Re: [hlds_linux] variables as names
>From the $200 or so million Valve made from HL you would think they could afford some competent programmers by now. Maybe they hired the employee's Microsoft fired for dumb mistakes. - Original Message - From: "Daniel Stroven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] variables as names > Yes, everytime you kill the one guy, a vgui page would pop up. Its already > a popular exploit. So far nothing heard back on the money bug issues > either. > - Original Message - > From: "john" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 9:29 AM > Subject: [hlds_linux] variables as names > > > > Hi, > > According to some of my admins, people have been using specific variables > > as names. For example, someone had a name of "Press Duck for Spectator > > Menu" > > > > The server logs show the name was actually like this: > > L 10/04/2003 - 14:28:37: > "#spec_help_text<1368>" > > > > There was also another one > > L 10/05/2003 - 00:27:12: "#spec_no_PIP<6463>" which > > appeared with a name of "Picture-In-Picture is not available in > > firstperson view" or something like that. > > > > Something to do with vgui variables being used as names? > > > > Anyone else seen anything? Any fixes from valve about? > > > > Cheers, > > > > john > > > > > > ___ > > 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] HOW TO GET SUPER LOW CPU USE!! THANK DLINKOZ
- Original Message - From: "Brian A. Stumm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Ryan Schulze wrote: > > > Brian A. Stumm wrote: > > > > >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Daniel Stroven wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Those #'s look awesome, but for security purposes, 2.4.9 is not really a > > >>kernel I want running. As pointed out by my friend matt, the difference in > > >>2.4.9 from 2.4.10 and higher is the VM used. But exploits like ptrace and > > >>others could make it vulnerable to remote exploits. We are going to test > > >>the kernel on the box to see results of usage. But, I doubt we will keep it > > >>if we can not make it extremely secure. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >how does this affect a box that only allows traffic on ports used by half > > >life servers? > > > > > remember that security hole in hlds where you could get a shell on the > > box running half-life? > > the fw will have to have more relaxed rules on outgoing traffic from the > > box (e.g. for VAC checks) > > if all else fails one could kill the hlds process and bind the shell to > > the hlds port. > > > > got root? *g* > > How does this pertain to the kernel version you run, thats a hlds hole not > a kernel hole. Go to http://www.securityfocus.com and type in "linux kernel" in the search box. Then you will see why to use the latest kernel when possible. Brad ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] server performance optimizations for linux?
- Original Message - From: "Nander Paardekooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > Dear Brad, > > So RedHat is one of the best OS-es for HLDS servers if i may ask? And then with those settings? > > With regards, > > Nander. Woops, my bad. I swore I saw him mention RedHat. Brad ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] server performance optimizations for linux?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BlankCan we get some collaboration on diferrent tweaks and such to linux > boxes to make them perform better? Not just hz=1000 - i mean other things, > network optimization stuff like that. Anyone have any input on this? > > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > Under Redhat you can use the redhat-config-proc. If you did not install X then you can just edit the /etc/sysctl.conf and add the following: kernel.core_uses_pid = 1 net.core.rmem_default = 65535 net.core.rmem_max = 131071 net.core.wmem_default = 65535 net.core.wmem_max = 131071 net.ipv4.tcp_fin_timeout = 60 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_time = 7200 net.ipv4.tcp_keepalive_probes = 9 net.ipv4.tcp_syn_retries = 5 net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 1024 net.ipv4.tcp_retries1 = 3 net.ipv4.tcp_retries2 = 15 net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_retrans_collapse = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_sack = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 1 net.ipv4.icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses = 0 net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_all = 0 net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts = 0 net.ipv4.ip_default_ttl = 64 net.ipv4.ipfrag_time = 30 net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter = 0 net.ipv4.ip_no_pmtu_disc = 0 net.unix.max_dgram_qlen = 10 net.token-ring.rif_timeout = 307200 fs.file-max = 209664 vm.bdflush = 30 500 0 0 2560 15360 60 vm.overcommit_memory = 0 vm.kswapd = 512 32 8 vm.page-cluster = 3 vm.pagetable_cache = 25 50 kernel.ctrl-alt-del = 0 kernel.panic = 1 kernel.acct = 4 2 30 kernel.printk = 6 kernel.rtsig-max = 1024 kernel.shmall = 2097152 kernel.shmmax = 33554432 Then run /sbin/sysctl -p Now a lot of the settings above are just defaults and some are modified like the fs.file-max and a few others. These settings are what is wrote when you use the redhat-config-proc. Might want to use it if you can since it has help on each item. Brad www.gammagaming.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] Erik Johnson??
