> ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> If your running 1 server, windows XP would be the way to go, if your >> running more than one, Windows 2003 would be the way to go because it's >> kernel is built for running multiple services with the threading, it can >> handle it much better than XP because the kernel is optimized for that >> kind of use where as XP Pro is more for Graphics and code compiling. > > Although its has been tweeked, they where both designed from the ground > up to deal with multiple services with threading. XP was not altered to > give > better GFX I'm afraid thats just rubbish. It has good driver support yes, > but as servers dont run GFX that doesnt even come into the equation. >
I didn't say XP was altered. XP is optmized that way via It's kernel, 2003 was optimized with a different set of parameters. >> Keep in mind, while they did start out from the windows 2000 codebase, >> they >> diverged when Windows XP was released in order to make the Windows 2003 >> platform more stable and Enterprise ready to compete against Unix which >> it >> is actually doing very well from the benchmarks posted around the net. > > Its more like 2k -> XP -> 2k3 not: > 2k -> XP > 2k -> 2k3 > No it's 2K->XP->XP 2K->XP->2003 >> Also, while the forground and background has been around, it's the >> Kernel >> that determines the Optimization, unfortunately, you can't rebuild your >> kernel in windows like you can for *bsd/linux which means, your limited >> to >> the features the kernel your running can support. > > Since when have you had to recompile a kernel to set process priority? > The option is even there in the gui just like in 2k3 ( although it has > finer > grained support ). The only reason for the setting in the first place was > to > prevent admins running applications / utilities on the glass from > degrading > service performance. For game server machine you dont run anything > else hence there is no contention hence there is no real need for the > setting. > I didn't say process priority although it does pertain to it. I stated Optimization, ergo memory support/threading support/network support. It is a know fact that you can recompile the *BSD/Linux Kernels to change the way the system prioritizes certain operations, ergo a customized Kernel. As far as no benefit to a game server machine, if your running multiple gameservers on one box, you do benefit from the differences if your running them as a system service and having the server optimized for running background services, and using the system cache. And by your stating you don't run anything else, your missing the fact that your running a lot more than a gameserver, such as the Disk I/O Subsystem/Network I/O Subsystem among other things. >> If you do a Diff of the kernel files, you will see that the 2003 >> Standard >> Versions are bigger than XP Pro versions. > > Yes 2k3 is newer it has more features but none that help it be a > significantly > better game server platform ( or none that anyones come up with yet ). > >> The reasons are fairly obvious. It comes down to preference, costs and >> how >> much robustness you want in your system. I know why I use windows 2003 >> instead of Windows XP for a MS SQL server, it's fairly obvious. YOu can >> use it or not, thats your perogative, but they are not the same by far. > > SQL server is not really the same; it needs huge memory support, more CPU > power read > 2 CPU's etc so will definitely benefit from Server. None of > these factors affect a simple game server. If you think they do your > kidding > yourself I'm afraid. SQL server does need huge memory support, and running multiple game servers you need it as well. > When it all boils down to it people, game servers as stated by a number > of folks now are simple. They primarily single threaded apps, they don't > use huge amounts of ram. They just require good network / disk IO and > a clean scheduler. XP has all of these! Granted so does 2k3 but your key > differences in UMA, advanced fibre's, optimised services, large memory > support, 2 > CPU support in 2k3 over XP you game server just doesn't > use. > > If it doesn't use them it cant benefit from them. I think we all > acknowledge > that 2k3 is newer and will have some optimisation under the hood which > MAY slightly benefit all processes but conversely it also has extra > security checks etc so of those benefits what your are likely to see is > next to nothing I would hypothesize. Actually, wether it uses the API's or not, Windows itself will use that model to optimize the processes it is running, including multiple gameservers. > Again if someone can come up with a real feature that 2k3 has which > will enable it to run GAME servers better, great but the question is > does that extra performance justify the extra cost? > > Steve / K > That is exactly my point, there is a benefit, but it is like comparing a good Nvidia card that costs 150 to the newest one that costs 400-500, what fits your need and how much will you benefit from it in the long run. Which is also why if your running 1 or 2 game servers, you really will not see a benefit, but if your running more, you will. > ===============================================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 > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
