I think i'll take Intel's word on it. http://www.intel.com/support/platform/ht/os.htm
> Send hlds mailing list submissions to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hlds digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (K. Mike Bradley) > 2. Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (Steven Hartland) > 3. Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (BeNt) > 4. RE: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (Napier, Kevin) > 5. Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (Steven Hartland) > 6. Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (Roc) > 7. RE: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (Napier, Kevin) > 8. Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? (Guido) > 9. Re: Counter-Strike release (Bryan Bilocura) > 10. Lag issue since update? (Williams, Paul) > 11. Re: Lag issue since update? (Roc) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > From: "K. Mike Bradley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:47:41 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Nope, 2000 does not support Hyperthreading. This feature must be turned of > in the bios to load and run 2000. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > First off, > > I run a network of 180 servers, each has Microsoft Windows 2000 Server > (Advanced) installed and running in a Forest/Multi Brain environment with 2 > PDC's per node. > > Whoever stated that Windows 2000 Server does NOT support HyperThreading > developed by Intel/IBM, has not the slightest idea what they are discussing. > > In fact, the reason Windows 2000 Server was released was primarily for > technological advancement and deployment of active hardware management and > utilization. Windows 2000 Server (of any flavour) supports HyperThreading > (which is just a fancy name for "multi-threading") and it's sole purpose was > to handle this advancement in particular. > > What's more, if you run Windows 2000 Server Datacenter Edition SP3m, you're > looking at the ability to scale up to 64 uni-syncronous processors > (physically) and up to 2 terabytes or more of RAM (either physical state or > node on a by-wire NLB, GLB) > > The only difference between Windows 2003 Server (Enterprise or Standard, not > including Datacenter, since Advanced was done away with years ago) is a > included SQL server, SMTP/POP server, Lite Exchange, "out of the box" Active > Directory and PDC / DC deployment, "being locked down" out of the box, and a > few other minor UI touch ups and packet interface handling exchange methods > (IPv6 anyone?) and the removal of NetBUI, etc. > > If you don't understand what you're saying, please let those who do gain the > time to respond. Especially when what you're responding to will possibly > have an adverse affect on how another individual spends his/her time and > money. > > To whomever it was that asked earlier, Windows 2000 Server (Standard, > Advanced, Enterprise, or even Datacenter) does support "HyperThreading" and > in standard form up to 4GB of physical RAM, etc. as well as up to 2 physical > processors (Standard), multiplied by a factor of 2 each step upward. > > Additionally, CALs for RDP are interchangeable between Windows 2000 Server > and Windows 2003 Server, so administration should you decide to license one > over the other thru a purchase (since Windows 2000 Server can be purchased > for close to $2,500 USD depending on the license you choose) and may be more > cost efficient if you want to re-use that license, especially if it is off > network (as MS has already stated this will be free for everyone in the next > 5 months and forward). > > As a note, every server we deploy is currently at a minimum specification of > two or more 2800mhz "F" class Intel Xeon processors and 2048MB of PC2700 DDR > (ECC). And the taskman does show a multiplicity of processors and system > information which does indeed state that "Multi-Threading" is capable and > active. > > Read a book people. You shouldn't be spreading misinformation simply because > the thought crosses your mind. If you don't KNOW, then either find out or > don't post. I long for the good old days of this list... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guido > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Wow, thought 2k did support HT. Is there gonna be anyproblems if i have a HT > support processor and motherboard but not the OS? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > nope, 2k does not support hyperthreading > > > > and as mentioned earlier, both 2k and 2k3 are basically the same os, > > just with slight differences. theres more setup that has to be done on > > 2k3 > since > > its server software, and has nothing set up on install. > > > > as for whoever said xp for win servers, i would like u to send me some > > of that fine jamacian weed you're smoking, cuz im out at the moment. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Donald Holl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > > Wait. Does Win2k Pro support HT? > > > > > > I doubt it. HT wasn't around when Windows 2000 came out so it would > > > seem > > to make sense that Windows 2003 can take advantage of HT and therefore > > perform better. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > > > archives, > > please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > From: "Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:07:08 +0100 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Not true as far as I know it isn't hyperthread "aware" but that doesn't > stop u using it. The difference is that the scheduler it will treat the log= > ical > CPU's as real CPU's and as we all know this isn't the case. > The result is that it "may" not extract as good as performance as > a hyperthread aware OS like Windows XP or 2003 server. > > The fact remains though that 2003 is still a "server" OS and as such > is priced accordingly making it useless for running legal game servers. > > Steve / K > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > Nope, 2000 does not support Hyperthreading. This feature must > > be turned of in the bios to load and run 2000. > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the= > person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, th= > e recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise dissem= > inating it or any information contained in