Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
I am well familiar with 1855. You are right, I did go off on him, and poorly formatted it, and it was rude to the rest on the listserv, to whom I apologize. About the UDP handlers, what I was referring to was Britt's assertation that if microsoft changed their handling of UDP, we would have an improvement. My reply was strictly to do with the fact that we weren't discussing how the kernel is affected by UDP, but by the massive cpu needs with 3.1.1.1. I was simply taken aback at the statement about it being microsoft's fault, or partial fault. I am well aware of the implications of UDP on a kernel, and wasn't in any way trying to imply it has no effect. That effect however, isn't the cause of our problems. Michael Ressen, Michigan Burbs Network Administrator www.michiganburbs.com ---- > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > From: Jeremy Brooking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Organization: > Date: 03 Jun 2003 11:14:34 +1200 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:49, Michael Ressen wrote: > > WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, > > windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy > Valve? Or > > did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my > > knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would > > changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're > > discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are > we discussing > > routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. > > > > > If youre saying (and it appears as such) the way your kernel > handles UDP, and the way HLDS handles UDP, has no effect on > CPU usage, then you are the one whos retarded, and need to > shit down and shut the fuck up. > > > Perhaps start by reading RFC1855. ___ 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
Actually, I agree with you, but in a different way. Game companies generally hate anything that isn't windows. For example, when was the last time you saw a port of a game for MacOS?Same thing with all these server ports for Linux. Where's native *nix support? What if I wanna put up 200 CS servers on my Sun Fire V880, and pipe em thru my OC-12?? I have access to several Sun boxes that are just sitting around in racks doing nothing - and they're in the best places to be: Regional POPs of backbone providers. It's a shame I can't use them for this. I understand it's all in the bucks. Make for what is popular, and what everyone has, not for what's best. I for one would love to see this work under sparc architecture. Imagine the companies who do server rentals. The idea of running a high I/O game server engine, in multiple threads, on a 64-bit OS, using a 64-bit processor(s)!! Instead of purchasing 50 x86 boxes to run Slack, we could be using the scalability of Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, or Tru-64 on hardware designed for running servers. As an administrator, I'd much rather manage 2-4 servers running a combined 50 halflife mod servers than 50 separate boxes. Reduced management, reduced admin interface, better user management, less cost per virtual server, better scalability, and better performance. I mean, how many of you have gone off your own servers to play some games on other people's servers to see how they feel? I do, quite often. I check out all sorts of stuff, then compare it to my own. Now BSD is a sorta different animal, because it runs on many different platforms, so logically that would be the best choice to start with. Michael Ressen, Michigan Burbs Network Administrator www.michiganburbs.com > From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jonas_Andr=E9n?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:48:00 +0200 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > just a q while you at valve ar compiling for different > 486/686/AMD couldnt you do a native FreeBSD port too? :) im > not a programmer so it might be harder than i think.. but i > would be really happy if that could be done. > > And if you would do it would us freebsd users see any big > gains from using native freebsd instead of linux emu? > > //root ___ 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 required CPU too high
Indeed look @ mohaa it uses 1/2 the cpu of any hlds mod 1% per play on a P4 2.5Ghz I really don't understand why the CPU load for hlds servers has to go up when it should be coming down. As you say DOD is pricing itself out the market like ns which is a real shame. Steve / K - Original Message - From: "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > wow. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeremy Brooking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:14 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:49, Michael Ressen wrote: > > > WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, > > > windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy Valve? Or > > > did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my > > > knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would > > > changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're > > > discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are we discussing > > > routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. > > > > > > > > > If youre saying (and it appears as such) the way your kernel handles > > UDP, and the way HLDS handles UDP, has no effect on CPU usage, then you > > are the one whos retarded, and need to shit down and shut the fuck up. > > > > > > Perhaps start by reading RFC1855. > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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
wow. - Original Message - From: "Jeremy Brooking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:49, Michael Ressen wrote: > > WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, > > windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy Valve? Or > > did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my > > knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would > > changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're > > discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are we discussing > > routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. > > > > > If youre saying (and it appears as such) the way your kernel handles > UDP, and the way HLDS handles UDP, has no effect on CPU usage, then you > are the one whos retarded, and need to shit down and shut the fuck up. > > > Perhaps start by reading RFC1855. > > > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:49, Michael Ressen wrote: > WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, > windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy Valve? Or > did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my > knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would > changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're > discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are we discussing > routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. > If youre saying (and it appears as such) the way your kernel handles UDP, and the way HLDS handles UDP, has no effect on CPU usage, then you are the one whos retarded, and need to shit down and shut the fuck up. Perhaps start by reading RFC1855. ___ 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
