Re: [hlds_linux] Half-Life 2: Deathmatch update released
Jason Ruymen schrieb: An update to Half-Life 2: Deathmatch has been released. Linux servers will be updated automatically. Windows servers will need to run the hldsupdatetool to get this update. Here are the changes: - Added a player "ready" command. If 'mp_readyrestart' is enabled, then the round can be restarted if every player says "ready" - Objects no longer hide tripwire slams. If an object is placed on top of a tripwire slam, it explodes - Scores no longer get updated after the round is over, fixing the case where a player is standing next to a grenade or flaming barrel when the round ends Jason ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux erm thx for this update, nice work. Can we have this mp_readystart-Feature in CS:S please?! Best regards. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage
Thanks for that nice response Kevin. I would like to pimp out (as I do on the steam forums) the advanced tickrate section on serverwiki.org for those of you that have not seen it.. http://www.serverwiki.org/index.php/Advanced_Tickrate Cheers --kennycom - Original Message - From: "Kevin Ottalini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage One thing I've found specifically about Source servers is that they do not need, and probably should not be run at anything other then their default ticrates (IE: do not use of the -ticrate launch option). The Source Server engine does not run the same way that HLDS does and does not appear to benefit from higher -ticrate (no matter what players think). Important note: SRCDS -ticrate is not the same as OS ticrate, don't get these two confused. Very specifically, in SRCDS, the game simulation, network loop, and physics simulation are all separate, so raising the SRCDS -ticrate only affects part of what is happening. I've found that raising the SRCDS -ticrate: 1. does not improve accuracy, 2. does not smooth out physics (which has a fixed ticrate all its own), 3. does not lower ping on the network, 4. does not give players smoother performance, and in fact 5. may cause the physics engine to eventually get out of sync which can cause the well known "physical mayhem" syndrome (mostly seen in HL2DM). Raising the HLDS -ticrate has a very definite set of beneficial effects for Servers where the network was serviced faster (lowering latency) and providing smoother gameplay and better accuracy for players in general. This is not true for SRCDS. That all said, for SRCDS there does appear to be a _slight_ benefit from running a high-res timer (OS ticrate) which is the "kernel ticrate" for Linux. SRCDS by default has fps_max set to 300 but without a high-res timer (high OS ticrate) will only run at 66 (or so) much like HLDS. Running the OS ticrate at 1000Hz may cause unnecessary CPU usage however, try running 300Hz to match the 300 fps_max and see if this lowers your CPU usage. The Win32 OS appears to only have an on/off setting for the high-res timer - I can change the timer settings but it has no effect on CPU usage or server FPS. For Win32 SRCDS Servers (and I suspect Linux as well) lowering the fps_max (to say 66) does not appear to affect CPU usage, but (along with the OS ticrate high-res timer on/off) does affect how the server feels to players. In blind testing I most often get complaints of the SRCDS server feeling "framey" when I lower the server FPS. Some affect of this can be seen by the client with net_graph 1 or 2 as well as with +showbudget (note that use of these will cause the client to feel more "framey"). As a last note, I've found that restarting SRCDS (specifically HL2DM) every couple of days or so really helps to keep the server running smoothly (I suspect especially because of the physics in HL2DM). I usually keep a client attached to the servers as well so I can directly monitor how things are running, and they also need to be restarted every day or two at most. In summary then, for SRCDS: 1. use of the launch option "-ticrate xxx" may cause problems 2. Different settings of fps_max xxx doesn't appear to affect CPU usage, anything above 300 (default) is unnecessary, less then 66 is undesirable. 