Some Final words from me as well. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Steven Hartland > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 7:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Odd lag problem > > Some final words as this is obviously leading no where: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chance Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 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. > > No one is saying XP is better it is so a mute point. > > >> 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. > > Thats perfectly obvious, if they where the same they wouldnt > be different :P > > > 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. > > So why not just minimise them this would produce the same > effect according to your logic. It would not because doing it that way, your still using the GDI and User resources where as if your running it as a service and not using the Interact With Desktop option your not using them.
> >> 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. > > As far as "using either of those" goes you clearly don't know > what they are as instsrv is used to create service's and > srvany to run any application as a service ( created by > instsvr ) so you could never use instsrv to run a game server > as a service as you state. Actually you can use instsrv to run a game server. I have done so myself. > > Using svrany will never leave memory allocated or unclosed > filehandles, dont know where u got this impression. That is incorrect as your not taking into consideration applications that don't respond well to the Logon/Logoff events when being ran 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. > > I think you are under the total missunderstanding that the > SCM does anything other than monitor the processes it > started, to ensure they are running. It has now effect on > sheduling and hence performance what so ever. > > > > I am thinking in the realm of 2-4GB, so we are close there. > > So you put 4Gb of ram in your game server machines, nice but > waistful :P 2GB usually, sometimes 3 or 4 depends on the system setup and cpu's. Might be waistful to you, but If you a person that wants a memory buffer of about 256 to 500mb to account for spikes in usage, sometimes more than 2GB is needed. > >> 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. > > They would only benifit if they OS ( kernel ) was using > significantly less machine resources to do they job it did > previously without them. I'd put it to you thats not the case > as otherwise MS would be shouting from the houses that 2k3 > 10% or more quicker at running all your apps. If your talking about applications that are basicly single/multi-threaded daemons that require little user interaction and running multipe instances of those daemons, then it's a different story. Regular Gui/Interactive Applications won't see a big difference between the 2. > > 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. > > Again so why isn't MS shouting about this nice performance increase? MS seems to be saying that we should all upgrade to windows XP for workstations and 2003 for servers, seems like what one would do with a product that's better than and older version. > > Also, not all game servers are single threaded, some use > between 2-6 > > threads. > > They do? Which? ( I'm talking real work threads here not > basically idle threads )? UT for example uses a > seperatethread to do DNS lookups but since they are so > infrequent event doubling the performance ( which your not > doing to see ) would have no persevable effect on the servers > performance. Doom3 for one. > > > Everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it and your > welcome to > > think what you like as I am. > > Yes you are, no one's saying your not but when you take those > opinions and give others advice based on them; when they are > unsubstansicated its like chinese whispers. People start to > believe its true just because it was said, even though its > not actually so. I give you the same advice. > > 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. > > I dont need to as I've never claimed XP is better. My entire > argument its they are so similar in performance that there is > no justification in spending the additional money on 2003 > Server when XP Pro will do just as good a job, just like > buying that 6800 to run vi is pointless. > > Steve / K I have agreed with your opinion as long as your not running more than 2-3 game servers, when it gets between 4-16 is where you see the benefits. So if you're a GSP(they usually run more than 6 servers per box) or just want every bit of performance you can get(Kid with the best stuff on the block) server 2003 will give you what you want, otherwise XP pro will do fine. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