LOL!!! admin_unllama Britt There. Now maybe you'll make some sense when you talk. Michael Ressen, Michigan Burbs Network Administrator www.michiganburbs.com > From: "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:09:57 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Apperently more so than you do. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Michael Ressen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:49 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, > > windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy > Valve? Or > > did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my > > knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would > > changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're > > discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are > we discussing > > routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. > > > > DjoDJo was talking about the fact that with the huge > increase in cpu > > load, he can't run well because the insane resource > requirements cause > > his servers to melt - thus increasing pings to an unplayable level. > > The problem is not the ping, it is the need for clockcycles. > > > > ISP's and latest routing technology? I'm sure whoever is > in charge of > > the ISP's decisions on routing policies has a pretty decent > handle on > > what's best for their organization. If you were familiar with this > > concept, you'd know there isn't one cure-all for routing, > protocol or > > otherwise. And valve? Slap them 100M and get a low-ping > server and > > network? Um, Valve isn't a charity organization, they're > a company, in > > business to make money, and throwing money at something doesn't > > guarantee that it will either work, or be fixed (windows anyone?). > > > > Ok, Im sorry for the flame here, but calling the discussion BS and > > telling people to chill out because it makes you sick > really isn't too > > proper for a listesrv, especially when you don't know what you're > > talking about. > > > > Ok, back to my little cave. > > > > Michael Ressen, > > Michigan Burbs Network Administrator > > > > www.michiganburbs.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] HLDS 3111c
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-1] Jonas Andrén wrote: > just a q while you at valve ar compiling for different 486/686/AMD couldnt > you do a native FreeBSD port too? :) im not a programmer so it might be > harder than i think.. but i would be really happy if that could be done. > > And if you would do it would us freebsd users see any big gains from using > native freebsd instead of linux emu? it should only be a make.. if they have not specified some linuxspecific stuff. im not sure about the gain.. perhaps a little less cpu usage.. and probably the getting it to run at 100 fps without tweaking the HZ value. which could be changed on the fly under FBSD-current. no need to rebuild the kernel anymore.. (you probably should recompile it anyway... a alot of debugging stuff is in the default kernel...) time to die. /Bjorn -- The Geeks will inhreit the earth, but they will only have read access ___ 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
Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
Rick Thompson wrote: -- 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. If you are not familear with DoD, and don't read the information on this list about it, then it would probably be a good idea if you check a readme or something before you give advice. :) -- /Stefan Software never has bugs. It just develops random features. =) ___ 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
> 7 new msgs in hlds_linux. > All from Britt. All pretty much worthless. We have a new Deacon. Hey, fuck you :P -- 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
> With this latest release like it is, do you really think HL2 will be any > better? It will be worse if anything so you folks who host gameservers as > a mainstay had best come up with a plan to sell those high dollar gigs. Just a thought here... Take a (very) badly optimised dedicated server for HL and CS 1.5 (or 1.6) on one hand. The kind of server that get your big P4 and Athlon feel like Intel 8086. On the other hand, take a HL2 dedicated server that runs smoothly, that uses low CPU (after all, why not ?)... Ain't this the kind of thing that would help gamers to switch away from CS1.x to CS2 (I mean buy the new game) because the hardmins and game servers renting company are smashing prices on the new servers (that do no need so much horse power) ? This thought is just a thought. I have no clue (at all) how HL2 dedicated server runs. But when I see how had the last beta are running, I say myself "HL2 could run nicely". David. -- http://gamez.solexine.fr ___ 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
> > 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're trying > > to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less > > - then it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and > > vice versa - thats what it has to do with it. Seriously, less CPU hogging means "the program will be weaker"? I honest to God don't get it :\ -- 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
woohoo(not), eric is awake ;) To bad you missed all the fun stuff, 3 or 4 has allready responded to the fun reading. On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:03:00 -0500 "Eric \(Deacon\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're trying > > to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less > > - then it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and > > vice versa - thats what it has to do with it. > > Ok...what? My brain is having trouble wrapping itself around your > assertions, there :\ Is it just me, or is that one of the stupidest > things I've seen on this list in a long time--even worse than Nathan > Dodd's ol' "You must agree to the agreement before downloading" > stupidity? > > -- > 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 ___ 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
> 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're trying > to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less > - then it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and > vice versa - thats what it has to do with it. Ok...what? My brain is having trouble wrapping itself around your assertions, there :\ Is it just me, or is that one of the stupidest things I've seen on this list in a long time--even worse than Nathan Dodd's ol' "You must agree to the agreement before downloading" stupidity? -- 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
It would be nice to have the 3.1.1.0 + the flashbang bugfix, valve, please! ;) On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:56:14 -0500 Rick Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -- > Where have you guys been? It was immediately established that the first > 3.1.1.1 was a resource hog after it was released and none of the patches > have done anything significant about it.Post after post after post on this > list have been about people fighting the upgrade and then complaining about > the CPU jump... what is the point guys? Downgrade to 3.1.1.0.c and be done > with it. > > Be realists here, they are not going to "tweak" the CPU back to where it > was without undoing whatever it was that they did in the first place. I > don't think that is going to happen but as long as there is no client > update, who cares, run 3.1.1.0.c and pray there is no client update ever. > > If and when there is a client update that forces us to run that latest pig, > we will close all of our pubs and jack the price up to our clients > accordingly. This of course will assure that we will see our clan servers > shut down a month or two later. No great loss, we just host gameservers as > a sideline because we have the extra space and bandwidth. It was fun while > it lasted but nobody is going to buy $100.00 gameservers. > > With this latest release like it is, do you really think HL2 will be any > better? It will be worse if anything so you folks who host gameservers as a > mainstay had best come up with a plan to sell those high dollar gigs. Good > luck. > > Rick > -- > > --- > 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
RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
-- Where have you guys been? It was immediately established that the first 3.1.1.1 was a resource hog after it was released and none of the patches have done anything significant about it.Post after post after post on this list have been about people fighting the upgrade and then complaining about the CPU jump... what is the point guys? Downgrade to 3.1.1.0.c and be done with it. Be realists here, they are not going to "tweak" the CPU back to where it was without undoing whatever it was that they did in the first place. I don't think that is going to happen but as long as there is no client update, who cares, run 3.1.1.0.c and pray there is no client update ever. If and when there is a client update that forces us to run that latest pig, we will close all of our pubs and jack the price up to our clients accordingly. This of course will assure that we will see our clan servers shut down a month or two later. No great loss, we just host gameservers as a sideline because we have the extra space and bandwidth. It was fun while it lasted but nobody is going to buy $100.00 gameservers. With this latest release like it is, do you really think HL2 will be any better? It will be worse if anything so you folks who host gameservers as a mainstay had best come up with a plan to sell those high dollar gigs. Good luck. Rick -- --- 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
Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
Britt wrote: In the end - it all makes the difference. CPU / routing - all of it must work together... 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're trying to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less - then it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and vice versa - thats what it has to do with it. You're like on a diff channel man. You are making this into a whole new topic. The CPU usage is up. And it's up to the point where it *alone* is causing the lag talked about here. This is not a net issue of any kind. You're other argument that people whine about something they get for free doesn't work either. Number 1, if a company releases software to the public to be used and wants a positive reponse, then it's up to them to make sure its a quality product for release. The fact is this whole X.1.1.1b|1|2|3|c release stratagy is pushed (mainly) onto the linux crowd even with the non beta releases. I am no longer an early adopter with hlds. My servers run 3.1.1.0 and will stay that way until cs1.6 comes out. -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ 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
Um, Valve isn't a charity organization, they're a company, in > business to make money, and throwing money at something doesn't > guarantee that it will either work, or be fixed (windows anyone?). Windows works, its very proffecient at giving me blue screens. - Original Message - From: "Michael Ressen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, > windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy Valve? Or > did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my > knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would > changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're > discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are we discussing > routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. > > DjoDJo was talking about the fact that with the huge increase in cpu > load, he can't run well because the insane resource requirements cause > his servers to melt - thus increasing pings to an unplayable level. > The problem is not the ping, it is the need for clockcycles. > > ISP's and latest routing technology? I'm sure whoever is in charge of > the ISP's decisions on routing policies has a pretty decent handle on > what's best for their organization. If you were familiar with this > concept, you'd know there isn't one cure-all for routing, protocol or > otherwise. And valve? Slap them 100M and get a low-ping server and > network? Um, Valve isn't a charity organization, they're a company, in > business to make money, and throwing money at something doesn't > guarantee that it will either work, or be fixed (windows anyone?). > > Ok, Im sorry for the flame here, but calling the discussion BS and > telling people to chill out because it makes you sick really isn't too > proper for a listesrv, especially when you don't know what you're > talking about. > > Ok, back to my little cave. > > Michael Ressen, > Michigan Burbs Network Administrator > > www.michiganburbs.com > > > From: "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:36:06 -0500 > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be > > glad its free and ligthen up a little - alright? > > Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're > > running more than > > one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any > > given instance of valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. > > You can only do so much with what you're given bro - unless > > windows changes and the UDP protocol and other internet > > routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more > > up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that > > time -we have no > > choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 > > million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' > > server and network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way > > UDP packets are handled and other major ISPs to change to the > > latest in routing technology. > > > > We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig > > ddram - 32 players each - and it runs just fine. If you're > > on an old school ISP with lame routing - it'll probably suck > > - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - I'm no programmer > > but we have indy programmers here in this company that do > > gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever > > imagine!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. > > Sorry man. > > Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company > > thats doing this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and > > moan - while we profit off their development by providing > > server space and bandwidth... consider us lucky. > > > > Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM > > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > > > > I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the > > > "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, > > when the cpu > > > usage is already so high ! > > &g
Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
