Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
Oscar N wrote: This might not be the answer you want. AMD Duron has 64kb of cache AMD XP has 256kb Intel Celeron has 128kb Intel P4 has 512kb How can so many people (Oscar is just the one I happend to reply to) post such huge missinformation on an admin maillist without anyone reacting?!?! Is it really true that everybody that knows something no longer reads this list becuse of all the sensless spam? Anyway here are some FACTS (for a change) It is NOT true that AMD Duron has only 64kB of cache, what it has is 64kB *L2* cache. Apart from that it also has 128kB of *L1* cache (which I hope people know is much faster then a L2 cache). Also, AMD cache opposed to Intel cache is EXCLUSIVE (ie the info in L1 is NOT repeated in L2). If I'm to complete the above list we thus have AMD Duron has 128k + 64k = 192k (mostly L1) AMD XP has 128k + 256k = 384k (mostly L2) Intel Celeron (there is a whole bunch of diffrerent cache configs for celerons so you need to be more specific eg) Intel Tualatin Cel 1400 has 32k + 256k = 256k (remeber L1 is repeated in L2 on Intel) Intel Willamette Cel 1700 has 8k + 128k = 128k Intel P4 256k has 8k + 256k = 256k Intel P4 512k has 8k + 512k = 512k The comparably HUGE L1 cache of AMD k7x CPUs is a large reason to why they have such good real life (TM) performance figures in a server enviroment. Thus for a server a Duron will literally blow away an Intel Celeron even if it only got 64k cache becuse apart from that 64 it also 128k L1, which is where it REALLY matters (that is between 4x and 16x MORE then Intel CPUs have in L1). -- /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] CPU-Question
I dont understand... I can easely run 1 public 14 player server, 1 12 player public and one matchserver with no bigger problem on a dual piii500... The server is running on FreeBSD 4.x, with some system tweaks... and linux_base-7.1... Im not using VAC or HLG.. when the 14 player system is full it utilize aprox 35-45% of cpu... the 12 player usually dont go over 30... and the matchserver is around 30... its a gigantic jump between 12 to 14 players when looking at the cpu. when they all are full the system is still running on a load that are less than 1.0... (For those of you that dont run FreeBSD that is CPU% per cpu, so if i would write 100% its on one cpu.. not the whole system) The plugin on the public server is amx (ATAC plugin only), adminmod, clanmod, wwcl. on the match server its only adminmod and wwcl. Ill transfer to amx completely when i have rewritten all of my adminmod plugins to amx. clanmod is basicly only used for correct display of timeleft and all other say commands. /Bjorn On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Spectre wrote: ok finally you guys convinced me to have a look at djeyls amx stuff :-) but anyways, that would mean I have to sell my _old_ systems somehow (p3 1ghz with 512mb ram) and change them to dualMP machines to provide the fun I once had? A single Athlon or p4 won't make the deal? *tremble* /me scratching his head - Original Message - From: hondaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:01 AM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question First, I would ditch am/sm/cm for amx. FAR less overhead and does the same thing. I run 3 - 20 player CS servers on a dual mp2200 with out much struggle. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Spectre Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question I remember my Dual P3 with 1Gig RAM and Serverworks chip- set to be a good server for those things (4 large servers with Adminmod) till cs1.5 and now have some probs with 3 avg. ones w/ and w/o addons (statsme, clanmod). so what cpu/ram requirements do I have when trying to satisfy 3-4 clans on a single machinge and still providing AM,CM,SM and maybe even HLG? Are there any experiences around here? When it comes to the DualMP I have to struggle with the heat (I'd like to use 2u serverchassis) plus I'm not quite sure if a single AthlonXP2400 (or MP2400) really outperforms the p4 concerning hlds_l ?! - Original Message - From: DLinkOZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question And stear VERY far away from the 256k P4's. Simply horrible. - Original Message - From: Brian A. Stumm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Oscar N wrote: This might not be the answer you want. AMD Duron has 64kb of cache AMD XP has 256kb Intel Celeron has 128kb Intel P4 has 512kb Celeron 1.1 and under 128kb cache Celeron 1.0A and higher 256kb cache P4 based Celeron 1.7 and higher 128kb cache ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux Before you criticize a man, you should walk a mile in his shoes. That way, you are a mile away from him. And you've got his shoes. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
