() : Sys_ShutdownLauncherInterface() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitMemory() : Sys_ShutdownMemory() Missing shutdown function for Sys_Init() : Sys_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for FileSystem_Init(basedir, (void *)filesystemFactory) : FileSystem_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitArgv( m_OrigCmd ) : Sys_ShutdownArgv() My system: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz : 1991.478 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: 3971.48 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp processor : 1 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz : 1991.478 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: 3971.48 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp Quoting Alastair Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It is possible, but as of yet, I haven't figured out how to compile metamod. 64-bit or not. There is some dark art in getting the directories correct, mixing it with various different SDK's and so on. If somebody gives me a step by step guide on how you should compile it I will knock up a 64-bit binary, but then again, anybody who gives me the guide could probably just do it themself. kt wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Does anyone know if metamod will work for a opteron, or hlds_amd64 binaries? For linux that is.. if so, where could i download them? or will the current metamod_i386.so work just fine? Is it possible for me to compile metamod for the opteron? Regards, Tariq -- ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux -- Wireplay Official http://www.wireplay.co.uk/
Re: [hlds_linux] metamod for hlds_amd64
Doh, I read the wrong file to you. My engine_amd64 is that size, not hlds_amd64. Here's PART of my directory listing: -rw-r--r--4 hlds hlds 1330 Feb 9 19:29 InstallRecord.blob -rw-r--r--4 hlds hlds 381384 Jan 25 14:26 core_i386.so -rw-r--r--3 hlds hlds 2667819 Feb 9 19:26 engine_amd.so -rw-r--r--3 hlds hlds 2053126 Feb 9 19:26 engine_amd64.so -rw-r--r--3 hlds hlds 2677924 Feb 9 19:26 engine_i486.so -rw-r--r--3 hlds hlds 2659812 Feb 9 19:26 engine_i686.so -rw-r--r--3 hlds hlds 171762 Feb 9 19:26 filesystem_stdio_amd64.so -rw-r--r--3 hlds hlds 242182 Feb 9 19:26 filesystem_stdio_i386.so -rwxr--r--4 hlds hlds 232529 Nov 13 00:36 hlds_amd -rwxr--r--4 hlds hlds78782 Nov 13 00:36 hlds_amd64 -rwxr--r--4 hlds hlds 234609 Nov 13 00:36 hlds_i486 -rwxr--r--4 hlds hlds 233841 Nov 13 00:37 hlds_i686 -rwxr--r--4 hlds hlds 9789 Sep 15 13:55 hlds_run -rwxr--r--4 hlds hlds 255912 Nov 13 00:37 hltv -rw-r--r--4 hlds hlds 2789611 Jan 25 14:27 libSteamValidateUserIDTickets_amd64.so -rw-r--r--4 hlds hlds 3572199 Jan 25 14:28 libSteamValidateUserIDTickets_i386.so -rw-r--r--4 hlds hlds 2384042 Jan 25 14:28 proxy_i386.so -rwxr-xr-x2 hlds hlds 7025211 Dec 18 12:31 steam You may want to try removing ~/.steam/ClientRegistry.blob or hlds_l/InstallRecord.blob and try updating again. T On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did just before I posted this to be sure. Send me your version in a email please? :D Quoting Tony Bussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Looks like that's your problem. My hlds_amd64 is 2053126 bytes. All you should have to do is delete that file and run the steam update command. On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my problems perhaps related to this: -rwxr--r--1 yo users 232529 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd -rwxr--r--1 yo users 78782 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd64 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 234609 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i486 -rwxr--r--1 yo users 233841 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i686 hlds_amd64 is a lot smaller than the rest of them, it must be missing something. This could be what is causing metamod to have problems. My metamod compile for AMD64 bit is available if anyone else wishes to do some testing: http://www.holcroft.net/~cheesy/metamod_amd64.so Peter. Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: All you have to do is change -march=i386 to -march=k8 and recompile apparently. There's was an .so posted in the metamod list that again apparently worked. I say this because I have tried that version too and got a load of errors. I recompiled it myself and got exactly the same errors again. They make no sense to me, perhaps they do to someone else: Metamod version 1.17 Copyright (c) 2001-2003 Will Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] Metamod comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `meta gpl'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `meta gpl' for details. File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed File /home/yo/server3/hlds_l/./nsp/liblist.gam was never closed Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitAuthentication() : Sys_ShutdownAuthentication() Missing shutdown function for Host_Init( host_parms ) : Host_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitLauncherInterface() : Sys_ShutdownLauncherInterface() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitMemory() : Sys_ShutdownMemory() Missing shutdown function for Sys_Init() : Sys_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for FileSystem_Init(basedir, (void *)filesystemFactory) : FileSystem_Shutdown() Missing shutdown function for Sys_InitArgv( m_OrigCmd ) : Sys_ShutdownArgv() My system: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz : 1991.478 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: 3971.48 TLB size: 1088 4K pages clflush size: 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp processor : 1 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 stepping: 8 cpu MHz :
Re: [hlds_linux] intel cpu w/ 1m L2 cache.