3. The OS high-res timer (kernal ticrate) does directly affect the actual SRCDS server FPS (for game simulation portions of the server) 4. The OS high-res timer (kernal ticrate) does directly affect the CPU usage (dramatically!) I hope this helps a bit. qUiCkSiLvEr - Original Message - From: "GoD2.0" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage I oveserved the fact that windows generaly handles the kernel tickrate it's self, while in linux it is a good ideaa to set it yourself (there is an option during the kernel compilation - timer frequency that is default 250, and should be 1000 for high tickrate servers). Linux generaly works much better with 4 cores, while with 2 cores the difference is not noticeable if you set them right - Original Message - From: "Kevin Ottalini" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Just as a baseline cross-platform comparison, I have three servers running on a new Win2003 server box at a data center. The server is an Intel 3.0GHz HT CPU with 2GB of DDR memory. There is one HLDM (512 FPS, 1KHz ticrate ), one HL2DM (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) and one DOD:S server (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) with 12 player slots each. I also normally run a high-resolution timer. With all three servers full (34 real players), CPU utilization runs ~81%. VAC is enabled for all three servers. Turning off the high-res timer dropped the CPU utilization to ~20%. I'm not posting this to say that Win32 is better or worse then Linux, all I'm reporting is how the Win32 platorm is
[hlds_linux] Half-Life 2: Deathmatch update released
An update to Half-Life 2: Deathmatch has been released. Linux servers will be updated automatically. Windows servers will need to run the hldsupdatetool to get this update. Here are the changes: - Added a player "ready" command. If 'mp_readyrestart' is enabled, then the round can be restarted if every player says "ready" - Objects no longer hide tripwire slams. If an object is placed on top of a tripwire slam, it explodes - Scores no longer get updated after the round is over, fixing the case where a player is standing next to a grenade or flaming barrel when the round ends Jason ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2
And you think, that VALVe will leave VAC1 servers (and it's system) online only because of the AMD64 witch is not updated for ages? :). Plus, sometimes i thin that VAC1 = VAC2 just some updated tracking things. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Forsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:49 PM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2 He's specifically interested in VAC2 on the old 64 bit build of hlds. Which, as stated, does not exist. There is only VAC1 available for those servers. Also, VAC2 is *not* just a client side system. A server does have to auth with the VAC servers in order to run it. On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 11:41 -0400, Scott Tuttle wrote: If you are running 32 bit and your server is secure then you are set. On 32 bit hlds/srcds instances vac2 is the only vac available. You either run vac2 or you run in insecure mode. ___ 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] VAC 1 and 2
He's specifically interested in VAC2 on the old 64 bit build of hlds. Which, as stated, does not exist. There is only VAC1 available for those servers. Also, VAC2 is *not* just a client side system. A server does have to auth with the VAC servers in order to run it. On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 11:41 -0400, Scott Tuttle wrote: > If you are running 32 bit and your server is secure then you are set. On 32 > bit hlds/srcds instances vac2 is the only vac available. You either run > vac2 or you run in insecure mode. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage
One thing I've found specifically about Source servers is that they do not need, and probably should not be run at anything other then their default ticrates (IE: do not use of the -ticrate launch option). The Source Server engine does not run the same way that HLDS does and does not appear to benefit from higher -ticrate (no matter what players think). Important note: SRCDS -ticrate is not the same as OS ticrate, don't get these two confused. Very specifically, in SRCDS, the game simulation, network loop, and physics simulation are all separate, so raising the SRCDS -ticrate only affects part of what is happening. I've found that raising the SRCDS -ticrate: 1. does not improve accuracy, 2. does not smooth out physics (which has a fixed ticrate all its own), 3. does not lower ping on the network, 4. does not give players smoother performance, and in fact 5. may cause the physics engine to eventually get out of sync which can cause the well known "physical mayhem" syndrome (mostly seen in HL2DM). Raising the HLDS -ticrate has a very definite set of beneficial effects for Servers where the network was serviced faster (lowering latency) and providing smoother gameplay and better accuracy for players in general. This is not true for SRCDS. That all said, for SRCDS there does appear to be a _slight_ benefit from running a high-res timer (OS ticrate) which is the "kernel ticrate" for Linux. SRCDS by default has fps_max set to 300 but without a high-res timer (high OS ticrate) will only run at 66 (or so) much like HLDS. Running the OS ticrate at 1000Hz may cause unnecessary CPU usage however, try running 300Hz to match the 300 fps_max and see if this lowers your CPU usage. The Win32 OS appears to only have an on/off setting for the high-res timer - I can change the timer settings but it has no effect on CPU usage or server FPS. For Win32 SRCDS Servers (and I suspect Linux as well) lowering the fps_max (to say 66) does not appear to affect CPU usage, but (along with the OS ticrate high-res timer on/off) does affect how the server feels to players. In blind testing I most often get complaints of the SRCDS server feeling "framey" when I lower the server FPS. Some affect of this can be seen by the client with net_graph 1 or 2 as well as with +showbudget (note that use of these will cause the client to feel more "framey"). As a last note, I've found that restarting SRCDS (specifically HL2DM) every couple of days or so really helps to keep the server running smoothly (I suspect especially because of the physics in HL2DM). I usually keep a client attached to the servers as well so I can directly monitor how things are running, and they also need to be restarted every day or two at most. In summary then, for SRCDS: 1. use of the launch option "-ticrate xxx" may cause problems 2. Different settings of fps_max xxx doesn't appear to affect CPU usage, anything above 300 (default) is unnecessary, less then 66 is undesirable. 3. The OS high-res timer (kernal ticrate) does directly affect the actual SRCDS server FPS (for game simulation portions of the server) 4. The OS high-res timer (kernal ticrate) does directly affect the CPU usage (dramatically!) I hope this helps a bit. qUiCkSiLvEr - Original Message - From: "GoD2.0" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage I oveserved the fact that windows generaly handles the kernel tickrate it's self, while in linux it is a good ideaa to set it yourself (there is an option during the kernel compilation - timer frequency that is default 250, and should be 1000 for high tickrate servers). Linux generaly works much better with 4 cores, while with 2 cores the difference is not noticeable if you set them right - Original Message - From: "Kevin Ottalini" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Just as a baseline cross-platform comparison, I have three servers running on a new Win2003 server box at a data center. The server is an Intel 3.0GHz HT CPU with 2GB of DDR memory. There is one HLDM (512 FPS, 1KHz ticrate ), one HL2DM (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) and one DOD:S server (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) with 12 player slots each. I also normally run a high-resolution timer. With all three servers full (34 real players), CPU utilization runs ~81%. VAC is enabled for all three servers. Turning off the high-res timer dropped the CPU utilization to ~20%. I'm not posting this to say that Win32 is better or worse then Linux, all I'm reporting is how the Win32 platorm is behaving with current server code (in my mind they should both be very close to each other in performance). qUiCkSiLvEr - Original Message - From: "Evaldas Žilinskas" To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Ok, I don't want to discuss about the current problem with CPUs, because on every srcds site you can see that. I would preffer to see answers. So, yesterda
RE: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2
If you are running 32 bit and your server is secure then you are set. On 32 bit hlds/srcds instances vac2 is the only vac available. You either run vac2 or you run in insecure mode. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Henrik Semark > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:22 AM > To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2 > > [ Converted text/html to text/plain ] > > Sow I don't need to anything on my server if VAC is activate > on it ? If the > client a using VAC2 my server will use it to ? > / [Team-Jogge] >>>SuicideMe<<< [DK] > > P.S Just sow we don't misunderstand each other. My server spec. > > SuSE 10.1 > AMD Athlon 2500+ (32 bit) > 1024 mb ram > 160 GB HDD > 100/100-Mbps WAN > ip: ---> CS 1.6: 213.237.12.210:27015 <---|---> CS.S: > 213.237.12.210:27012 <--- > > > > > -- > > From: Evaldas Þilinskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com > To: > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2 > Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:36:56 +0300 > >I'm about 90% sure, that VAC1 or VAC2 is more like clienside stuff. > >When > >they update it, we just get a "platform update" thing, and even if > >your > >engine shows old VAC message, people are using the VAC2 on their > >clients. > >Only thing that server needs to do is tell client if the module > >needs to be > >activated (secure server) or no (insecure). > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Andrew Forsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:28 AM > >Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2 > > > > > >>You can't. It has never been released for the 64 bit platform. > >> > >> > >>On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 21:15 +, Henrik Semark wrote: > >>>[ Converted text/html to text/plain ] > >>> > >>> I know that VAC1 start it self, but how do I start VAC2 ? > >>> > >>>/ [Team-Jogge] >>>SuicideMe<<< [DK] > >> > >> > >> > >>___ > >>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 > > > -- > > Find dine dokumenter lettere med MSN Toolbar med > Windows-pc-søgning hent den > gratis![1] > > ===References:=== > 1. http://g.msn.com/8HMADADK/2734??PS=47575 > > ___ > 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] Cpu usage
I oveserved the fact that windows generaly handles the kernel tickrate it's self, while in linux it is a good ideaa to set it yourself (there is an option during the kernel compilation - timer frequency that is default 250, and should be 1000 for high tickrate servers). Linux generaly works much better with 4 cores, while with 2 cores the difference is not noticeable if you set them right - Original Message - From: "Kevin Ottalini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Just as a baseline cross-platform comparison, I have three servers running on a new Win2003 server box at a data center. The server is an Intel 3.0GHz HT CPU with 2GB of DDR memory. There is one HLDM (512 FPS, 1KHz ticrate ), one HL2DM (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) and one DOD:S server (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) with 12 player slots each. I also normally run a high-resolution timer. With all three servers full (34 real players), CPU utilization runs ~81%. VAC is enabled for all three servers. Turning off the high-res timer dropped the CPU utilization to ~20%. I'm not posting this to say that Win32 is better or worse then Linux, all I'm reporting is how the Win32 platorm is behaving with current server code (in my mind they should both be very close to each other in performance). qUiCkSiLvEr - Original Message - From: "Evaldas Žilinskas" To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Ok, I don't want to discuss about the current problem with CPUs, because on every srcds site you can see that. I would preffer to see answers. So, yesterday I ran a 24slot server DODs using 66tic. And when people reached the number of 18-20, CPU was ~90%. Is this normal? I mean, that on the same CPU and Linux I can run 2 dod1.3 servers with 32 slot and get ~60-70% CPU. And dod1.3 do update players 100k/s just fine, and here? You have 66updates/s and so high CPU usage. At the momment I'm runing 3.4GHz Pentium4 (800MHz FSB etc, etc...) +2GB DDR*400 and SuSe Linux. Better MHz suggestin is only a 3.8 one, but I don't think that +400MHz will slow my problems. So I know that current SRCDS anticheat system with updates, ticrates a bit slow the aimboting and something like that, but from admin side of this, It's a pain in the ass. Because CPUs with 5GHz haven't showed yet :). What do the people on this list think? Maybe an other beta test would bring the things to the right side? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage
Well, Windows (server versions) are expensive. Off course if you're a hosting company, then there is no problem, but when you host a local server and you don't get any money from that, then linux is the best choice. My choice was SuSe 9.x builds and from 9.0 I'm not getting any bugs or errors on HLDS/SRCDS builds :-). And they aren't so expensive (SuSe linux cost ~260Lt and Windows Server WEB cost ~1500Lt, Lt - our country currency. Kevin mentioned about "high-resolution Timer" maybe it has to do something with the CPU usage? My server settings are fps_max 1000, but really I don't get anything more than 333fps (even if my /proc/sys/kernel/hz shows 1000). Maybe when there is ticrate things we do nor need more fps than server is updating clients? Or I'm mistaking something? :-) - Original Message - From: "Kevin Ottalini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage This is just a plain old P4 Prescott (478 pin) CPU, very common but solid and predictable. I have a Dell Dual Xeon 2.2GHz machine here that I just started to do some testing on, nothing to report yet. Windows