Pawel wrote: > Hmm that something with game sourcecode :) > I have the same configuration, but with only 1 CPU. > I can hold about 180 players with 6 public CS 1.6 servers and 5 CS:S server > (4 with TICK 100) > Everything takes about 80% CPU but we don't feel any lagging on it. > > And tickrate in CS:S is stable and FPS in CS 1.6, crazy? > But i tested it a month ago with 2 processors on the motherboard. > We had about 30-40% CPU usage, we felt lags, tickrate (CS:S) wasn't stable > and FPS (CS 1.6) > So we remove one and problem disappeared (Of course i tested other models, > because this one might be bad but problem was also on other processors) > > It is stupid but game quality is better on ONE full loaded CPU (~80%) than > on two with smaller load (30%-40%). > Crazy! :D > > So the second processor is lost of money. > > Maybe somebody find any solution? > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Midnight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> My thought on this, if you are running 10+ servers with 500fps 100 tick >> then ya you are probably hitting the limits of the hardware in terms of >> context switching. I run a similar box and can't go more than about 30% >> cpu usage on it without problems with lag. >> >> >> John Morgan wrote: >> >>> Hello ppl, >>> >>> I've a huge problem with performance of my servers. I'm hosting arround >>> >> 30 >> >>> gameservers per 1 server, mostly CS 1.6, few CS:S and CS:CZ. Allways when >>> ~160-200 players play CPUs load jump from 30% to ~70-80% (suddenly all >>> processes are using more power of CPU) and players get lags. No matter >>> >> what >> >>> kind of gameservers are working. On 1 server I'm put only CS 1.6, on >>> >> another >> >>> I mixed CS 1.6 with CS:S. Both has these same problem. >>> >>> I tried in 2 different Data Centers so it's not a network problem. Maybe >>> >> my >> >>> system was improperly setup. >>> >>> Configuration of servers: 2x Quad E5420, motherboard S5000PAL, 6x2GB >>> >> FB-DIMM >> >>> 667, 2x SAS with RAID 1 (i tried with 1 disk, no positive result). >>> >>> System: Slackware 12.1 and Centos 5.2 >>> Kernel: 2.6.24.3, 2.6.25.4, 2.6.26.2 for Slack and 2.6.18-92.el5PAE for >>> