Thank GOD!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Hartland
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [hlds] Odd lag problem
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> 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.
>> The source for this information? Or just speculation?
> Microsoft and device driver engineers as well.
And the link to white paper on this subject is?
> Right regular redhat vs enterprise. Windows XP vs 2003.
> If you tweek it, you can give more priority to userland or kernel mode
> as well as network or file.
You can tweak things to do a lot of things, what tweaks do you know
have been made that are relavent to running game servers? Again a nice
white paper would be good.
>> You still havent give a reason why a game server run as service
>> runs "better"?
>> Does it run under a different part of the OS?
>> Nar!
>
> True, if your generalizing it.
> Each OS has it's own version.
>
>> Does it have a different sheduler?
>> Nar!
>
> True, if your generalizing it.
> Each OS has it's own version.
I cant see what you are trying to say here; OS's have versions? I
think we are all aware of that :P
>> Does it run as a different priority?
>> Quite possibly but there's nothing to stop you doing this with
>> a foreground app.
>
> Yes it can. Why would you want it to use your Gui resources instead of
> running in the background not using any at all.
So you think running an app as a service automatically removes
any gui calls it makes hence uses less resources and CPU? Hmm
let me just go laugh in the corner for a while!
>> You cant magiclly make an application perform better simplely
>> by running it as a service. If this where true we would run
>> everything as services wouldnt we?
>
> No one said you could make it magically happen. Running something as a
> service depends many factors such as can it be ran without loading a gui
> and requiring no user interaction.
Actually there are few or no factors which influence an application
being able to run as a service, ever heard or svrany / instsrv?
You can even run an application that requires user interaction as a service,
"Allow interaction with desktop" anyone?
Even if this where a restriction ( which it isnt ) it leaves about 99.99% of
servers out there; BHD and JO are the only two that spring to mind which
required user interaction to start. But from what your saying all the others
can perform better simply by running as a service? I think NOT!
>>> SQL server does need huge memory support, and running multiple
>>> game servers you need it as well.
>> If your game servers need multi GB's of memory I suggest
>> there's something wrong somewhere.
> Thanks for the suggestion, but nothing is wrong when your running multiple
> processes that each require and avg of 100MB of memory.
I think we have a very different idea about huge amounts of memory
a dual CPU machine with 2GB ( small amount of ram ) will happily run
all the servers the CPU can handle and still have loads left for disk cache
etc. So large amounts of RAM such as that used on a good size DB
machine e.g. 4+GB is just not required on a game server.
>>> 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.
>> So an application can benifit from the existence of an API it
>> doesnt use directly or indirectly hmm perhaps not :P
> It can, if it doesn't use it directly and a parent process that
> prioritizes the child process does. It can if it does use it directly as
> well.
First I'll hilight a few things:
>> doesnt use DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY
> It can, if it doesn't use it directly and a parent process that
> prioritizes the child process does.
1. Go look up indirectly in the dictionary.
2. The sheduler ( I assume thats what your talking about even
though you dont seem to know the correct term for it ) is not a
parent process in the real sence of the term otherwise you
would see it in the process tree.
Now back to the real stuff. The question was if it does NOT use it?
Why that specific question? Because if it did use it you would need
either a seperate binary per OS or runtime checks to make use of it.
Since we are primarily talking about Fiber's here and given the fact
that game servers dont even use threads to any great extent chances
of them making use of and hence gaining benefit from them is so
small its untrue. Hence the answer your looking for was NO plain
and simple.
>>> 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.
>>
>> No its like running a vi or a command prompt on your new
>> $500 GFX card thats got loads of bells and whistles for
>> doing 3D work but your text editor could well run better
>> on your old $150 card
>>e.g. compare a Matrox Millenium with a Geforce 6800
>> you may well find the old "simple" millenium runs it quicker
>> or as near as dam it the same speed as none of your fancy
>> 3D features are ever used.
>>
> Does VI use 100+ mb of memory per instance and are you running 3 or 4
> Vi's. at the same time that are reading and writing to the disk and over
> the network while doing geometrical 3D calculations and supporting
> multiple network connectios. If so, thats one hell of a VI version, I want
> that one.
Your clearly not very good an analagies! Let me try an explain it to you:
You compared an expensive new OS to an expensive new GFX card
along with an older cheaper OS to an older cheaper GFX card.
Clearly the newer GFX card will run all the sofware which was designed
to take its features into account, as would an application that was designed
to take advantage of the new OS's features. But as we have said before
game servers are simple, "old" if u like, applications and hence have
no need or use for the new features.
Since they have no need or use for them they gain little or no benefit,
just like buying a 6800 to put in a machine that was only going to run vi
would be a waiste of money.
N.B. if u want an editor that uses 100+ MB of memory running 3 or 4
instances while reading an wring to the disk and over network while doing
geometrical 3D calculations and supporting multiple network connections
I think your after EMACS :P
In conclusion if you have any references to any real concrete information
on why running a game server on Windows 2003 would produce
noticeably ( that previous word is a important on in this sentence )
better performance that one run on XP please continue this discussion.
If however you don't then I'm afraid I think its time to call an end to this
thread.
Steve / K
================================================
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
