-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] >>So, ultimately he's running the game engine, at best, on a single Xeon 2.8, 2GB RAM in the data center of his choice only by disabling Intel's HT and insuring that no other thread needs resources of the cpu used to run the actual game engine. Disabling the HT ability in BIOS will increase the hardware's ability to utilize the resources of a full sized Xeon 2.8 and not be limited by resources wanting to use the other virtual half of a cpu. >> Yes, it can use at most one single 2.8, not a 1.4 (which is totally irrelevant), and at the same time as using that 2.8, another process could use a small amount of spare ht related spare cpu and not take it away. On a none ht system you can use less than 2.8 only with those same other process fighting for the same cpu. Its not 1.4 or anything like it. Read up on none multithreaded processes and why they "mostly" outperform on ht systems compared to none ht. Loads of benchmarks out there. Thats all I ask, people do some reading and figure out why single threaded apps outperform still (mostly, not always) on ht systems. On 9/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's to mostly state that he's not using dual 2.8 Xeons to host with. At > most he's using ONE virtual cpu to run a single-threaded process. The OS > sees each cpu as individuals based on the architecture of the processessor > itself. So the OS, most anyway, are only able to utilize 25% of a dual > Xeon > system in a single thread. Therefore, if this single-threaded > application/process is truly single-threaded, as HLDS/SCRDS is, then > that's > a "virtual" limit of HT itself. Now, with that said there are exceptions > to > that rule. Mainly with Opterons but in small portions found in a few > distros > of OSs. Some OSs can better balance a load to a cpu, virtual or real. When > one is being used it can move the thread to another cpu (virtual or real) > that is free to continue the data stream of said thread. This still is > that > same one thread of the actual application. Now, in those various OSs you > mention, there are balances that will allow a "virtual" cpu to expand it's > actual resources into the allotment of it's other half of that same core. > Keeping in mind that an HT Intel is still one core. Opteron's > Hyper-Transport can balance a thread's load back and forth between real > cpus > and is the clear advantage over the Intel hardware. So, at most, with the > special setup of an OS that you mention it is possible, however unlikely > and > rare, that he could run that single-threaded application up to the 2.8GHzof > one real cpu as long as no other thread needs resources of the other half > of > that virtual cpu which would take priortity. End result, people think that > they can run 64 slot servers of any game that supports it cuz they have > dual > Xeons forgetting that the actual game engine is single-threaded and cannot > be split into two threads to utilize the full resources of a dual cpu > system/server (virtual or real). So, ultimately he's running the game > engine, at best, on a single Xeon 2.8, 2GB RAM in the data center of his > choice only by disabling Intel's HT and insuring that no other thread > needs > resources of the cpu used to run the actual game engine. Disabling the HT > ability in BIOS will increase the hardware's ability to utilize the > resources of a full sized Xeon 2.8 and not be limited by resources wanting > to use the other virtual half of a cpu. Now, if he overloads the system > with > 3+ processes that need resources the hardware can't handle then he's > reached > the limit of his hardware. My comment was mostly to be quick and painless > but yet not definitive in its description but a generalized statement to > give him a rough idea of what he was actually hosting that single-threaded > application on. > > Hope that clears things up a bit for the more technically savvy in the > list > and maybe schools a few intermediate users as well. > > </end clarification> > > Ray S. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian mu > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Settings suggestions for 32 player DOD:S > > -- > [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > If he means what I think he does by 1.4, he's incorrect (unless set > specifically in kernel, or a certain few dists which you don't have), so > thats irrelevant (again unless I misunderstand what is being implied). HT > is > something people need to get their heads around better and cpu reporting > etc. > > On 9/29/05, Andrew Forsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 18:16 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Umm...comment. > > > > > > [...]End result, you > > > can't run big servers with the HL2 engine no matter your hardware or > > network > > > settings as it's the core of the engine itself that can't handle it's > > > workload in a single-threaded process.[...] > > > > That sounds quite likely. Seeing as the hl1 engine now has threads for > > vac and steam as well as the game proper, I guess we can expect > > something similar in the near future for the hl2 engine. > > > > Cheers > > Andrew > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
