Please, I've had my inbox spammed for something like 3-4 days now to the point where I'm getting messages daily to the tune of a few hundred posts. Take the argument off list - this list is to assist with problems regarding HLDS on Linux, not to scream and shout at each other about who is right or wrong. Feel free to post results of testing these kernel changes but myself and I'm sure a lot of others don't need to watch a dog fight resulting in inbox spam.
Cheers, Scott ___________________ Scott Pettit [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Stroven Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 8:36 a.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Crazy Usage [OT] This is all I was trying to argue last night, but James and Daniel aren't even open to the possibility that the numbers are even remotely innacurate you mean james and brian. I was the first to dispute the numbers and mention security issues with going back to such an old kernel. I just disagree in an agreeable manner. With testing and my opinions. Im not trying to insult anyone or get into an argument. My boxes all normally run 2.6.0-test kernels at 1000hz. Cpu usage is high. I think this is valve issue mostly, but it can't hurt to test and share results between us to find something that works as good as possible with the current usage issues. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Bubrouski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Crazy Usage [OT] > David Sharpe wrote: > > > That's one of the best worded (albeit not grammatically) > > Replies to a flame I have ever seen, I applaud you ;) > > > > > > Explain to me why. First of all he compares HLDS 1.1.1.0 > performance to HLDS 1.1.1.1 which has nothing to do with > the argument. I've never once mentioned any version of > HLDS. > > I was argueing his false claims that Linux Kernels before > 2.4.10 perform better than later kernels. I even posted > a response from the former maintainer of the 2.4 kernel > Alan Cox to explain why the CPU stats on kernels previous > to 2.4.10 are highly innacurate. The damn thing has 100HZ > sampling which is tells nothing of CPU load as he claims > it does because it doesnt sample enough to give accurate > results. People have posted on here time and time again > that an HZ of 512-1024 is appropriate to achieve accurate > results. In the face of facts, he simply replied to > my older post a total of 6 times each time with different > flames and more misinformation. > > The fact remains that you cannot run 3 half-full or full > HLDS at only 30% total. And that a 10/15 player server > is only using 2% of CPU. This is what I was arguing > not whether or not he is kid. His constant denial and > flames of others who offered factual reasons why his results > are wrong only go to prove that calling him a kid is > appropriate because he is acting like one. I didn't > misquote Alan has he suggests either, I posed to Alan > a simple question last night: > > Why would the CPU usage reporting on a Linux kernel > prior to 2.4.10 show such wildly different results > on later subsequent kernels (I did mention the app > was hlds to him, not that it probably meant anything > more to him than it is a CPU bound process). > > His response was simple: > "It may even just be a timing effect. We sample at 100Hz which > means that bursty cpu reporting is wildly inaccurate. There are debug > tools that can give accurate answers (oprofile) but they hit overall > performance in doing so." > > Alan is referring to the fact that in 2.4 kernels > prior to 2.4.10 the default HZ was set to 100, it > currently resides at 1000HZ I believe. The problem > with the low HZ value is that it doesn't sample the > CPU enough to guarentee its not catching idle time > and thus seeing far too low or too high values. > > In later kernels, the developers decided higher > HZ values were fairer and represented a truer > representation of the CPU usage on all processes. > > The bottom line here is that if you set HZ to 100 > on later 2.4 kernels you get similar if not almost > identical numbers as you would on 2.4.9, but that > doesn't mean they are correct. This is all I was > trying to argue last night, but James and Daniel > aren't even open to the possibility that the numbers > are even remotely innacurate. Read the thread he > just shoots everyone down. BTW isn't it cute > how he flamed the same message from me multiple > times? I wonder how old he really is. > > -sb > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