Well, it might have to do with people not want to spend to much time to answer questions. :P For an example, I responded with info from a webstore. I didn't had the time to check if they where correct, and I didn't want to go to deep about cpu's. The only point I had with my reply was that duron did not perform well, while xp and p4 do... /Oscar Stefan Huszics wrote: Oscar N wrote: This might not be the answer you want. AMD Duron has 64kb of cache AMD XP has 256kb Intel Celeron has 128kb Intel P4 has 512kb How can so many people (Oscar is just the one I happend to reply to) post such huge missinformation on an admin maillist without anyone reacting?!?! Is it really true that everybody that knows something no longer reads this list becuse of all the sensless spam? Anyway here are some FACTS (for a change) It is NOT true that AMD Duron has only 64kB of cache, what it has is 64kB *L2* cache. Apart from that it also has 128kB of *L1* cache (which I hope people know is much faster then a L2 cache). Also, AMD cache opposed to Intel cache is EXCLUSIVE (ie the info in L1 is NOT repeated in L2). If I'm to complete the above list we thus have AMD Duron has 128k + 64k = 192k (mostly L1) AMD XP has 128k + 256k = 384k (mostly L2) Intel Celeron (there is a whole bunch of diffrerent cache configs for celerons so you need to be more specific eg) Intel Tualatin Cel 1400 has 32k + 256k = 256k (remeber L1 is repeated in L2 on Intel) Intel Willamette Cel 1700 has 8k + 128k = 128k Intel P4 256k has 8k + 256k = 256k Intel P4 512k has 8k + 512k = 512k The comparably HUGE L1 cache of AMD k7x CPUs is a large reason to why they have such good real life (TM) performance figures in a server enviroment. Thus for a server a Duron will literally blow away an Intel Celeron even if it only got 64k cache becuse apart from that 64 it also 128k L1, which is where it REALLY matters (that is between 4x and 16x MORE then Intel CPUs have in L1). -- /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 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
The only point I had with my reply was that duron did not perform well, while xp and p4 do... It is my understanding that the performance of the P4 chips in HL server applications have been underwhelming, less than impressive. -- 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] CPU-Question
Yes I've been told so also. But, when I got this P4 1.8ghz computer at work I had the time to try it myself. pIII 900mhz uses about 70-80% and the P4 1.8ghz uses about 30% with same stuff on it and same numbers of players, so it's not that worthless... But maybe it has something to do with what stefan said: Intel P4 256k has 8k + 256k = 256k Intel P4 512k has 8k + 512k = 512k I don't know when they started with 512kb but that might have something to do with it... /Oscar Eric (Deacon) wrote: The only point I had with my reply was that duron did not perform well, while xp and p4 do... It is my understanding that the performance of the P4 chips in HL server applications have been underwhelming, less than impressive. -- 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] CPU-Question
kama wrote: I can easely run 1 public 14 player server, 1 12 player public and one matchserver with no bigger problem on a dual piii500... The server is running on FreeBSD 4.x, with some system tweaks... and linux_base-7.1... Im not using VAC or HLG.. when the 14 player system is full it utilize aprox 35-45% of cpu... the 12 player usually dont go over 30... and the matchserver is around 30... its a gigantic jump between 12 to 14 players when looking at the cpu. when they all are full the system is still running on a load that are less than 1.0... (For those of you that dont run FreeBSD that is CPU% per cpu, so if i would write 100% its on one cpu.. not the whole system) CPU usage goes up exponentially as you add players. When I have 10 live players, my CPU sits around 1%. At 14, it goes up to about 10%. So I would say your small servers aren't really adding any load to the system. Now for the 30 player on a P3-500, I find that a little difficult to believe. Although, as stated before, the anti-cheat systems (in my experience) about double CPU load. And since you're not running those, that will help. But still, you must run some mighty small maps or something because 30 players is a hell of a load for any server. -Mad ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 09:13, Eric (Deacon) wrote: The only point I had with my reply was that duron did not perform well, while xp and p4 do... Congratulations for discovering that the P4 out performs the Duron. -- Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
no, no, P4 and XP ;) Matt wrote: On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 09:13, Eric (Deacon) wrote: The only point I had with my reply was that duron did not perform well, while xp and p4 do... Congratulations for discovering that the P4 out performs the Duron. -- Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
kama wrote: I dont understand... I can easely run 1 public 14 player server, 1 12 player public and one matchserver with no bigger problem on a dual piii500... The server is running on FreeBSD 4.x, with some system tweaks... and linux_base-7.1... Im not using VAC or HLG.. when the 14 player system is full it utilize aprox 35-45% of cpu... the 12 player usually dont go over 30... and the I have a similar setup to you. Except I run dual P3 850's , and I do run HLG/VAC. When I run helms_deep at 16 players, the cpu for that server is almost pegged at 90%+. Other smaller maps with 16 players put my cpu at 50~60%. -- - 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] CPU-Question