WHAT? Are you on glue? Explain to me how micro$oft, let alone, windoze has ANYTHING to do with this??? Did they just buy Valve? Or did they covertly purchase (or steal) RFC-768 recently without my knowledge (or bid)? So how (I cant wait for this answer) would changing the way they handle UDP have ANYTHING to do with what we're discussing? We're not talking about pings here, nor are we discussing routing. This is a simple matter of CPU usage. DjoDJo was talking about the fact that with the huge increase in cpu load, he can't run well because the insane resource requirements cause his servers to melt - thus increasing pings to an unplayable level. The problem is not the ping, it is the need for clockcycles. ISP's and latest routing technology? I'm sure whoever is in charge of the ISP's decisions on routing policies has a pretty decent handle on what's best for their organization. If you were familiar with this concept, you'd know there isn't one cure-all for routing, protocol or otherwise. And valve? Slap them 100M and get a low-ping server and network? Um, Valve isn't a charity organization, they're a company, in business to make money, and throwing money at something doesn't guarantee that it will either work, or be fixed (windows anyone?). Ok, Im sorry for the flame here, but calling the discussion BS and telling people to chill out because it makes you sick really isn't too proper for a listesrv, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. Ok, back to my little cave. Michael Ressen, Michigan Burbs Network Administrator www.michiganburbs.com > From: "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:36:06 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be > glad its free and ligthen up a little - alright? > Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're > running more than > one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any > given instance of valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. > You can only do so much with what you're given bro - unless > windows changes and the UDP protocol and other internet > routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more > up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that > time -we have no > choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 > million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' > server and network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way > UDP packets are handled and other major ISPs to change to the > latest in routing technology. > > We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig > ddram - 32 players each - and it runs just fine. If you're > on an old school ISP with lame routing - it'll probably suck > - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - I'm no programmer > but we have indy programmers here in this company that do > gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever > imagine!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. > Sorry man. > Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company > thats doing this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and > moan - while we profit off their development by providing > server space and bandwidth... consider us lucky. > > Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the > > "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, > when the cpu > > usage is already so high ! > > > > I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run > quite good with > > the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, > > piranesi, survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to > 200 for every > > one). I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised > > binaries, and > it was > > totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i > should > > set the maxplayer to 24 !! > > > > Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. > > Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. > > I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage > improvement, than a > > new beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still > > use more > and > > more CPU. > > I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot
Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:14:57 -0700 (PDT) "Mad Scientist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to the great words of Britt: > > In the end - it all makes the difference. CPU / routing - all of it > > must work together... 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're > > trying to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less - then > > it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and vice versa - thats > > what it has to do with it. Ofcourse routing and network must all work togheter. But they are not a problem and I don't think they will be one either. An increase in CPU power doesn't mean that the program will be stronger or faster. It can be down very easy with the help of some new bad coded features. > > Still looking for the clue stick... Give it to me after you're finished with him ;) > > -Mad > > -- > "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a > proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." > > _ Prime Minister Jean Chrétien > > > ___ > 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
Mad Scientist wrote: According to the great words of Britt: Be glad its free and ligthen up a little - alright? Free!! Interesting perspective. The servers are the infrastructure upon which the game is played. Without the servers, valve wouldn't sell the game. What is free is what we are doing for valve. We are the volunteers that drive the online gaming community. Imagine what it would cost valve if they had to *pay* for all our servers, bandwidth, etc. It's not *free* at all to run these servers. You can only do so much with what you're given bro - unless windows changes and the UDP protocol and other internet routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Um, what? What had Windows got to do with anything? This is the Linux server list. And the issue isn't the UDP protocol or networking, it's CPU usage. Somebody hand me the clue stick so I can beat this guy. -Mad Well, he does have a point - if the 5.0 x 10^21 lb. gorilla changes, most everyone else will follow along, having no other choice as the want to keep their user base. But, the UDP argument is plain DUMB. What, do you want to use ICMP-encapsulated packets now? What's that I hear? Crickets? Yeah, I thought so. And more "up-2-date" means - does this mean IPv6? IPv6 is going nowhere. The IP suite is still very strong, asides from having a small address space. But that's why we have NAT. And free. Well, the server is free. But, why would *any* company with half a clue try to sell a standalone game server, so you had to own the game to run a server? Blizzard doesn't, but they control their own servers and there are no user run ones. The same goes for EQ and all of those crappy MMORPG blah blah blah games. Still, more crickets. The companies see us not as server admins as much as money not taken out of their pocket. Okay, one LART coming right up (Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool, e.g. a Clue by Four). --agenthh ___ 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
OK... I guess I'll bite the bullet on this one. Just what the hell is going on with this increased CPU usage? I notice that the update list mentions that hlds_run detects your CPU and runs the "correct" binary, I'm going to play around with the hlds_run script and see what happens. I've actually had to take my server down for the first time in ages to try and figure this out. The increased CPU usage kind of bothers me, especially since there's no obvious "feature" that justifies this extra consumption. C'mon Valve. With HL2 just around the corner, don't finish up HL by leaving the engine in a botched state. It wouldn't do justice to your fans or Half-Life leaving the game like this. It's bad enough when Gearbox quit on us after 1.1.1.0 was released, please, don't do the same. At the very least, tell us that you're working on it or doing something about it or something. Anything. A simple "Working on the problem" will do wonders. > Message: 7 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:56:41 EDT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > I would be happy to see the CRAZY cpu usage of > this 3.1.1.1x beta FIXED... > > Think about people who host servers ! > 20% more cpu usage than 3.1.1.0 ! > > Bah! > > DjoDjo > > > Do you know compare to 3.1.1.1(or 4.1.1.1 for win32) to the old version like > 3.0.0.8 the CPU usage jumped like 200 to 300 Percent ? > > 2-3 years ago, a 1GHz can handle HLDS + CS like nothing, now? a 3GHz computer > can barely handle a busy HLDS, I'm not sure what kind of code they're using, > but this kind of insane CPU really getting out of hand, compare to other game > engines that got far more features than HL does but they're using far less > resources.sigh > > Chickon > > > --__--__-- > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > End of hlds_linux Digest ___ 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