Erik, I have been banned by Vac for some unknown reason. I have re-installed, replaced my memory but it says I am banned until 2008. My WonID is: 670319 I have a very old copy of HL as I have had it since the first month of release. It it possible someone could of hacked my key? What can I do to get unbanned? I had to turn Vac off on a few of my clan servers just so I can get on. Thanks, Brad www.gammagaming.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] West Colocation
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I was reading up on some previous posts about CalPop.com, who i was thinking about going with, but heard some poor >reviews on them. I need a colocation host with 700gb+ and good burst speed, does anyone have any suggestions because >calpop is out of the question for me now. It will be hosting a dual xeon 2.4ghz for game servers. Any suggestions anyone? > >Jon Dingman >Just Frag It Inc. >CEO When you say 700gb+ are you talking Monthly Data Transfer or storage space or what? Brad www.gammagaming.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Two quick Redhat questions
- Original Message - From: "dune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm not having a problem with the hyper-threading, just not sure if I > should leave it on or not. What problem does the 2.6 kernel fix? > Fixes the display issue and add's full hyperthreading support. Supposed to increase the speed somewhat. Brad ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] Possible addition to help catch cheaters.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] I currently use AMX on my server which with a plugin allows you to do a snapshot on the clients side. If there was a way to force the client to upload the screencap to the server then we could view it and see if the person is using a wallhack. Currently I have found no way. The upload command seems to only allow upload of models, decals, and something else. Maybe Valve knows of a way already to do this? Thanks, Brad -- ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Which server to buy?
- Original Message - >From: "Zachary H. Sloane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:30 PM >Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Which server to buy? > >Brad, your website doesn't work...just thought i should let you know just in >case you didn't already. :) Hey thanks for letting me know. Forgot to disable display of errors after I was coding last night. Ugg. Brad www.gammagaming.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Which server to buy?
- Original Message - From: "Morten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi > > I am planning to buy 3 new servers, but befor i blow all my money on them > (or my boss'). > Which hardware is best in price / performance at the moment? > P4, AMD ? Dual? not dual? > which boards? > dell / hp servers? > > Thanks. > > regards. > Morten K. Dual AMD with tyan motherboard. Could be MP's or Opteron's. Opteron's prefered as Valve is supposed to be releasing a 64bit HLDS. Brad www.gammagaming.com ___ 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] kernel compile
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Oh wow - ok default redhat kernel is like 2.6mb i think. I was able to > recompile mine without alot crap it doesnt need and its now like 760k. > > I tried to do a 'mkinitrd' but it said that all the loopback devices are in > use? any ideas? > Are you using any SCSI devices? If not you do not need to make a initrd. However if you do then put the server into single user mode and try it again. Brad www.gammagaming.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Ping Booster vs No Ping Booster
- Original Message - From: "kama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That depends on what version of hlds you use and what pingbooster option. > > If you are using 3.1.1.0 there is a great differance between pingbooster > and no pingbooster... at least with pingbooster 3... the latency are down > to 7-9 ms with it on, without it it jumps up aprox 4-5x. (these are my > numbers on my server) > > In 3.1.1.1 I did not get the same result, there is no real cpu jumpage as > in *.0 and i did not see any real difference in the latency. perhaps 10 ms > in my setup. I switched back to .0 due to massive critism from my > regulars. they complained about the higher latency, plus some lagging > issues that caused a sertain hit was registered as a miss. I should point > out that I have not tested the latest versions of .1 out just yet. so they > may have fixed some of the issues I stopped when the first 1b was > released. I have ran several tests with 3.1.1.0 and 3.1.1.1 with 32 players and there are huge latency difference's. I highly recommend sticking with 3.1.1.0. The big issue however is no commercial DoD users can play on a 3.1.1.0 server. Brad www.gammagaming.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] HLDS 3.1.1.1c1
