The general consensus with Server 2008 is it's more... gobbled up than 2003. However if you find it works better for you on older hardware (I would be shocked if it did), please let us know!
Kyle. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ook <[email protected]> wrote: > Adding more ram isn't likely to help - it doesn't use what it has as-is. > > I tried Linux for a while, but hlds used 30% cpu sitting there empty - and > it went downhill from there. This old cpu isn't up to running the linux > hlds > binaries - the general consensus is that valve never bothered to optimize > them for linux hence they gobble excessive cpu. And yeah, I'm leaning > towards putting Win2k back on the box. I have a copy of server 2008 that I > think I'll install just so I can say I did, and to tell everyone how lousy > it is wiht this older box LOL. Or maybe it will surprise me and actually > work good? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kyle Sanderson" <[email protected]> > To: "Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:53 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds] Win2k versus 2003 versus 2008 on older hardware > > > > Why would adding more ram decrease the CPU usage on SRCDS? > > > > If I were you Ook I would go back to Win2000 as Microsoft only gets > > sloppier > > with their new releases of Windows. (Or try Linux, although from my > > experiences SRCDS tends to use more CPU and Ram on it.) > > Kyle. > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Mike O'Laughlen > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Add more RAM. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ook <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > I have an older box, AMD Sempron 2400+, 1GB ram, that I use for to run > >> > an > >> > OP4 server (hlds.exe) and a L4D server (srcds.exe). With Win2000 and > >> > both > >> > servers full, cpu is about 30%. > >> > > >> > I upgraded it from Win2000 to server 2003, and when I did I noticed a > >> > significant increase in cpu consumption. On the Winserver 2003 box, it > >> used > >> > 80-90% cpu. My first guess was that the cpu scheduler in server 2003 > >> > has > >> > more overhead and the context switches were using up all the extra > cpu. > >> My > >> > second guess was that I really didn't have a clue why. On both > >> > installations > >> > I stopped all services I didn't think needed to be running. > >> > > >> > I have a copy of Server 2008, but I'm thinking this box may be too old > >> > to > >> > run that. Also performance under 2003 wasn't that great, I'm not sure > >> > it > >> > would be any better under 2008. > >> > > >> > Anyone have experience running server 2003/2008 on older hardware re. > >> > performance? > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
