Can you clue me in on what's so funny? On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Admin <[email protected]>wrote:
> lol > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John Gibson > *Sent:* Wednesday, 31 August 2011 2:38 AM > *To:* TWI Server Admins; Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list > *Subject:* [hlds] 64 Player RO2 Servers > > > > Everyone, > > > > I just wanted to drop you all a message about 64 player RO2 servers. I've > noticed this morning there are a LOT of 64 player RO2 servers showing up in > the server browser in anticipation of the launch of the RO2 pre-purchase > beta. This is really great, and we appreciate the support. > > > > With that said, if I had to guess I would say that it is very likely a lot > of these machines don't have the horsepower to run 64 players. I would ask > everyone hosting 64 player servers that please if you do not have a machine > powerful enough for 64 players, do not try and run your server that high. > All you are going to do is give the players on your server a poor > experience, and give a lot of players their first impression of RO2 as being > a lagfest. If you do not have a machine that at LEAST matches our > recommended 64 player machine, then I implore you to bump your player slot > limit down to 32. It takes quite a high end machine to handle 64 players. > Here is what I posted on the Tripwire forums regarding the server specs: > > > > > > 64 Players: CPU usage - 1 Core of a Intel Xeon E3-1270 3.4 GHZ (3.8 GHZ > actually with Turbo enabled) or equivalent (i.e. the server process will > take most of 1 core, with a few smaller threads on other cores). > > > > A note on performance: > > 64 players was pushing the test machine (Intel Xeon E3-1270 3.4 GHZ (3.8 > GHZ actually with Turbo enabled) pretty hard on certain maps, but did handle > 64 players. Likewise 32 players pushed the Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz > pretty hard at 32 players, but did handle it. We're working on some final > optimizations that might get the performance a little better, but there > won't be any drastic changes from these specs. > > > > Likewise the number of players the server can handle (i.e. how much > performance is needed) varies from map to map, and gametype to game type. > Smaller maps and countdown tend to perform better than larger maps in > territory or firefight. So if you run smaller maps only on your server, you > might be able to push the slots higher. Just watch your CPU usage, and more > importantly the ping of players connected. Ping will climb a bit as the > server gets under load and as CPU usage goes up, this is to be expected. But > watch the ping, if it is a server near you and the ping starts to go above > 100ms consistently, then you are likely pushing your server too hard and > need to reduce the number of slots. > > > > What I have found is that it looks like an Intel Xeon E3-1270 @ 3.4 GHZ > (3.8 GHZ actually with Turbo enabled) can just handle 64 players now, and is > being pushed pretty hard. We've got a last batch of optimizations that we're > going to try over the weekend that might bet it down a bit lower so the CPU > isn't pushed quite as hard (possibly getting things down by about 5%). We > tested on an Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz and that could handle 32 > players but I wouldn't try and do 32 players with a machine much slower than > that. As mentioned before, the final optimizations might push this down a > little, but nothing drastic. > > > > Regards, > > > > John Gibson > > President > > Tripwire Interactive > > _______________________________________________ > 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