According to the great words of Britt: > In the end - it all makes the difference. CPU / routing - all of it > must work together... 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're > trying to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less - then > it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and vice versa - thats > what it has to do with it. Still looking for the clue stick... -Mad -- "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." Prime Minister Jean Chrétien ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
According to the great words of Britt: > Be glad its free and ligthen up a little - alright? Free!! Interesting perspective. The servers are the infrastructure upon which the game is played. Without the servers, valve wouldn't sell the game. What is free is what we are doing for valve. We are the volunteers that drive the online gaming community. Imagine what it would cost valve if they had to *pay* for all our servers, bandwidth, etc. It's not *free* at all to run these servers. > You can only do so much with what you're given bro - unless windows > changes and the UDP protocol and other internet routing facilities change > their ways of routing to a more up-2-date means - then its gonna just > linger... Um, what? What had Windows got to do with anything? This is the Linux server list. And the issue isn't the UDP protocol or networking, it's CPU usage. Somebody hand me the clue stick so I can beat this guy. -Mad -- "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." Prime Minister Jean Chrétien ___ 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
In the end - it all makes the difference. CPU / routing - all of it must work together... 20-30% increase in server CPU time shows they're trying to make the program stronger and faster - if you see less - then it'll be weaker... It takes power to show power and vice versa - thats what it has to do with it. - Original Message - From: "Oscar N aka Dreadful" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c What does routing or network traffic has to do with what the first guy said??? The only thing he wanted to point out is that the beta uses way to much CPU, and I must say that I agree. Yes it's a beta version and things might not run as smooth as it should. But, it's good to point this out to valve before the stable version is released. That way they know that this really is an issue for lots of people and might think twice about that new 'über cool feature'. We've run CS servers in more than 3years now and the hardware seems to last in about 1.5year before they no longer can be used as a public server. Our server does not exist because we make a great deal of money on it, no, in fact it only cost alot. And must of the HL servers exist because people and not companies spend there money on computers. So if valve still want to have lots and lots of servers out on the net then people must afford to buy them :P I know it's boring and really not fun at all for the programmers, but I would rather have bugfixes instead of new features... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:36:06 -0500 "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be glad its free > and ligthen up a little - alright? > Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're running more than > one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any given instance of > valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. You can only do so much with > what you're given bro - unless windows changes and the UDP protocol and > other internet routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more > up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that time -we have no > choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 > million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' server and > network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way UDP packets are handled > and other major ISPs to change to the latest in routing technology. > > We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig ddram - 32 > players each - and it runs just fine. If you're on an old school ISP with > lame routing - it'll probably suck - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - > I'm no programmer but we have indy programmers here in this company that do > gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever > imagine!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. Sorry man. > Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company thats doing > this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and moan - while we profit off > their development by providing server space and bandwidth... consider us > lucky. > > Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the > > "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, when the cpu > > usage is already so high ! > > > > I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run quite good with > > the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, piranesi, > > survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to 200 for every one). > > I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised binaries, and > it was > > totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i > should > > set the maxplayer to 24 !! > > > > Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. > > Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. > > I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage improvement, than a new > > beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still use more > and > > more CPU. > > I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot of people. > > And I wonder why the servers renting company dont speak about that. > > That's probably a big problem for them. > > > > DjoDjo > > > > >I'm comparing the recent 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.0c, and observe
Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
What does routing or network traffic has to do with what the first guy said??? The only thing he wanted to point out is that the beta uses way to much CPU, and I must say that I agree. Yes it's a beta version and things might not run as smooth as it should. But, it's good to point this out to valve before the stable version is released. That way they know that this really is an issue for lots of people and might think twice about that new 'über cool feature'. We've run CS servers in more than 3years now and the hardware seems to last in about 1.5year before they no longer can be used as a public server. Our server does not exist because we make a great deal of money on it, no, in fact it only cost alot. And must of the HL servers exist because people and not companies spend there money on computers. So if valve still want to have lots and lots of servers out on the net then people must afford to buy them :P I know it's boring and really not fun at all for the programmers, but I would rather have bugfixes instead of new features... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:36:06 -0500 "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be glad its free > and ligthen up a little - alright? > Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're running more than > one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any given instance of > valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. You can only do so much with > what you're given bro - unless windows changes and the UDP protocol and > other internet routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more > up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that time -we have no > choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 > million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' server and > network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way UDP packets are handled > and other major ISPs to change to the latest in routing technology. > > We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig ddram - 32 > players each - and it runs just fine. If you're on an old school ISP with > lame routing - it'll probably suck - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - > I'm no programmer but we have indy programmers here in this company that do > gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever > imagine!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. Sorry man. > Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company thats doing > this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and moan - while we profit off > their development by providing server space and bandwidth... consider us > lucky. > > Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! > > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the > > "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, when the cpu > > usage is already so high ! > > > > I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run quite good with > > the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, piranesi, > > survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to 200 for every one). > > I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised binaries, and > it was > > totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i > should > > set the maxplayer to 24 !! > > > > Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. > > Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. > > I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage improvement, than a new > > beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still use more > and > > more CPU. > > I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot of people. > > And I wonder why the servers renting company dont speak about that. > > That's probably a big problem for them. > > > > DjoDjo > > > > >I'm comparing the recent 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.0c, and observe approx 40 > > >increase in cpu load under idential maps and playercounts running CS. > > >Now my setups use -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 1 so I know I'm > > >going to be working the cpu, but even with the advent of optimized > > >binaries, it made zero difference. One of my servers has a 2.8 Xeon, > > >and if a binary compiled with optimizations for x686 really did anything > > >I would have noticed a difference between the 4 binaries that were &
Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be glad its free and ligthen up a little - alright? Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're running more than one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any given instance of valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. You can only do so much with what you're given bro - unless windows changes and the UDP protocol and other internet routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that time -we have no choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' server and network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way UDP packets are handled and other major ISPs to change to the latest in routing technology. We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig ddram - 32 players each - and it runs just fine. If you're on an old school ISP with lame routing - it'll probably suck - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - I'm no programmer but we have indy programmers here in this company that do gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever imagine!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. Sorry man. Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company thats doing this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and moan - while we profit off their development by providing server space and bandwidth... consider us lucky. Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the > "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, when the cpu > usage is already so high ! > > I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run quite good with > the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, piranesi, > survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to 200 for every one). > I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised binaries, and it was > totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i should > set the maxplayer to 24 !! > > Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. > Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. > I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage improvement, than a new > beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still use more and > more CPU. > I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot of people. > And I wonder why the servers renting company dont speak about that. > That's probably a big problem for them. > > DjoDjo > > >I'm comparing the recent 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.0c, and observe approx 40 > >increase in cpu load under idential maps and playercounts running CS. > >Now my setups use -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 1 so I know I'm > >going to be working the cpu, but even with the advent of optimized > >binaries, it made zero difference. One of my servers has a 2.8 Xeon, > >and if a binary compiled with optimizations for x686 really did anything > >I would have noticed a difference between the 4 binaries that were > >provided. I was not able to disinguish any difference in performance > >or load for any of them. All of them worked, even the amd-optmized > >one, and no one showed any better performance than any other. > > > >With my setup, I can still support 2 20-player servers with that config > >and the new binaries, but that's really pushing it and there's no margin > >left. I hope Valve considers this issue because such a dramatic > >increase in resources is bound to have an effect on the entire HL > >community. Just think, how many people's server hardware can no longer > >support what they were running, all because of an upgrade? My guess is > >quite a few. I can understand some gradual needs for resource > >increases over time, but what caused such a substantial increase? Has > >Valve even acknowleged it yet? Have they said anything about > >correcting it?I haven't heard anything, so my assumption is that > >they are considering this not to be a code problem, but an inherent need > >of the game engine. > > > >I rolled my servers back to 3.1.1.0c last night, and they are running > >beautifully again. Loads are down, pings are down, players are happy, > >and I have left over CPU resources again. > > > >Back to your statement about a 1gig cpu doing just fine, yes I agree. > >We were running a 20-player CS server with HLG on a 70
Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, when the cpu usage is already so high ! I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run quite good with the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, piranesi, survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to 200 for every one). I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised binaries, and it was totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i should set the maxplayer to 24 !! Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage improvement, than a new beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still use more and more CPU. I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot of people. And I wonder why the servers renting company dont speak about that. That's probably a big problem for them. DjoDjo >I'm comparing the recent 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.0c, and observe approx 40 >increase in cpu load under idential maps and playercounts running CS. >Now my setups use -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 1 so I know I'm >going to be working the cpu, but even with the advent of optimized >binaries, it made zero difference. One of my servers has a 2.8 Xeon, >and if a binary compiled with optimizations for x686 really did anything >I would have noticed a difference between the 4 binaries that were >provided. I was not able to disinguish any difference in performance >or load for any of them. All of them worked, even the amd-optmized >one, and no one showed any better performance than any other. > >With my setup, I can still support 2 20-player servers with that config >and the new binaries, but that's really pushing it and there's no margin >left. I hope Valve considers this issue because such a dramatic >increase in resources is bound to have an effect on the entire HL >community. Just think, how many people's server hardware can no longer >support what they were running, all because of an upgrade? My guess is >quite a few. I can understand some gradual needs for resource >increases over time, but what caused such a substantial increase? Has >Valve even acknowleged it yet? Have they said anything about >correcting it?I haven't heard anything, so my assumption is that >they are considering this not to be a code problem, but an inherent need >of the game engine. > >I rolled my servers back to 3.1.1.0c last night, and they are running >beautifully again. Loads are down, pings are down, players are happy, >and I have left over CPU resources again. > >Back to your statement about a 1gig cpu doing just fine, yes I agree. >We were running a 20-player CS server with HLG on a 700mhz P3 back in >February. Yes it did get a bit overworked when full, but it wasn't >bad. Now, I'd wonder if it could even handle 14 players. > >So at this time I can see no advantage to moving to 3.1.1.1 (or 4.1.1.1 >for win32) until such time that a benefit is revealed. > >Michael Ressen, >Michigan Burbs Network Administrator > >www.michiganburbs.com > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:56:41 EDT >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -- >> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] >> I would be happy to see the CRAZY cpu usage of >> this 3.1.1.1x beta FIXED... >> >> Think about people who host servers ! >> 20 more cpu usage than 3.1.1.0 ! >> >> Bah! >> >> DjoDjo >> >> >> Do you know compare to 3.1.1.1(or 4.1.1.1 for win32) to the >> old version like 3.0.0.8 the CPU usage jumped like 200 to 300 >> Percent ? >> >> 2-3 years ago, a 1GHz can handle HLDS + CS like nothing, now? >> a 3GHz computer can barely handle a busy HLDS, I'm not sure >> what kind of code they're using, but this kind of insane CPU >> really getting out of hand, compare to other game engines >> that got far more features than HL does but they're using far >> less resources.sigh >> >> Chickon >> >> >___ >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
Yes it more like a statement...But it makes a lot of sense and I am sorry that your drunk eyes can't see it. Nathan Dodd VUGaming Networks www.VUGaming.com - Original Message - From: "Eric (Deacon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 2:44 PM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > hmm, it seems more like a statement rather than a license :) > > The guy's retardedness drives me to drink :\ > > -- > 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 ___ 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
> hmm, it seems more like a statement rather than a license :) The guy's retardedness drives me to drink :\ -- 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
hmm, it seems more like a statement rather than a license :) /Oscar On Sat, 31 May 2003 13:52:38 -0400 "Nathan Dodd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you not see the license? It is about 1 sentence right above the accept > button. > Nathan Dodd > VUGaming Networks > www.VUGaming.com > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Eric (Deacon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:44 AM > Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > > Another mirror link: > > > http://www.vugaming.com/pafiledb/pafiledb.php?action=license&id= > > > 1&file=18 > > > > > > Nathan Dodd > > > VUGaming Networks > > > www.VUGaming.com > > > > What the... It says "You must agree to this license agreement to > > download HLDS Linux v3.1.1.1c", which is already very strange in and of > > itself, but there's no link to a copy of the license agreement, etc. > > You sure you've done this before? > > > > -- > > 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 > > ___ > 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
> > > Another mirror link: > > > http://www.vugaming.com/pafiledb/pafiledb.php?action=license&id= > > > 1&file=18 > > > Nathan Dodd > > > VUGaming Networks > > > > What the... It says "You must agree to this license agreement to > > download HLDS Linux v3.1.1.1c", which is already very strange in > > and of itself, but there's no link to a copy of the license > > agreement, etc. You sure you've done this before? > > Do you not see the license? It is about 1 sentence right above > the accept > button. > Nathan Dodd > VUGaming Networks Nope. While I'd love to point out your many failings all over again, I think you'll just go in my kill file. Sorry :\ -- 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
Do you not see the license? It is about 1 sentence right above the accept button. Nathan Dodd VUGaming Networks www.VUGaming.com - Original Message - From: "Eric (Deacon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > Another mirror link: > > http://www.vugaming.com/pafiledb/pafiledb.php?action=license&id= > > 1&file=18 > > > > Nathan Dodd > > VUGaming Networks > > www.VUGaming.com > > What the... It says "You must agree to this license agreement to > download HLDS Linux v3.1.1.1c", which is already very strange in and of > itself, but there's no link to a copy of the license agreement, etc. > You sure you've done this before? > > -- > 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 ___ 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
> Another mirror link: > http://www.vugaming.com/pafiledb/pafiledb.php?action=license&id= > 1&file=18 > > Nathan Dodd > VUGaming Networks > www.VUGaming.com What the... It says "You must agree to this license agreement to download HLDS Linux v3.1.1.1c", which is already very strange in and of itself, but there's no link to a copy of the license agreement, etc. You sure you've done this before? -- 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
