It uses over a full core of the E3-1271v3, lots of spillover to
networking threads(upload is 3.6MB/s+ from my CS:GO server).
http://ark.intel.com/products/80908/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1271-v3-8M-Cache-3_60-GHz
On 7/24/2014 8:22 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek wrote:
I wonder what the cpu usage would be like with 64 players.
InstantMuffin
On 25.07.2014 01:42, Kevin C wrote:
With the current boost to allow 64 player servers, the locked 80000
rate doesn't seem to be enough. We are experiencing up to 20-30%
choke with our server at 64 active players.
We are using on the server side:
sv_maxrate 0
sv_minrate 128000
On my client(where I saw up to 20-30% choke):
rate 128000
This was on a 64 tick server. Here are some screenshots with 50-55
people alive and playing.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=290923067
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=290923051
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=290923035
Also, servers seem to be failing to respond to respond to queries
used by gametracker when going above 62 players. Player lists also
fail to update in HLSW when this happens.
On 7/24/2014 6:40 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I now understand what happened:
·When net_splitpacket_maxrate was removed there was a fear that this
rate was now stuck at its old default of 15,000. It is not, it is
currently stuck at 80,000
·Also, the new rate of 80,000 is a bit lower than the 128,000 that
some server operators would set it to.
It sounds like the new behavior (despite being slightly lower than
the old peak) is okay and we’ll be careful about propagating the
change to other games. Let me know if my assumptions are wrong.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*Kevin
*Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:09 PM
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Csgo_servers] net_splitpacket_maxrate
The current default is perfectly acceptable, and
net_splitpacket_maxrate is no longer needed in 99% of cases for
CS:GO. We use it for TF2 and CS:S, and have been for years.
While it is fine for CS:GO, I hope it doesn't get trickled down in
its current state to CS:S without more testing.
On 7/10/2014 10:11 PM, Jason Lee wrote:
Thanks Jesse, and many thanks also to Bruce, this is the most
open dialogue I've seen while lurking this mailing list.
The picture Jesse linked to is a perfect example of what I'd
typically see in net_graph under high load (lots of
players/action etc), even though the hardware (CPU, RAM,
network) load of the server is normal the clients still receive
high choke.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jesse Molina
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 7/10/14, 14:36, Jason Lee wrote:
Like was mentioned earlier, many of us don't understand how or
why, just that this was the golden solution for high
load/traffic servers.
Understanding the history of net_splitpacket_maxrate is important:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.fps.halflife.server/26272
Tony Paloma's post pretty much guaranteed that most
administrators would be playing with this feature. But unlike
many of the other "turbo button" type network configuration
parameters, this one made a demonstrably positive difference in
game performance under common conditions.
The effect of this command on a 32-player TF2 server could be
dramatically positive. Without it, the server would artificially
choke back traffic to the detriment of the player experience
while the network and CPU resources inexplicably sat idle. Any
scenario where a large amount of data was being sent to clients
could trigger this artificial limit.
http://www.sourceop.com/randomimages/net_splitpacket_maxrate/from_default_to_high.jpg
The new default is great, but this is one change that would have
been good to communicate given it's high usage in the non-Valve
server hosting community.
Bruce, thank you very much for communicating with us regarding
this issue.
_______________________________________________
Csgo_servers mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
_______________________________________________
Csgo_servers mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
_______________________________________________
Csgo_servers mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
_______________________________________________
Csgo_servers mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
_______________________________________________
Csgo_servers mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
_______________________________________________
Csgo_servers mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/csgo_servers
