kama wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Andy Shinn wrote:
machine (dual 2.8ghz xeon, 1gb ram) to run some more game servers on. I
get about 1-4 loss on them at any time, rarely going to 0. I have set
the kern.hz="1000", tried changing rates and such. No luck.
I use FreeBSD and HLDS. And I am seeing losses
I am running a couple 4.10 and a couple 5.2.1 servers and they all act the
same. I get no loss/choke on either of them...And I have a few 1u's and all
you need is a 1u PCI-Riser to add a new NIC. Maybe $10...Depends on where
you get them.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailt
It's a 1U rackserver so I can't install another nic. However next time
im in the datacenter I will try the em nic, different cable, and
different switchport just to make sure.
Next on my list to try is to disable HT, and then cvsup to 5.x.
I may even cvsup BACK to 4.9 since the other 4.9 machine wo
I don't think he is trying to point to your link being the problem. I think
he is trying to point to a possible problem with the interface card itself.
I would try a different NIC rather than the onboard just to see if you still
get the same loss/choke, just so you can rule out the hardware factor
In response to your comment about 12000 Ciscos being unreliable...IMHO, that
is crazy...They are only unreliable if the admin doesn't know how to manage
them efficiently. And I agree with you on the Junipers...Those are very
nice. Just a matter of what you want in your network. But the Ciscos,
I
I actually have two onboard, one is an fxp and the other is an em (the
gigabit one). I highly doubt it is my network causing the loss though. I
pay good money for bandwidth =)
Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Shinn"
The network card is an integrated intel card. Not s
For as much as I can say, Catalysts are a rather obnoxious choice. Try
the Baystack Series from Nortel.
As for high performance routers, dropped the unreliable Cisco's
7100/12000 and started investing in Juniper's, now, those really rock!
nmarques
Andy Shinn wrote:
Right now there are 2 hlds server
The main reason for 5.x was the SMP rework so if ur running a dual
or event HT ( would advise u disable this for game servers ) then
you may well seen a good increase. Note if you venture into -current
do NOT use the new scheduler its bad news for servers.
Steve / K
- Original Message
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Shinn"
> The network card is an integrated intel card. Not sure which model. Come
> with the Supermicro 6013a-t chassis.
More than likely an fxp or em then ( Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 or Ge )
Steve / K
=
Right now there are 2 hlds servers on the machine. During time of
testing both were empty. And even with both full. The loss/choke still
seem to be about the same (around 1-6).
The switch is a Cisco 2900 series. Not sure exact model, it's a special
layer 3 model.
The network card is an integrated i
I'm running FreeBSD 4.10 with HT on. Didn't notice much debugging stuff
enabled in the kernel when I poked around. is 5.x far more superior for
hosting HLDS? The thing is. I just checked this on another server
(freeBSD 4.9) with much worse specs and I do NOT see any loss/choke on
that server. Only
How many servers are there on each machine ?
bandwidth ?
What kind of switch are you using ?
What network card are you using ?
[]'s
Marcos Dias
www.netrangers.com.br
- Original Message -
From: "kama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 5:47 AM
Subj
richy wrote:
>
> Hi, after last update I haven?t been able to run any of my CZ servers in
> 64bit mode. Is there a problem or is it just me?
Could you qualify not beeing "able to run" a bit more? Do you get
segfaults?
If so, do they go away when you rename the custom.hpk file to
custom.hpk_64?
F
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Hi, after last update I haven’t been able to run any of my CZ servers in
64bit mode. Is there a problem or is it just me?
Regards
Richy
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-
Don't use an existing topic which has NOTHING to do with it,
its quite simple to change the subject or event better create
a new mail and address it to the list :P
Steve / K
- Original Message -
From: "Robert M."
Sorry guys, this ist offTopic, but everyone have this bug to know:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Steven Hartland schrieb:
>Have u tried a lower kernel frequency. We use 200 and dont seem
>to have any problems. Also which version of the OS and Linux base.
>We use 5.X ( 5.2.1 ) on all new boxes as i
Have u tried a lower kernel frequency. We use 200 and dont seem
to have any problems. Also which version of the OS and Linux base.
We use 5.X ( 5.2.1 ) on all new boxes as it has major enhancements
for SMP. Ensure you are running a custom kernel with all debugging
turned off, witness etc. Also disa
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Andy Shinn wrote:
> Wondering if any FreeBSD HLDS users can help me out.
>
> First of all. I'm wondering if FreeBSD was a good choice for HLDS
> servers. I mainly went with FreeBSD because all my other machines run
> FreeBSD and HLDS does seem to run well on it. Recently I bui
18 matches
Mail list logo
