TAKE THIS SHIT OFFLIST FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! This is why I didn't respond to this guy's bait. If you want to share dick sizes do it privately and maybe someone here will be interested in the outcome. Talk about HLDS or GTFO!
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Hartland Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [hlds] Odd lag problem Sorry to continue but there are two many issues left unanswered: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chance Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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. Thats just a pile of rubbish. Start your server under a service and query its resource handles with a debugger there is no difference from using that run method to starting it from the desktop you just cant see the output. If the server was specificly written to run as a service yes this would be the case but simple running it as one does not change is resource requirements on single bit. >> 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. Wrong! If a app doesnt ignore the WM_ENDSESSION message ( which is what prompts them to close on logoff ) your app will just close. This won't leave any memory / filehandles lying around. Even if an app crashes windows reclaims those. >> 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. Hmm 100Mb average per you said, 8 servers thats 800Mb you still got 1.2Gb free on a 2Gb machine. Didn't u say u ran Web Server edition, as that only supports 2Gb where XP supports 4Gb, or was that someone else? >> 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. Why? >> 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. Of course they are they want u to spend money but there's no big advertising campain touting huge performance increases that I've seen. >> 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. Looks like only one of the 3 threads does any work from the trace I just did ( like in the case of UT ) could be wrong though. >> 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. So what wisper did I start? I thought all my conclusions where backed up by quantifiable sources. Correct me if I'm wong. > 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. 16 game servers on one machine either thats pong or I'd hate to have a server on a machine with that many talk about lag city. Yes we are a GSP one of the biggest in the UK along with running by far the largest LAN's in the country. We have tested and continue to test servers across many different platforms ( one of the very few who have conducted controlled tests on game server performance across multiple OS's ). I've seen 0 evidence so far that leads to the conclusion that 2k3 server is significantly better ( as originally claimed ) than XP. There is no doubting that there a large amount of improvements in 2003 over 2000 and also a number of improvements of XP but I've yet to see or experience anything that justifies spending �500 on an OS compared with �90. I'd much rather spend the same money buying another machine which would have very real performance benefits. 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