hasn't been bad to manage (I've been running servers since 2002) other then no autoupdate which can be a mixed blessing (I suspect) and I actually really like the server GUI. - Original Message - From: "Bart van den Heuvel" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Interesting! What kind of 3 Ghz CPU are you using, Xeon (old) or Xeon (New with I64) or P4? In currently running a cs-server on linux. The metrics show here (been on the list before: http://core.zokahn.com/cs-01/ This is a dual xeon 3ghz system the processors are bit aging...early 3ghz models. I'm currently building a new system which holds 2 dual core optoren 270 processors, I hope these will give enough bang for a lot of slots. The first month I will be testing windows vs linux performance. (I have a partition with windows and one with debian 3.1) I really hope Linux wins. as i find it easyer to manage :-) Gr, Zokahn Just as a baseline cross-platform comparison, I have three servers running on a new Win2003 server box at a data center. The server is an Intel 3.0GHz HT CPU with 2GB of DDR memory. There is one HLDM (512 FPS, 1KHz ticrate ), one HL2DM (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) and one DOD:S server (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) with 12 player slots each. I also normally run a high-resolution timer. With all three servers full (34 real players), CPU utilization runs ~81%. VAC is enabled for all three servers. Turning off the high-res timer dropped the CPU utilization to ~20%. I'm not posting this to say that Win32 is better or worse then Linux, all I'm reporting is how the Win32 platorm is behaving with current server code (in my mind they should both be very close to each other in performance). qUiCkSiLvEr - Original Message - From: "Evaldas Zilinskas" To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Ok, I don't want to discuss about the current problem with CPUs, because on every srcds site you can see that. I would preffer to see answers. So, yesterday I ran a 24slot server DODs using 66tic. And when people reached the number of 18-20, CPU was ~90%. Is this normal? I mean, that on the same CPU and Linux I can run 2 dod1.3 servers with 32 slot and get ~60-70% CPU. And dod1.3 do update players 100k/s just fine, and here? You have 66updates/s and so high CPU usage. At the momment I'm runing 3.4GHz Pentium4 (800MHz FSB etc, etc...) +2GB DDR*400 and SuSe Linux. Better MHz suggestin is only a 3.8 one, but I don't think that +400MHz will slow my problems. So I know that current SRCDS anticheat system with updates, ticrates a bit slow the aimboting and something like that, but from admin side of this, It's a pain in the ass. Because CPUs with 5GHz haven't showed yet :). What do the people on this list think? Maybe an other beta test would bring the things to the right side? ___ 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] Cpu usage
This is just a plain old P4 Prescott (478 pin) CPU, very common but solid and predictable. I have a Dell Dual Xeon 2.2GHz machine here that I just started to do some testing on, nothing to report yet. Windows hasn't been bad to manage (I've been running servers since 2002) other then no autoupdate which can be a mixed blessing (I suspect) and I actually really like the server GUI. - Original Message - From: "Bart van den Heuvel" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Interesting! What kind of 3 Ghz CPU are you using, Xeon (old) or Xeon (New with I64) or P4? In currently running a cs-server on linux. The metrics show here (been on the list before: http://core.zokahn.com/cs-01/ This is a dual xeon 3ghz system the processors are bit aging...early 3ghz models. I'm currently building a new system which holds 2 dual core optoren 270 processors, I hope these will give enough bang for a lot of slots. The first month I will be testing windows vs linux performance. (I have a partition with windows and one with debian 3.1) I really hope Linux wins. as i find it easyer to manage :-) Gr, Zokahn Just as a baseline cross-platform comparison, I have three servers running on a new Win2003 server box at a data center. The server is an Intel 3.0GHz HT CPU with 2GB of DDR memory. There is one HLDM (512 FPS, 1KHz ticrate ), one HL2DM (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) and one DOD:S server (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) with 12 player slots each. I also normally run a high-resolution timer. With all three servers full (34 real players), CPU utilization runs ~81%. VAC is enabled for all three servers. Turning off the high-res timer dropped the CPU utilization to ~20%. I'm not posting this to say that Win32 is better or worse then Linux, all