it sounds that EE should be the best choice for new cpu besides prices. and E doesn't have too many difference from C besides heat penalty. however, Xeon series doesn't do too good on HLDS as expected while somebody talk about it in the past (btw, i have no budget to try xeon cpu mb, can't confirm). it drive me to something interested like HLDS (or the compiler) *may* have problem on cache management with certain limit of L2/L3 cache (correct me if i m wrong). so that even the architecture is good enough, the performance won't boost as expected. anyone can comments on? chris Matt D wrote: while the EE (extreme edition) P4 is certainly faster at pretty much everything, the E class (prescott) P4's may not be *any* faster at HLDS than the older C (northwood) P4's. These new E pentium 4 are a totally new design on the core, and as such have been desgned to run at higher frequencies. Essentially they are - same speed as equivalent clock C P4 - much greater heat output 10-20% more (and way more than ANY athlon ;-) - longer pipeline to enable greater clockspeeds - larger L2 cache to improve performance The larger cache should make the core faster, but this gets offset by the deeper pipeline which is a performance penalty, especially when cache preloads are incorrect (cache misses). There are about a bazillion reviews on the various hardware sites that all say the same thing...at identical clock speeds the E prescott is a bad buy due to the heat penalty with no performance gain, but once the clock speed ramps up, the prescott architecture will be worthwhile The Extreme Edition P4 (avaliable in both 3.2 and 3.4ghz variants) is essentially a gallatin xeon with 2 mb L2 cache shoehorned into the normal P4 socket 478, otherwise architecturally its identical to the northwood P4.** The extra cache seems to make a fairly appreciable difference to many things, including serving games, I've used mine to do 64 player WolfET with much success. Matt **note: the fact that intel can take a xeon and make it into a desktop chip is more evidence to suggest that P4 and xeon are pretty much identical cpus in different packages. The biggest performance difference between the two is the mobo chipset that connects them to the rest of the world. yes, you will see a speed increase with the larger cache sizes. kev Christopher Luk wrote: UPDATE: should be 3.2G(E) with 1M L2 cache, not 3.2G(EE). Christopher Luk wrote: i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before? http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=857353 ,857995,852351catID=7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 further, for intel 3.2G, there are models with 1. (3.2GEE) 512k L2 + 2M L3, 2. (3.2GE) 1M L2 + no L3 and 3. (3.2G) 512k L2 + no L3. any comments on performance with recent HLDS performance? btw, i got an 2.8C already running an dod 32ppl server, just fine w/ 75% CPU loading but low enough ping for local users (~40). i will purchase an 2.8E in the next few days with the same intel D865PERL main board as my old one. just wonder is there any performance gain with larger L2 cache. the theory ppl taught a while for internal cahce vs HLDS performance. any comments? chris ___ 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
