If the list could excuse my spam for a moment... (though I still expect a flame).
-- Shut up you so called "American-Canadian-F911-lover" ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philipp G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > pff, what does this "Shane Robinett" guy know anyway. Not like he hosts a > major server company or knows much about computers anyway. He's probably > balding for that matter. > -coldfusioN > > > >From: "Shane Robinett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > >Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:18:25 -0400 > > > >Mike - if you are going to make up stuff, atleast try to have something to > >back it up sir! > > > >P4 has multiple branches in the CPU line. The most recent branches include > >P4 Extreme Edition - -more or less targetted at the high-end gaming PC / > >Platform. It does include Hyperthreading. It is built on the 130nm die > >size > > > >Most P4 branches do NOT include Hyperthreading. They have varying die > >sizes > >, level 2 and level 1 caches. > > > >XEON was built with dual processor servers in mind. XEON includes HT. It > >is > >built on a 90nm die -- and it IS NOT a P3. XEON was initially based off the > >P4 architecture, then split.. and then they brought the P4 Extreme back > >into > >line or very similiar to the XEON. > > > >P4 = Workstations, gaming platforms > >XEON = Servers > > > >Info about P4 = > >http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/pentium4HTXE/ > >Info about XEON = > >http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/xeon/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Donald Holl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:50 PM > >Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > To my knowledge all the new Dual Xeons have HyperThreading. > > > I have multiple Dual Xeon servers to prove it. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "K. Mike Bradley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:41 AM > > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > > > > Dave I know peeps here will hate me for continuing on with this but > >this > >is > > > > a forum for issues like this and I must make a point. > > > > A Dual Xeon (which is a Pentium 3) does not have HT. That's a Pentium > >4 > > > > thingy. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > > > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:33 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > > I'd like to add that I have said that hlds is not multi-threaded, > >which > >is, > > > > in fact, false. It is not coded in a way to take advantage of > > > > hyperthreading, however. > > > > > > > > So, perhaps I should have said that hlds is not "hyperthreaded"? > > > > > > > > I haven't made any benchmarks, but run a fairly large gameserver > >hosting > > > > company. > > > > > > > > All of my systems are dual processor. I have noticed on dual-xeon > >systems > > > > that hyperthreading will impair the performance of large servers. > > > > > > > >>From the task manager, a dual proc system with HT will show 4 cpus. > > > > Watching the cpu usage of each process, a large server will "bottom > >out" > > > > at 50% of a cpu (25% at the task manager, during 32 player avalanche, > >for > > > > example). When this happens, the server lags out. > > > > > > > > The fix is to disable hyperthreading, which will allow hlds to use one > >full > > > > processor if needed. > > > > > > > > I can imagine that perhaps a smaller server would run better on a > >single > > > > proc system with hyperthreading enabled, but don't have the means or > >desire > > > > to test. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven > >Hartland > > > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:41 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > > You clearly dont understand how HT works. Here's a brief overview: > > > > HT makes a single CPU core look like two CPU's it does this so that > >the > >OS > > > > can schedule additional tasks on the second "virtual" CPU and hence > >make > >use > > > > of potentially idle execution units in the "physical" CPU. > > > > > > > > The problem comes from at least two potential issues. > > > > 1. The "physical" CPU may not have any idle execution units due to the > > > > design of the code being run and hence a conflict now exists. > > > > > > > > 2. The data and or code needed to satisfy the second "virtual" CPU's > >process > > > > requirements invalidates in some way the data / code for the primary > >CPU's > > > > process. This causes additional pipeline stalls reducing NOT > >increasing > >the > > > > efficiency of the CPU. > > > > > > > > So yes HT can help but it does not always help due to the potential > > > > conflicts for resources that exist which don't exist in a true SMP > >system. > > > > > > > > Tomshardware has some nice info on this: > > > > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040528/index.html > > > > > > > > Steve / K > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "K. Mike Bradley" > > > > > > > >> I am going to try this one more time. > > > >> > > > >> Again, the Operating system HAS THREADS TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > >> > > > >> I AM PRETTY SURE THE OS HAS AT LEAST ONE THREAD !!!!!!!! > > > >> Lets pick the csrss.exe (Client server run time sub system) process > > > > (which > > > >> btw services win32 calls ... Something HLDS.exe needs). > > > >> > > > >> HL one main thread > > > >> PLUS ++++++++ > > > >> OS at least one thread (but probably several dozen more) THAT ADDS UP > > > >> TO at the very least ... TWO. > > > >> > > > >> A MP (Multi processor) system would therefore have better > >performance. > > > >> > > > >> Because two threads run simultaneously. > > > >> This is the point I was making and I did say I don't know about HT > >but > > > > with > > > >> MP HLDS.exe is better. > > > >> > > > >> If you got bad results with your benchmark testing HLDS.exe on MP, I > > > > would > > > >> look at it again. > > > > > > > > ================================================ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
