> >>> 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? Sorry, none that I know of. I was under the understanding that it is basic knowledge. As for the engineers, I can't show you a link for obvious reasons, I apologize for bringing them into the discussion since I can't produce qoutes from them.
> > 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. A white paper would be a good idea, Also a nice white paper on why XP is better than 2003 for running game servers would be good as well. > >> 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 Versions would be the version of the programs and libraries you mentioned above. > >> 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! I mistated this, I was thinking one thing and saying another. If it's running as a service, then it's not using the Graphics hardware and PCI bus for any of the graphics, IE the HAL is not used as well, leaving the resources free for running processes. > >> 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? Being more precise I was referring to applications that require user interaction to run, using srvany/instsrv will not solve that problem without adding additional overhead. Some Applications run well sith srvany/instsrv and some do not. Fortunately most games work well with it enough for us to use them to a point. However using either of those is not a very good way to do so as it doesn't close the application properly and can leave system memory allocation fragments/unclosed filehandles and such. There are other methods to get game servers running as a service. > 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! I think so, and the reason is because it's assigned to the Service Control Manager as the parent process that controls them. > >>> 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. I am thinking in the realm of 2-4GB, so we are close there. > >>> 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. I am quite aware of what indirectly means. As far as being literal, I was not. I was breaking it down to simpler terms. As far as the Scheduler, SCM is what I am referring to. > 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. The answer is that even if they do not use it, they benefit from the OS using it to prioritize the processes it runs which in turn is game servers in this topic, if it's handed over to SCM in windows or the appropriate process, or processes in Unix. > >>> 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. They don't use it directly, but indirectly, gaining indirect benefits. Also as was said before, the benefit is not there unless your running more than a few(2-3 roughly) instances, Also, saying that an application can't benefit from new features that it doesn't use, but the OS uses on the application, is not a very sane statement, as the OS controls the application in the instances we are talking about. As far as my ability to use analagies, I don't think there is a problem with it at all. Also, not all game servers are single threaded, some use between 2-6 threads. > 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 Everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it and your welcome to think what you like as I am. As far as continuing the discussion please do so if you have any references to any real concrete information on why running a game server on Windows XP would achieve better performance than one run on Windows 2003, otherwise I think we can both agree to disagree on this topic. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