we wanna upgrade our Server wit CPU-Power, but we couldnt spend all Server P4-2,4 GHz. So we wanna know ... what is better: Many admins have been very pleased with the performance of the AthlonXP/MP CPU's, which are also much more cost effective for the same or greater performance. -- 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] CPU-Question
i think amd systems work very well as servers also - Original Message - From: Eric (Deacon) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:25 PM Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question we wanna upgrade our Server wit CPU-Power, but we couldnt spend all Server P4-2,4 GHz. So we wanna know ... what is better: Many admins have been very pleased with the performance of the AthlonXP/MP CPU's, which are also much more cost effective for the same or greater performance. -- 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] CPU-Question
This might not be the answer you want. AMD Duron has 64kb of cache AMD XP has 256kb Intel Celeron has 128kb Intel P4 has 512kb From what I know of experience, duron does not perform good as hl/cs server. P4 and XP performs very well. But for the new celeron I don't know :/ My suggestion would be to go with the AMX XP, since it's cheap and gives greats performance... /Oscar Hlds Linux wrote: Hi all, we wanna upgrade our Server wit CPU-Power, but we couldnt spend all Server P4-2,4 GHz. So we wanna know ... what is better: CeleronII 2.0 GHz with 128 KByte Cache or a Pentium4 1,7 Ghz with 256 Kbyte Cache ... what the hlds_l server need ? Cache or MHZ-Power ? Thx for any hint ;) Gr33tz ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
erk, I've had no end of trouble with a dual AMD 1800MP system running Redhat 7.3 But my Single CPU systems running redhat run flawlessly. Matt. --On Wednesday, 29 January 2003 3:55 AM -0600 Eric (Deacon) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we wanna upgrade our Server wit CPU-Power, but we couldnt spend all Server P4-2,4 GHz. So we wanna know ... what is better: Many admins have been very pleased with the performance of the AthlonXP/MP CPU's, which are also much more cost effective for the same or greater performance. -- 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] CPU-Question
If you've had problems running a dual Athlon MP system, wouldn't that be down to the kernel? I know plenty of peeps that run dual AMD systems with a few different varieties of distro and they've not had problems yet. Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
Yeah, we just struggled with this idea and threw in an XP 2000. Mm Great pick. - Tyler [TASF]Overkill Schwend Semper facere bonum, an a amare odium, vita mors. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
erk, I've had no end of trouble with a dual AMD 1800MP system running Redhat 7.3 But my Single CPU systems running redhat run flawlessly. Matt. --On Wednesday, 29 January 2003 3:55 AM -0600 Eric (Deacon) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we wanna upgrade our Server wit CPU-Power, but we couldnt spend all Server P4-2,4 GHz. So we wanna know ... what is better: Many admins have been very pleased with the performance of the AthlonXP/MP CPU's, which are also much more cost effective for the same or greater performance. Yes Athlons are good and inexpensive. I have been running a dual 2000+ now since June and on the whole I'm happy (Red Hat 7.3 and later upgraded to 8) one crash in the e1000 driver that's all. But if I had the choice between a p4 1,7 and the new Celeron 2.0 I'll probably would go for the non lobotomized chip. The cache may not be so important to hlds (?), but most likely linux will find some use for it. --- marius ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
of the northbridge overheating that is also a know problem normally solved by putting a fan on it - Original Message - From: Jay Anstiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question If you've had problems running a dual Athlon MP system, wouldn't that be down to the kernel? I know plenty of peeps that run dual AMD systems with a few different varieties of distro and they've not had problems yet. Jay. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] -Original Message- From: Hlds Linux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [hlds_linux] CPU-Question Hi all, we wanna upgrade our Server wit CPU-Power, but we couldnt spend all Server P4-2,4 GHz. So we wanna know ... what is better: CeleronII 2.0 GHz with 128 KByte Cache or a Pentium4 1,7 Ghz with 256 Kbyte Cache ... what the hlds_l server need ? Cache or MHZ-Power ? Thx for any hint ;) Gr33tz ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux CACHE! CACHE! CACHE! at least for half-life games. My AMD 1.4gig totally outperforms my celeron 2.0gig to the point that I'm going to upgrade to a P4. - - - - - - - - - - Rick Sullivan www.sniperlust.com ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
