At 04:36 PM 7/18/2005 -0700, Vapor wrote:
>I agree your ideas have merit Dan and are well intentioned, if the ultimate
>scenario is everyone having "averaged" connection performance.
That's all I was after. Let's face it, you'd hate to have
Manchester United go up against the New York Yankees in a game of baseball
because they're two entirely different games and the playing field is
nowhere near level. Likewise, we'd hate to have you take on the
Boston Red Sox in a game of cricket. If we're playing a game of
chess, the rules are the same and the location shouldn't matter.
Under Source, delay is so critical it can give an advantage.
Thus it makes sense to open a discussion on keeping a public
server equal for the players.
>Servers I manage operate on 1 or 2 x 100mbit full duplex connections per box,
>which run from 3-6 clan ports or publics, say 30-120 slots. Based on this
>server side bandwidth is never an issue, bearing in mind the maxrates of these
>servers is 50000 kbits.
Keep in mind you can have gigabit connections on your LAN links
to the server, but upstream your ISP is probably the limiting factor.
Let's say your ISP has an OC12, at 622Mbps. An OC192 is probably the
largest most ISP's get and is is 10Gbps. An OC48 is about 2.5Gbps.
So if your server is at 100Mbps you're over-subscribed to all clients
until you get an OC12 or better. Your server isn't the limit, it's
your connection to all your clients. But that's only if you've a
data center type of connection. If you're running your server over
a T1 to your office or DSL to your home, all bets are off. Again,
the server isn't the limit, it's the upstream path. Likely only
Valve knows how many servers run off OC192's vs. DS1's.
>I suppose it's a matter of circumstance as to which camp people fall in. I'd
>always assumed the majority of CS and CSS servers were rented to clans as
>private or public servers, not given away as community resources, I could
>equally be wrong though :) The same goes for my assumptions of server and
>client connections/bandwidth.
I was thinking of other mods like DoD, DM Classic, and
whatever comes down from the mod community.
>All of the above not withstanding I feel there is a much bigger issue
>responsible for not using an auto-rate system, server side overheads.
As I indicated, I feel it's such a great idea that the
development team could have only settled on their obviously
inferior method because of other constraints. It wasn't that
long ago that a 2GHz server processor was the top of the line.
Perhaps it will take a 5GHz processor to make this idea usable,
and I suspect the dev team had these constraints in mind when
they designed the engine.
>Maybe an auto-rate option could be added to the
>current min/max system (say setting all netrate options to 0), allowing server
>admins to select auto or fixed min/max.
Maybe it could be incorporated into the engine, and the client
elects to use it via command-line flag? -autorate as a client option
where the server updates your rates based upon what it sees as your
latency and loss might be a suitable compromise.
Note to Alfred: I've not patented this idea, but if Valve likes
it I am prepared to recieve all patent royalties. Valve may also
twist my arm and force me to accept an undisclosed amount of cash
for me to sign away all rights to the idea. Valve may also send
me cash because I'm pretty and have remarkably few annoying
personal habits. No matter Valve's wishes, I'm ready to
accept cash. Please keep this in mind as you argue on my behalf.
- Dan
* Dan Sorenson DoD #1066 A.H.M.C. #35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
