What does routing or network traffic has to do with what the first guy said??? The only thing he wanted to point out is that the beta uses way to much CPU, and I must say that I agree. Yes it's a beta version and things might not run as smooth as it should. But, it's good to point this out to valve before the stable version is released. That way they know that this really is an issue for lots of people and might think twice about that new '�ber cool feature'.
We've run CS servers in more than 3years now and the hardware seems to last in about 1.5year before they no longer can be used as a public server. Our server does not exist because we make a great deal of money on it, no, in fact it only cost alot. And must of the HL servers exist because people and not companies spend there money on computers. So if valve still want to have lots and lots of servers out on the net then people must afford to buy them :P I know it's boring and really not fun at all for the programmers, but I would rather have bugfixes instead of new features... /Oscar, www.bhood.nu On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:36:06 -0500 "Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > get a grip. I'm more than sure the programmers do care. Be glad its free > and ligthen up a little - alright? > Use 3.1.1.0c until you hear the release is stable. We're running more than > one '32' player server and pushing close to 30 gig at any given instance of > valves ever popular TFC/CS/DOD UPD traffic. You can only do so much with > what you're given bro - unless windows changes and the UDP protocol and > other internet routing facilities change their ways of routing to a more > up-2-date means - then its gonna just linger... Until that time -we have no > choice but to deal with what we're dealing with now. Slap over $100 > million to valve and I promise they'll give you a 'low ping' server and > network! Then you tell Microsoft to modify the way UDP packets are handled > and other major ISPs to change to the latest in routing technology. > > We can load a 2 processes of hlds on an Intel P4 2gzh 1 gig ddram - 32 > players each - and it runs just fine. If you're on an old school ISP with > lame routing - it'll probably suck - other than that - Valve is doing 110% - > I'm no programmer but we have indy programmers here in this company that do > gaming dev - and its 1000 times more complex than you could ever > imagine!!!!!!! So chill on the CPU BS - that makes me sick. Sorry man. > Just frustrates me seeing someone flame a development company thats doing > this for free (lifetime) and people bitch and moan - while we profit off > their development by providing server space and bandwidth... consider us > lucky. > > Have a nice day. Beer is on the ice! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:32 PM > Subject: Re: RE: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > > > I CAN'T understand how they can add some useless features like the > > "stats" system in console, which use more and more CPU, when the cpu > > usage is already so high ! > > > > I use a AMD 1900 XP to run a 32 people servers, it run quite good with > > the 1.1.1.0c (dont dream, i cant run big maps like torn, storm, piranesi, > > survivor or even vertigo, or the ping go up to 200 for every one). > > I tried the 1.1.1.1 , without any plugin, with the optimised binaries, and > it was > > totally unplayable. If i wanted to have the same ping than before, i > should > > set the maxplayer to 24 !! > > > > Sorry i'm a bit nervous, but this is too crazy. > > Valve programmer dont care about CPU usage. > > I would prefer a new beta only based on CPU usage improvement, than a new > > beta in which we cant find real good new things but which still use more > and > > more CPU. > > I'm sure it would be really more appreciated by a lot of people. > > And I wonder why the servers renting company dont speak about that. > > That's probably a big problem for them. > > > > DjoDjo > > > > >I'm comparing the recent 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.0c, and observe approx 40 > > >increase in cpu load under idential maps and playercounts running CS. > > >Now my setups use -pingboost 3 and +sys_ticrate 10000 so I know I'm > > >going to be working the cpu, but even with the advent of optimized > > >binaries, it made zero difference. One of my servers has a 2.8 Xeon, > > >and if a binary compiled with optimizations for x686 really did anything > > >I would have noticed a difference between the 4 binaries that were > > >provided. I was not able to disinguish any difference in performance > > >or load for any of them. All of them worked, even the amd-optmized > > >one, and no one showed any better performance than any other. > > > > > >With my setup, I can still support 2 20-player servers with that config > > >and the new binaries, but that's really pushing it and there's no margin > > >left. I hope Valve considers this issue because such a dramatic > > >increase in resources is bound to have an effect on the entire HL > > >community. Just think, how many people's server hardware can no longer > > >support what they were running, all because of an upgrade? My guess is > > >quite a few. I can understand some gradual needs for resource > > >increases over time, but what caused such a substantial increase? Has > > >Valve even acknowleged it yet? Have they said anything about > > >correcting it? I haven't heard anything, so my assumption is that > > >they are considering this not to be a code problem, but an inherent need > > >of the game engine. > > > > > >I rolled my servers back to 3.1.1.0c last night, and they are running > > >beautifully again. Loads are down, pings are down, players are happy, > > >and I have left over CPU resources again. > > > > > >Back to your statement about a 1gig cpu doing just fine, yes I agree. > > >We were running a 20-player CS server with HLG on a 700mhz P3 back in > > >February. Yes it did get a bit overworked when full, but it wasn't > > >bad. Now, I'd wonder if it could even handle 14 players. > > > > > >So at this time I can see no advantage to moving to 3.1.1.1 (or 4.1.1.1 > > >for win32) until such time that a benefit is revealed. > > > > > >Michael Ressen, > > >Michigan Burbs Network Administrator > > > > > >www.michiganburbs.com > > > > > > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:56:41 EDT > > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Subject: [hlds_linux] HLDS 3111c > > >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> -- > > >> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > > >> I would be happy to see the CRAZY cpu usage of > > >> this 3.1.1.1x beta FIXED... > > >> > > >> Think about people who host servers !!!!! > > >> 20 more cpu usage than 3.1.1.0 ! > > >> > > >> Bah! > > >> > > >> DjoDjo > > >> > > >> > > >> Do you know compare to 3.1.1.1(or 4.1.1.1 for win32) to the > > >> old version like 3.0.0.8 the CPU usage jumped like 200 to 300 > > >> Percent ? > > >> > > >> 2-3 years ago, a 1GHz can handle HLDS + CS like nothing, now? > > >> a 3GHz computer can barely handle a busy HLDS, I'm not sure > > >> what kind of code they're using, but this kind of insane CPU > > >> really getting out of hand, compare to other game engines > > >> that got far more features than HL does but they're using far > > >> less resources.....sigh > > >> > > >> Chickon > > >> > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ > > >To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > >http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