it. > > In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please t= > elephone (023) 8024 3137 > or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > From: "BeNt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:30:55 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This may explain Steven's comment alittle more.Its all in the licensing > > http://www.intel.com/support/platform/ht/os.htm > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/docs/hyperthreading.doc (This explains > from microsoft why it isn't good to run ht with 2k.It supports it but its a > licensing problem built in with 2k.) > > Hope this helps alittle more. > > BeNt > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:07 AM > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > Not true as far as I know it isn't hyperthread "aware" but that doesn't > stop u using it. The difference is that the scheduler it will treat the > logical > CPU's as real CPU's and as we all know this isn't the case. > The result is that it "may" not extract as good as performance as > a hyperthread aware OS like Windows XP or 2003 server. > > The fact remains though that 2003 is still a "server" OS and as such > is priced accordingly making it useless for running legal game servers. > > Steve / K > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:05:36 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I think you mean 'making it expensive..' not useless. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Hartland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > Not true as far as I know it isn't hyperthread "aware" but that doesn't > stop u using it. The difference is that the scheduler it will treat the > logical > CPU's as real CPU's and as we all know this isn't the case. > The result is that it "may" not extract as good as performance as > a hyperthread aware OS like Windows XP or 2003 server. > > The fact remains though that 2003 is still a "server" OS and as such > is priced accordingly making it useless for running legal game servers. > > Steve / K > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > Nope, 2000 does not support Hyperthreading. This feature must > > be turned of in the bios to load and run 2000. > > > > ================================================ > This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the > person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the > recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise > disseminating it or any information contained in it. > > In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please > telephone (023) 8024 3137 > or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > From: "Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:19:56 +0100 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Nope ~ =A3800 for the OS of a ~ =A31500 machine is useless > when your not using any of its features and you compare it > to ~ =A3100 for an OS without the unneeded features, but > that's just my opinion :) > > Steve / K > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:05 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > I think you mean 'making it expensive..' not useless. > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D= > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the= > person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, th= > e recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise dissem= > inating it or any information contained in it. > > In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please t= > elephone (023) 8024 3137 > or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > From: "Roc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:29:30 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If cost is NOT an issue would 2003 then be the way to go? > > I'm asking because I was going to try 2003 and now want to be sure to I'm > making the right decision. > > Regards > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:05 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > I think you mean 'making it expensive..' not useless. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven Hartland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:07 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > Not true as far as I know it isn't hyperthread "aware" but that doesn't > > stop u using it. The difference is that the scheduler it will treat the > > logical > > CPU's as real CPU's and as we all know this isn't the case. > > The result is that it "may" not extract as good as performance as > > a hyperthread aware OS like Windows XP or 2003 server. > > > > The fact remains though that 2003 is still a "server" OS and as such > > is priced accordingly making it useless for running legal game servers. > > > > Steve / K > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > > > Nope, 2000 does not support Hyperthreading. This feature must > > > be turned of in the bios to load and run 2000. > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:41:33 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 2000 vs 2003 if cost is a non issue use 2003. > As for hlds it really makes very little difference. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > If cost is NOT an issue would 2003 then be the way to go? > > I'm asking because I was going to try 2003 and now want to be sure to I'm > making the right decision. > > Regards > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:05 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > I think you mean 'making it expensive..' not useless. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven Hartland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:07 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > Not true as far as I know it isn't hyperthread "aware" but that doesn't > > stop u using it. The difference is that the scheduler it will treat the > > logical > > CPU's as real CPU's and as we all know this isn't the case. > > The result is that it "may" not extract as good as performance as > > a hyperthread aware OS like Windows XP or 2003 server. > > > > The fact remains though that 2003 is still a "server" OS and as such > > is priced accordingly making it useless for running legal game servers. > > > > Steve / K > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > > > Nope, 2000 does not support Hyperthreading. This feature must > > > be turned of in the bios to load and run 2000. > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 8 > From: "Guido" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:58:12 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You guys keep going back and forth. He just wanted to know which one to > choose. He didn't want to know if they used HT or not. You keep going back > and forth... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:41 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > 2000 vs 2003 if cost is a non issue use 2003. > > As for hlds it really makes very little difference. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:30 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > If cost is NOT an issue would 2003 then be the way to go? > > > > I'm asking because I was going to try 2003 and now want to be sure to I'm > > making the right decision. > > > > Regards > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:05 PM > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > I think you mean 'making it expensive..' not useless. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Steven Hartland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:07 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > > > Not true as far as I know it isn't hyperthread "aware" but that doesn't > > > stop u using it. The difference is that the scheduler it will treat the > > > logical > > > CPU's as real CPU's and as we all know this isn't the case. > > > The result is that it "may" not extract as good as performance as > > > a hyperthread aware OS like Windows XP or 2003 server. > > > > > > The fact remains though that 2003 is still a "server" OS and as such > > > is priced accordingly making it useless for running legal game servers. > > > > > > Steve / K > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > > > > > Nope, 2000 does not support Hyperthreading. This feature must > > > > be turned of in the bios to load and run 2000. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 9 > From: "Bryan Bilocura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Counter-Strike release > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:05:00 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > See http://steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94346 > > -- > Regards, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DDc-Clan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:06 PM > Subject: [hlds] Counter-Strike release > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > -- > > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > > i didn't want condtion zero skins for regular cs....can we fix this ? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Counter-Strike release > > > > > > Isn't that 'version'? > > > > --- Ryan Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Excellent! > > > > > > Would it be possible to have a publically readable cvar (like for > > > example, > > > mp_roundtime is) that contains an integer based on the update number, > > > or the > > > timedate of the last update? That way, server admins that do not have > > > access > > > to their hldsupdatetool (like me, I just have rcon and ftp to mine) > > > as well > > > as players can tell when the server was updated to the latest version > > > available on steam? Just perhaps an idea that I imagine would not > > > take that > > > much work to do. > > > > > > Can't wait to check out the new hitboxes. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ryan Lewis > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Alfred Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:04 AM > > > Subject: [hlds] Counter-Strike release > > > > > > > > > > We have released an update for Counter-Strike. To get this update > > > you > > > > need to run the hldsupdatetool (via "steam" under linux or > > > > "hldsupdatetool" under win32). > > > > > > > > The changes for this release are: > > > > - Added crosshair customization (color, size, opacity) > > > > - Corpses fade out with cl_corpse_stay > > > > - Improved player turning right hitbox behavior > > > > - Improved brass ejection behavior > > > > - hud_draw 0 doesn't remove blackout > > > > - Scope blackout drawn in software mode > > > > - Flashlight sound no longer masks weapon firing sounds > > > > - Improved text behavior in top-right corner of observer mode > > > > - Round timer doesn't re-appear until the round restarts when the > > > bomb > > > > is defused or explodes > > > > - Improved hitbox behavior > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Alfred > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > > > archives, > > > please visit: > > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > > > archives, please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > -- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:30:24 +0100 > From: "Williams, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [hlds] Lag issue since update? > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Right, before I start to investigate this problem I thought I'd check first= > to see if anyone else is having this issue. > > My servers are suffering periodic sessions of major lag since the latest up= > dates. Is anyone else noticing this? Running a ping -t to the servers whils= > t this lag is happening indicates that all is well with the servers. > > Cheers, Paul > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 11 > From: "Roc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Lag issue since update? > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:50:50 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Yes, you are not the only one. It is indeed worse since last update. > > Regards > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Williams, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 4:30 PM > Subject: [hlds] Lag issue since update? > > > Right, before I start to investigate this problem I thought I'd check first > to see if anyone else is having this issue. > > My servers are suffering periodic sessions of major lag since the latest > updates. Is anyone else noticing this? Running a ping -t to the servers > whilst this lag is happening indicates that all is well with the servers. > > Cheers, Paul > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > End of hlds Digest > > -- _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
