Could everyone post their system specs, kernel version, and further measures you did to optimize your servers? Also, some charts of CPU usage and # of players would be helpful :).
I am running RH 9.0 on a 2.4 GHz Intel Pentium 4 ( Hyperthreading off ), and am not experiencing these bogus CPU usage? What was it 16/18 players and 90% usage? Input would be nice from you all :) Regards Quoting Marcos Dias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am having problem with de_inferno. > > When this maps run some server have 500ms. > > And before the update I didn't have this problem. > > Marcos Dias > www.netrangers.com.br > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:34 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] CS lag fix > > > > -- > > On some maps half a proc sounds perfectly normal to me. A number of CS and > > TFC maps run a steady half proc with spikes up to 80% with only 10-12 > > people connected... nothing new there. > > > > Crazy considering 10 people connected on a heavy map in 3.1.1.0.c > routinely > > ran under 10%... efficient maps ran at 2 to 5%. > > > > I see someone else here complaining about using a full proc with 18 > > players, that is perfectly normal for some time now too. If you run an 18 > > slot on a single proc machine it will play really well if you have the > > connection but it will tax the machine at times. If you put another server > > on it, no matter how small, both will suffer. Pings go to the dogs and lag > > spikes become commonplace. > > > > I am not saying you can't run more than one decent sized server on a > single > > proc, I know a lot of people do but those are *not* the servers you see a > > player screen full of low and mid 2 digit pings. > > > > That's what steam has given us, a five to tenfold increase in server load. > > What have we got out of that increase in the way of gameplay? Is it a > > radically different game than it was in 3.1.1.0.c? Are the graphics any > > better? Are the physics any better? No, no and no... it is the same damn > > game that we were playing years ago. If anything, the feel and physics > have > > deteriorated from the early and mid days of WON HL. > > > > WON HL is still better than steam is performance wise (nix) but not by a > > whole lot so there are our choices... A WON server with poor efficiency or > > a steam server with horrible efficiency. > > > > Rick > > > > > > At 03:20 PM 6/24/2004 -0700, you wrote: > > >Message: 3 > > >From: "Zak Haque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] CS lag fix > > >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:06:52 +0100 > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players > > >99.80 53.17 59.63 51 14 23.62 11 > > > > > >Not doen anything good for me, that's on a p4 2.4ghz, 1gb ddr, 80gb hd 12 > > >man server 10 players 1 hltv. > > > > > >Rh9.0 kernel 2.6.1 > > > > > >With pingboost 2 > > > > > >Without pingboost, it runs the server max 50% cpu used, still not > > >acceptable. > > -- > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 6/15/2004 > > -- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