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Has pingboost been disabled in the latest release of HLDS? Whether I set it to 1, 2, 3, or not at all there doesn't seem to be a difference any longer. I updated from 3.1.1.0 so retail DoD users could connect. However the only difference I see is far higher latency. This is a 32 player DoD 1.0b server on a Dual Athlon 2gig with 2gig RAM and 18gig 15k rpm drives running Redhat 8.0. I am using the AMD optimized binary. On dod_caen myself and several regular players would ping around 40-50 under 3.1.1.0. Now it is 120-140. That is one heck of a increase. Here is my traceroute and pings to the server. You can clearly see I have low latency to the server. traceroute to 216.127.33.237 (216.127.33.237), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 10.130.192.1 (10.130.192.1) 12.778 ms 10.535 ms 37.825 ms 2 12.244.81.129 (12.244.81.129) 10.250 ms 34.925 ms 9.787 ms 3 12.244.64.1 (12.244.64.1) 13.512 ms 8.814 ms 10.384 ms 4 12.244.72.18 (12.244.72.18) 10.194 ms 52.611 ms 13.045 ms 5 gbr1-p60.st6wa.ip.att.net (12.123.44.114) 11.992 ms 10.886 ms 10.499 ms 6 gbr4-p70.st6wa.ip.att.net (12.122.5.161) 12.664 ms 10.734 ms 10.433 ms 7 ggr1-p370.st6wa.ip.att.net (12.123.44.133) 10.366 ms 15.215 ms 13.012 ms 8 so1-2-3-622M.br2.SEA1.gblx.net (208.51.243.37) 40.380 ms 11.168 ms 12.877 ms 9 pos3-0-2488M.cr2.SEA1.gblx.net (64.213.83.181) 11.031 ms pos3-0-2488M.cr1.SEA1.gblx.net (64.213.83.177) 60.113 ms 13.111 ms 10 so6-0-0-2488M.ar2.SEA1.gblx.net (64.212.107.250) 15.865 ms 9.739 ms so7-0-0-2488M.ar2.SEA1.gblx.net (64.212.107.254) 10.717 ms 11 Swift2.ge-3-2-0.ar2.SEA1.gblx.net (64.215.248.118) 11.195 ms 12.710 ms 45.305 ms 12 66.228.202.18 (66.228.202.18) 11.141 ms 13.635 ms 15.813 ms 13 216.127.33.237 (216.127.33.237) 12.139 ms 12.998 ms 11.753 ms PING 216.127.33.237 (216.127.33.237) from 192.168.1.68 : 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=12.5 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=49.4 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=10.7 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=14.0 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=11.2 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=12.5 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=12.3 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=14.3 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=10.6 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=10 ttl=52 time=13.7 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=11 ttl=52 time=12.0 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=12 ttl=52 time=32.8 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=13 ttl=52 time=10.9 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=14 ttl=52 time=16.4 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=15 ttl=52 time=11.2 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=16 ttl=52 time=10.2 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=17 ttl=52 time=28.6 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=18 ttl=52 time=33.1 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=19 ttl=52 time=13.1 ms 64 bytes from 216.127.33.237: icmp_seq=20 ttl=52 time=11.7 ms Another thing I noticed is that the memory never goes above 256MB where under 3.1.1.0 it would average around 350MB when full. Maybe there is a issue with this. Hope this helps the developers. Brad -- ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Server config question
- Original Message - From: "Florian Zschocke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Serpent wrote: > > That's not very acceptable for large game hosting companies. A large amount > > of customers love to use HLSW. > > I am not sure how this is related to HLSW. Are you saying you > cannot use HLSW without rcon access? No, I am saying a lot of admin like to use HLSW for rcon. Which allows them to edit all the cvars. > > However I would love to not let them change > > the min_rate and max_rate and some others. Should be a way to disable those > > from rcon and need to be done via the config only. > > From this I read that the real point is what you want is to give > your customers rcon access. In that case you could use a AM(X) > plugin which provides the admin_rcon command but filters out the > commands you don't want them to use. > > Florian. > But then this will not work with HLSW correct? I know about AMX mod. I wrote several mods. But I haven't seen a way to disable certain cvars from HLSW being able to edit. Brad ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] [BETA] HLDS 3111c1 + DOD v1.0 = Improvement