I'm reporting is how the Win32 platorm is behaving with current server code (in my mind they should both be very close to each other in performance). qUiCkSiLvEr - Original Message - From: "Evaldas Zilinskas" To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Ok, I don't want to discuss about the current problem with CPUs, because on every srcds site you can see that. I would preffer to see answers. So, yesterday I ran a 24slot server DODs using 66tic. And when people reached the number of 18-20, CPU was ~90%. Is this normal? I mean, that on the same CPU and Linux I can run 2 dod1.3 servers with 32 slot and get ~60-70% CPU. And dod1.3 do update players 100k/s just fine, and here? You have 66updates/s and so high CPU usage. At the momment I'm runing 3.4GHz Pentium4 (800MHz FSB etc, etc...) +2GB DDR*400 and SuSe Linux. Better MHz suggestin is only a 3.8 one, but I don't think that +400MHz will slow my problems. So I know that current SRCDS anticheat system with updates, ticrates a bit slow the aimboting and something like that, but from admin side of this, It's a pain in the ass. Because CPUs with 5GHz haven't showed yet :). What do the people on this list think? Maybe an other beta test would bring the things to the right side? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2
[ Converted text/html to text/plain ] Sow I don't need to anything on my server if VAC is activate on it ? If the client a using VAC2 my server will use it to ? / [Team-Jogge] >>>SuicideMe<<< [DK] P.S Just sow we don't misunderstand each other. My server spec. SuSE 10.1 AMD Athlon 2500+ (32 bit) 1024 mb ram 160 GB HDD 100/100-Mbps WAN ip: ---> CS 1.6: 213.237.12.210:27015 <---|---> CS.S: 213.237.12.210:27012 <--- -- From: Evaldas Þilinskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com To: Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:36:56 +0300 I'm about 90% sure, that VAC1 or VAC2 is more like clienside stuff. When they update it, we just get a "platform update" thing, and even if your engine shows old VAC message, people are using the VAC2 on their clients. Only thing that server needs to do is tell client if the module needs to be activated (secure server) or no (insecure). - Original Message - From: "Andrew Forsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:28 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] VAC 1 and 2 You can't. It has never been released for the 64 bit platform. On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 21:15 +, Henrik Semark wrote: [ Converted text/html to text/plain ] I know that VAC1 start it self, but how do I start VAC2 ? / [Team-Jogge] >>>SuicideMe<<< [DK] ___ 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 -- Find dine dokumenter lettere med MSN Toolbar med Windows-pc-søgning hent den gratis![1] ===References:=== 1. http://g.msn.com/8HMADADK/2734??PS=47575 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage
Interesting! What kind of 3 Ghz CPU are you using, Xeon (old) or Xeon (New with I64) or P4? In currently running a cs-server on linux. The metrics show here (been on the list before: http://core.zokahn.com/cs-01/ This is a dual xeon 3ghz system the processors are bit aging...early 3ghz models. I'm currently building a new system which holds 2 dual core optoren 270 processors, I hope these will give enough bang for a lot of slots. The first month I will be testing windows vs linux performance. (I have a partition with windows and one with debian 3.1) I really hope Linux wins. as i find it easyer to manage :-) Gr, Zokahn > > Just as a baseline cross-platform comparison, I have three servers running > on a new Win2003 server box at a data center. > > The server is an Intel 3.0GHz HT CPU with 2GB of DDR memory. > > There is one HLDM (512 FPS, 1KHz ticrate ), one HL2DM (300fps, default > (66?) > ticrate) and one DOD:S server (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) with 12 > player > slots each. I also normally run a high-resolution timer. > > With all three servers full (34 real players), CPU utilization runs ~81%. > > VAC is enabled for all three servers. > > Turning off the high-res timer dropped the CPU utilization to ~20%. > > I'm not posting this to say that Win32 is better or worse then Linux, all > I'm reporting > is how the Win32 platorm is behaving with current server code (in my mind > they > should both be very close to each other in performance). > > qUiCkSiLvEr > > > - Original Message - > From: "Evaldas ilinskas" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:55 PM > Subject: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage > > Ok, I don't want to discuss about the current problem with CPUs, because > on > every srcds site you