P.s even if it was only on one "low cpu map" (and again thanks for mentioning for information, I don't want to shoot the messenger so to speak) surely that again is totally against the point in general, but good for reference. As people need to cater for every map, not just the least cpu intensive, we should be looking at the total opposite, ie several full servers running the most cpu intensive maps when full as every so often given the law of averages its going to happen.
I still think maps are one of the most underestimated resources when quoting cpu figures etc (hence why I felt I was a bit unfair given the information). I.e I've seen people say "game x takes y% cpu" which is fine on certain maps, but try for example running several games running the same high cpu map on a league night or something, then some will scratch their chins at why suddenly it feels bad, and it can be good to "stagger" maps etc). Ian On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:06:04 +0000, Ian mu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hehe ta Steve, I do apologise to others I can get a bit tetchy at > times as I have done to you in the past :) (I certainly appreciate > 100% any information provided even if seems misleading as helps build > a clearer picture), but 0% full 24 slot servers gets a bit silly under > anyones comprehension as far as I'm concerned (apart from > starting/idle games/maps with people on). > > Btw I just want to confirm I don't necessarily disagree with what > people "see" in terms of graphs etc (i.e I'm not calling anyone a lier > from their info..I've seen it on different Linux kernels etc to know > how things can "appear" different), just in terms of what seems > "reasonable". 24 slot action (sounds like a porn movie) at 0% just > doesn't make any logical sense or you would be running hundreds of > them, even though I've seen similar myself. Run a certain amount and > you will get complaints. You "know" its not right in what its > representing, so "why" do people believe it, yet "don't" run that > many? > > Simply put, comes a point of what something says, and what you get > play wise doesn't add up. It's up to you what it is. > > Btw I'm not having a go at Team Pfeffer, its actually at least good to > see someone comment on their fps values etc which I think is good > information and more than many (I run some at 50, some at 500 for what > its worth, and have said get more complaints on 500 than 50 so I agree > on the stability side...just I don't think thats "all" by any means, > but if I was an expert I would offer more advice). More information is > good, and sorry if it felt like I was having a go or anything, just I > don't believe the report as opposed to you if that makes sense? > > Ian > > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:34:36 -0000, Steven Hartland > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > lol well said Ian I couldn't be arsed to say anything myself seen it too > > many times before and its getting tiresome. > > > > Steve / K > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ian mu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Tbh if you use 0% cpu on a 24 slot full single cpu server, my first > > > instinct as someone I consider relative sane (I may be wrong, > > > naturally first sign of madness!) would be to check the reporting. If > > > anyone thinks they use 0% cpu for a FULL 24 slot server on a single > > > cpu server (or even duals) (not talking about empty ones, they are > > > irrelevant, some people don't really seem to get this), they are > > > simply an idiot pure and simple. Do you confess to not knowing wtf you > > > are talking about? > > > > > > If you use 0% cpu with a full 24 slot server, why not load it with 100 > > > 24 slot servers on it? Simply put because its complete rubbish :). So > > > either you believe it or not. People don't because they don't load > > > them like that, even with that reporting. > > > > > > If you get 0% cpu on a full 24 slot server full, in action (not on a > > > restart), either fix your machine, or fix your braincells. Either will > > > do. I couldn't care less, but people stop talking like complete idiots > > > as server hosters. Be aware as said previously of misreporting as the > > > idiots seem to ignore, which we are starting to see who are the > > > clueless people hosting servers and those who aren't.. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:21:35 -0800, Team Pfeffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > >> That is correct. That screen shot was during dust2, so that was a easy > > >> map for the server. The tiny spikes of 3% showed the start of a round > > >> during the buy time. We dont run any booster so the server fps stays > > >> at 64fps, with a few drops during the round start. A map change will > > >> use anywhere from 10% to 50% of the cpu for a instant. > > >> > > >> I can open the task manager and the performance tool in windows, but > > >> the result will be the same, one game without a ping booster will > > >> hardly load a amd64 system under windows beta server (RC2). It runs > > >> smoothly, so we don't try to tweak it. > > > > ================================================ > > 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