Those graphs don't show a important item that is needed for comparison. That being the map. dod_caen doesn't do as much CPU usage as dod_charlie. Brad - Original Message - From: "Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > - Original Message - > From: "Eric (Deacon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>My 32 player server only shows above 1% cpu usage when the player count gets > > >>over 12-15 (hits 60-70% by 32 tho..). Thats on a 1800+ AMD > > > > > > 1% @ 12-15 then 60-70 @ 32 sounds very stange measuring issue? > > > > No, Steve, it's not strange at all. The CPU usage of the server grows > > exponentially as the server crests about 14 players. > > Not here it doesn't. Yes it not linear but if it where 1% @ 14 players we'd > be laughing 80 or so servers per machine :D > Here's some graphs of DOD looks like a distinct improvement: > http://gaming.multiplay.co.uk/server_2088.html > > 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] [BETA] HLDS 3111c1
I have seen this same issue. The latencies and CPU usage are pretty low below 20 players but once you get above they start to increase drastically. It has been like this since the first hlds. Brad - Original Message - From: "Eric (Deacon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Steven Hartland wrote: > > >>My 32 player server only shows above 1% cpu usage when the player count gets > >>over 12-15 (hits 60-70% by 32 tho..). Thats on a 1800+ AMD > > > > 1% @ 12-15 then 60-70 @ 32 sounds very stange measuring issue? > > No, Steve, it's not strange at all. The CPU usage of the server grows > exponentially as the server crests about 14 players. > > -- > 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] HLDS 3111c
Who are you saying is wrong? The retail version can not connect to a 3.1.1.0 server. Valve changed some stuff with the client side. This is why when you download 1.0 from them they include the new 3.1.1.1 server. Brad - Original Message - From: "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > One thing I've noticed here - someone always nows more and at least every > other person is wrong. The only inteligent person I've seen post here is > the developer of Ping Booster for Windows - he knows what he is talking > about. I assume the majority of the people here are adults? Maybe my > assumptions are wrong? Anyway - good day! > > Britt > > - Original Message - > From: "Rick Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:49 AM > Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > -- > > > > > > > >One of the issues tho is that the commercial version can not connect to > > >3.1.1.0 servers. So we miss out on a lot of players. So then we want > those > > >players so we go with 3.1.1.1 and get high CPU usage. Kinda puts us > between > > >a rock and a hard spot without the knife to cut our arm off with. > > > > > >Brad > > > > > > That is nuts Brad, where did you come up with an idea like that? It is not > > true, all current clients work under 3.1.1.0.c just peachy dude. > > > > Rick > > > > Sincerely, > > Rick Thompson > > > > Network Admin - Fortweb.com > > http://www.fortweb.com > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Voice & Fax: 260.493.1280 > > -- > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003 > > -- > > > > ___ > > 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] HLDS 3111c
Obviously you have not tested the retail version then. Brad - Original Message - From: "Rick Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:49 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > -- > > > > >One of the issues tho is that the commercial version can not connect to > >3.1.1.0 servers. So we miss out on a lot of players. So then we want those > >players so we go with 3.1.1.1 and get high CPU usage. Kinda puts us between > >a rock and a hard spot without the knife to cut our arm off with. > > > >Brad > > > That is nuts Brad, where did you come up with an idea like that? It is not > true, all current clients work under 3.1.1.0.c just peachy dude. > > Rick > > Sincerely, > Rick Thompson > > Network Admin - Fortweb.com > http://www.fortweb.com > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice & Fax: 260.493.1280 > -- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003 > -- > > ___ > 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
