That's just how Source2 works. It uses a lot more bandwidth per tick than Source1 if you want optimal settings.
Unfortunate as it is... Kinda sad that I max out my bandwidth on my hardware before I'd ever max out the hardware. On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Saint K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That doesn't make sense. If I check my netgraph on 15000, I see it use > 10K/sec, at 30000 it uses around 15K/sec, and at 50000 were the problem > clears, it tops 20K/sec. > > What I just wonder, is why there is so much bandwidth usage in TF2 that I > need to go as high at 50000 to fix the choke... I didn't use to have a > problem with the lower rates in the past. > > The problem is solved now, although I don't really like the solution of the > mass bandwidth consumption atm. > > Cheers anyhow! > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cc2iscooL > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:40 PM > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Choke Problem > > The bandwidth skyrockets because you're forcing clients to use bandwidth > that the source client normally wouldn't use (I think the source > defaults are something like 10 update/10 cmd/10000 rate, but I think > they might just default to whatever the minimums of the server are > unless client set, afaik.) Choke will always be there unless you've set > the proper rates. The rates you're getting in is based on the amount of > data the server is giving to you, for instance, if you're in the middle > of a 8v8 player firefight, you're going to hit that 15000 maxrate in no > time, causing you to get choke, while if you're by yourself in a corner > you likely won't hit that limitation and thus won't get choke. > > Basically choke is caused by the client not being able to receive the > amount of updates that are required for your tickrate. If maxrate is set > too low, clients will get choke, because they aren't getting the full > amount of packets possible to ensure they're getting all player data at > a reasonable rate. > > Bandwidth is going to skyrocket a bit... > > Remember, 10000 rate is ~10KB/s for each player at maximum (up/down.) > > Saint K. wrote: > > HI, > > > > 1.) I adjust the client to the servers max limits to ensure proper > testing > > 2.) Servers available bandwidth is sufficient (100Mbps) > > 3.) servers FPS seems in order to me (around 500fps, but fluctuating as > > net_graph 5 shows) > > 4.) Clients available bandwidth is good aswell (24Mbit/1.5Mbit) > > 5.) A raw ping to the server returns under 8ms > > > > I have set your recommendations now, and indeed, with 50000 rate is seems > to > > be more or less good. One question tops my mind thought, why has the > > bandwidth useage skyrocketed that much? > > > > And the other question which tops my mind is why the USA server seems to > > have no choke issue's with just 2 players less as max, and a max rate > > setting of 15000. Would the higher latency play a part in this? > > > > Cheers, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Cc2iscooL > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:11 PM > > To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list > > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Choke Problem > > > > Use net_graph 5 next time. This shows the server's current FPS as sv: > > xxx in the lower left of the graph. > > > > Choke depends on a lot of things. > > 1.) Client's rate settings. > > 2.) Server's available bandwidth. > > 3.) Server's FPS > > 4.) Client's available bandwidth. > > 5.) Quality of network/latency in-between client/server. > > > > My recommendations: > > > > I have 24 slot servers and have used these rates for a while, they work > > great for most players and if the client sets their rates properly they > > get no choke. > > > > //Server Side Rates > > sv_maxrate 50000 //Yes, 50000. > > sv_minrate 15000 //15000 is pretty modest for slower connections but > > fast enough for no noticable lag. > > sv_mincmdrate 20 //20 out of 66 (tickrate) should be enough for minimum. > > sv_maxcmdrate 67 // Doesn't need to be more than 1+ tickrate. > > sv_minupdaterate 20 //See mincmdrate > > sv_maxupdaterate 67 //See maxcmdrate > > > > //Client Side Rates (Yes, you will have to set these.) > > rate 50000 > > cl_cmdrate 67 > > cl_updaterate 67 > > > > I've found that I get choke with anything below 50,000 setting when > > there are a lot of players on screen. With this setup I've yet to have > > more than 1-2 choke in even the heaviest of firefights on my 24 slot > > servers. > > > > There's another problem involved in this. If your server isn't holding > > at least the tickrate in FPS (if your tickrate is 66 and your FPS > > constantly dips to 20 on the server, it's not holding tickrate) then > > you'll also get choke. Easy way to check this is while your server is > > full (and players are active) type "stats" a few times into your console > > (HLSW works great for this) and look at the FPS column. If your FPS > > isn't holding 66 or better, you're going to get choke whether your rates > > are set correctly or not. If this is the case, it's likely your CPU is > > underpowered or the configured OS isn't configured properly for what > > you're doing. > > > > Hope this helps, > > Cc2iscooL > > > > Saint K. wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> We're currently experiencing a massive choke problem, and I can't seem > to > >> find the issue. > >> > >> Here is a screenshot of the net_grap 3 running; > >> http://www.specialattack.net/downloads/choke.jpg > >> > >> All clients are experiencing these issues. > >> > >> We're having the choke issue's on both machines. One machine runs Debian > >> Etch with a tickles kernel(2.2.23), and the other machine runs also > Debian > >> Etch, but with a 1000Hz/preemt kernel (2.2.26). > >> > >> Both the TF2 servers run around 500FPS. The CPU load on the core is > around > >> 60-70% tops. > >> > >> I've tried various rate settings, but the choke seems to be a near > >> > > constant, > > > >> even with a low amount of players. > >> > >> The server is connected on a 100Mbit uplink, which is without problems > as > >> far as we can see on the monitoring and other testing we performed. No > >> latency spikes, packet loss etc etc. > >> > >> Does anyone have any tips were I should be looking to solve this choke > >> problem? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.11/1553 - Release Date: > 7/15/2008 > > 5:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.11/1553 - Release Date: 7/15/2008 > 5:48 AM > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
