Are my problems perhaps related to this:
-rwxr--r--1 yo users 232529 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd
-rwxr--r--1 yo users 78782 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_amd64
-rwxr--r--1 yo users 234609 2004-02-22 12:21 hlds_i486
-rwxr--r--1 yo users 233841
Alastair Grant wrote:
For those of you with pingboost questions, here's the old explanation
of how the -pingboost options work, as posted by Alfred
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 12, 2002:
All the pingboot modes attempt to reduce the latency caused by the
server.
The default
i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU
with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before?
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=857353,857995,852351catID=7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
further, for intel 3.2G, there are models with
1. (3.2GEE) 512k L2 + 2M
UPDATE: should be 3.2G(E) with 1M L2 cache, not 3.2G(EE).
Christopher Luk wrote:
i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU
with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before?
Folks:
Have any of y'all seen this one:
L 02/22/2004 - 10:17:39: FATAL ERROR (shutting down): SZ_GetSpace: Tried
to write to an uninitialized sizebuf_t: ???
FATAL ERROR (shutting down): SZ_GetSpace: Tried to write to an
uninitialized sizebuf_t: ???
Insane Husayn
Husayn ibn al-Samarqandi wrote:
Have any of y'all seen this one:
Are you runnig bots on that server? This happens when some
functions are executed on bots.
Florian
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please
yes, you will see a speed increase with the larger cache sizes.
kev
Christopher Luk wrote:
UPDATE: should be 3.2G(E) with 1M L2 cache, not 3.2G(EE).
Christopher Luk wrote:
i just came across intel's page and found that there are 3.2G(EE) CPU
with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried it before?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Florian Zschocke wrote:
Husayn ibn al-Samarqandi wrote:
Have any of y'all seen this one:
Are you runnig bots on that server? This happens when some
functions are executed on bots.
Florian
Aha! Yep. Sturmbots. The buggers. Thanks!
Insane Husayn
hello!
i keep getting this error after appx 1 day of uptime of my servers...
it blocks new clients from connecting,
but already connected players are not affected by that.
however once it occured it stays and i have to restart hlds
###
Hey all
Tonight a customer complained that all IPs were banned on his server. I
investigated and found no banned.cfg in the dod server dir. I restarted
the server and all ips were still banned.
I then wrote listip and listid in the console and it showed no bans at
all. I then deletede the entire
Global key / ip bans?
Steve / K
- Original Message -
From: Mikkel Georgsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:36 PM
Subject: [hlds_linux] All ip's banned in DoD
Hey all
Tonight a customer complained that all IPs were banned on his server.
Looks like that's your problem. My hlds_amd64 is 2053126 bytes. All
you should have to do is delete that file and run the steam update
command.
On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are my problems perhaps related to this:
-rwxr--r--1 yo users 232529
while the EE (extreme edition) P4 is certainly faster at
pretty much everything, the E class (prescott) P4's may
not be *any* faster at HLDS than the older C (northwood)
P4's.
These new E pentium 4 are a totally new design on the
core, and as such have been desgned to run at higher
frequencies.
I did just before I posted this to be sure. Send me your version in a email
please? :D
Quoting Tony Bussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looks like that's your problem. My hlds_amd64 is 2053126 bytes. All
you should have to do is delete that file and run the steam update
command.
On Sun,
Doh,
I read the wrong file to you. My engine_amd64 is that size, not
hlds_amd64. Here's PART of my directory listing:
-rw-r--r--4 hlds hlds 1330 Feb 9 19:29
InstallRecord.blob
-rw-r--r--4 hlds hlds 381384 Jan 25 14:26 core_i386.so
-rw-r--r--3 hlds hlds
it sounds that EE should be the best choice for new cpu besides prices.
and E doesn't have too many difference from C besides heat penalty.
however, Xeon series doesn't do too good on HLDS as expected while
somebody talk about it in the past (btw, i have no budget to try xeon
cpu mb, can't
16 matches
Mail list logo