Another mirror link: http://www.vugaming.com/pafiledb/pafiledb.php?action=license&id=1&file=18 Nathan Dodd VUGaming Networks www.VUGaming.com - Original Message - From: "David Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > Thanks for getting onto this bug so quickly; fortunately it seems that not > many people found out about this one in our community (based on the fact > that most crashes due to the %n bug seemed to be accidental :) Just did a > quick test, the %n crash appears to be gone. > > Mirror link for the files: http://www.ausgamers.com/files/details/html/6576 > > -- david > > > > > Original Message > From: "Alfred Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Half-Life Dedicated Linux Server Mailing List" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Half-Life Dedicated Server > Annoucement Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "Half-Life Dedicated Server Applications Mailing List" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 3:14 PM > Subject: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > Beta binaries for 3111c have been posted to our ftp server: > > ftp://hlserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > > > > server: ftp.valvesoftware.com > > user: hlserver > > password: hlserver > > > > This is a LINUX only release at the moment. You can apply this patch > > over a > > 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.1a or > > 3.1.1.1b server. > > > > The changes for this version are as follows: > > v3.1.1.1c > > > > - Fixed format string crash bug in logging > > - Fixed custom decals failing > > - Fixed sound bug in demo playback > > - Changed steam/valve string format from STEAM_x:y to STEAM_x:y:z > > > > v3.1.1.1b > > > > - Fixed not being able to put hlds process in the background while > > redirecting > > console output > > - Fixed halfd not working with the console > > - Fixed not being able to kick bots > > - Fixed game "pausing" until console input when using screen and > > similar > > programs > > - Changed compiler versions and flags in an effort to increase > > performance > > - Fixed potential security exploit in infobuffer > > > > v3.1.1.1a > > - > > - Made "kick # " work again > > - Increased max_queries_sec default to "3" > > - Increased max_queries_window to "60" > > (this means any program can send 180 queries in a 60 second > > window, hopefully the various tools can limit themselves to this) > > - Added "mapchangecfgfile" cvar. Set this to the filename of the file > > you > > want > > run on map change. > > - Linux: Fixed console not being able to go into the background > > - Linux: Fixed crash bug when server was in a path with uppercase > > characters > > in it > > - Linux: Fixed sv_stats failing on FreeBSD > > - Linux: Created optimized binaries for AMD and i686 (Pentium II and > > above). > > > >The "hlds_run" script auto-detects your CPU type and runs the > > corresponding > >binary. If detection fails then edit the top line of "hlds_run" to > > point > > to > >the correct binary for your CPU type. > > > > HLTV: > > - uses "valvecomm.lst" for authentication > > - fixed "NULL" player names in HLTV demos > > - new command "clearbanns" - removes all IPs from bann list > > ___ > > 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
Another one: http://cs.webcabo.com.br/~mosca/cs/ > Mirror link for the files: http://www.ausgamers.com/files/details/html/6576 > > -- david ___ 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
Thanks for getting onto this bug so quickly; fortunately it seems that not many people found out about this one in our community (based on the fact that most crashes due to the %n bug seemed to be accidental :) Just did a quick test, the %n crash appears to be gone. Mirror link for the files: http://www.ausgamers.com/files/details/html/6576 -- david Original Message From: "Alfred Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Half-Life Dedicated Linux Server Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Half-Life Dedicated Server Annoucement Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Half-Life Dedicated Server Applications Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 3:14 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > Beta binaries for 3111c have been posted to our ftp server: > ftp://hlserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > > server: ftp.valvesoftware.com > user: hlserver > password: hlserver > > This is a LINUX only release at the moment. You can apply this patch > over a > 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.1a or > 3.1.1.1b server. > > The changes for this version are as follows: > v3.1.1.1c > > - Fixed format string crash bug in logging > - Fixed custom decals failing > - Fixed sound bug in demo playback > - Changed steam/valve string format from STEAM_x:y to STEAM_x:y:z > > v3.1.1.1b > > - Fixed not being able to put hlds process in the background while > redirecting > console output > - Fixed halfd not working with the console > - Fixed not being able to kick bots > - Fixed game "pausing" until console input when using screen and > similar > programs > - Changed compiler versions and flags in an effort to increase > performance > - Fixed potential security exploit in infobuffer > > v3.1.1.1a > - > - Made "kick # " work again > - Increased max_queries_sec default to "3" > - Increased max_queries_window to "60" > (this means any program can send 180 queries in a 60 second > window, hopefully the various tools can limit themselves to this) > - Added "mapchangecfgfile" cvar. Set this to the filename of the file > you > want > run on map change. > - Linux: Fixed console not being able to go into the background > - Linux: Fixed crash bug when server was in a path with uppercase > characters > in it > - Linux: Fixed sv_stats failing on FreeBSD > - Linux: Created optimized binaries for AMD and i686 (Pentium II and > above). > >The "hlds_run" script auto-detects your CPU type and runs the > corresponding >binary. If detection fails then edit the top line of "hlds_run" to > point > to >the correct binary for your CPU type. > > HLTV: > - uses "valvecomm.lst" for authentication > - fixed "NULL" player names in HLTV demos > - new command "clearbanns" - removes all IPs from bann list > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
[hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c
Beta binaries for 3111c have been posted to our ftp server: ftp://hlserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ server: ftp.valvesoftware.com user: hlserver password: hlserver This is a LINUX only release at the moment. You can apply this patch over a 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.1a or 3.1.1.1b server. The changes for this version are as follows: v3.1.1.1c - Fixed format string crash bug in logging - Fixed custom decals failing - Fixed sound bug in demo playback - Changed steam/valve string format from STEAM_x:y to STEAM_x:y:z v3.1.1.1b - Fixed not being able to put hlds process in the background while redirecting console output - Fixed halfd not working with the console - Fixed not being able to kick bots - Fixed game "pausing" until console input when using screen and similar programs - Changed compiler versions and flags in an effort to increase performance - Fixed potential security exploit in infobuffer v3.1.1.1a - - Made "kick # " work again - Increased max_queries_sec default to "3" - Increased max_queries_window to "60" (this means any program can send 180 queries in a 60 second window, hopefully the various tools can limit themselves to this) - Added "mapchangecfgfile" cvar. Set this to the filename of the file you want run on map change. - Linux: Fixed console not being able to go into the background - Linux: Fixed crash bug when server was in a path with uppercase characters in it - Linux: Fixed sv_stats failing on FreeBSD - Linux: Created optimized binaries for AMD and i686 (Pentium II and above). The "hlds_run" script auto-detects your CPU type and runs the corresponding binary. If detection fails then edit the top line of "hlds_run" to point to the correct binary for your CPU type. HLTV: - uses "valvecomm.lst" for authentication - fixed "NULL" player names in HLTV demos - new command "clearbanns" - removes all IPs from bann list ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