can see that. I would preffer to see answers. So, > yesterday I ran a 24slot server DODs using 66tic. And when people reached > the number of 18-20, CPU was ~90%. Is this normal? I mean, that on the > same > CPU and Linux I can run 2 dod1.3 servers with 32 slot and get ~60-70% CPU. > And dod1.3 do update players 100k/s just fine, and here? You have > 66updates/s and so high CPU usage. At the momment I'm runing 3.4GHz > Pentium4 > (800MHz FSB etc, etc...) +2GB DDR*400 and SuSe Linux. Better MHz suggestin > is only a 3.8 one, but I don't think that +400MHz will slow my problems. > > So I know that current SRCDS anticheat system with updates, ticrates a bit > slow the aimboting and something like that, but from admin side of this, > It's a pain in the ass. Because CPUs with 5GHz haven't showed yet :). > > What do the people on this list think? Maybe an other beta test would > bring > the things to the right side? > > > ___ > 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] Cpu usage
Just as a baseline cross-platform comparison, I have three servers running on a new Win2003 server box at a data center. The server is an Intel 3.0GHz HT CPU with 2GB of DDR memory. There is one HLDM (512 FPS, 1KHz ticrate ), one HL2DM (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) and one DOD:S server (300fps, default (66?) ticrate) with 12 player slots each. I also normally run a high-resolution timer. With all three servers full (34 real players), CPU utilization runs ~81%. VAC is enabled for all three servers. Turning off the high-res timer dropped the CPU utilization to ~20%. I'm not posting this to say that Win32 is better or worse then Linux, all I'm reporting is how the Win32 platorm is behaving with current server code (in my mind they should both be very close to each other in performance). qUiCkSiLvEr - Original Message - From: "Evaldas Žilinskas" To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage Ok, I don't want to discuss about the current problem with CPUs, because on every srcds site you can see that. I would preffer to see answers. So, yesterday I ran a 24slot server DODs using 66tic. And when people reached the number of 18-20, CPU was ~90%. Is this normal? I mean, that on the same CPU and Linux I can run 2 dod1.3 servers with 32 slot and get ~60-70% CPU. And dod1.3 do update players 100k/s just fine, and here? You have 66updates/s and so high CPU usage. At the momment I'm runing 3.4GHz Pentium4 (800MHz FSB etc, etc...) +2GB DDR*400 and SuSe Linux. Better MHz suggestin is only a 3.8 one, but I don't think that +400MHz will slow my problems. So I know that current SRCDS anticheat system with updates, ticrates a bit slow the aimboting and something like that, but from admin side of this, It's a pain in the ass. Because CPUs with 5GHz haven't showed yet :). What do the people on this list think? Maybe an other beta test would bring the things to the right side? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Cpu usage
-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Basically I think the cpu usage for dod:s is a pain in the ass too, but ultimately I can't see Valve "fixing" that as I just think the extreme cpu usages now are part of their Valves standard of whats normal (and probably why there will never be a fix for other games high cpu). I doubt there's much optimisations to be had in there without major recoding, so we just leave it be and don't run many dod:s servers anymore (in fact less and less valve overall, not because of any gripe, just simple logistics). On 7/11/06, Evaldas Žilinskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > Ok, I don't want to discuss about the current problem with CPUs, because > on every srcds site you can see that. I would preffer to see answers. So, > yesterday I ran a 24slot server DODs using 66tic. And when people reached > the number of 18-20, CPU was ~90%. Is this normal? I mean, that on the same > CPU and Linux I can run 2 dod1.3 servers with 32 slot and get ~60-70% CPU. > And dod1.3 do update players 100k/s just fine, and here? You have > 66updates/s and so high CPU usage. At the momment I'm runing 3.4GHzPentium4 > (800MHz FSB etc, etc...) +2GB DDR*400 and SuSe Linux. Better MHz > suggestin is only a 3.8 one, but I don't think that +400MHz will slow my > problems. > > So I know that current SRCDS anticheat system with updates, ticrates a bit > slow the aimboting and something like that, but from admin side of this, > It's a pain in the ass. Because CPUs with 5GHz haven't showed yet :). > > What do the people on this list think? Maybe an other beta test would > bring the things to the right side? > -- > > > ___ > 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
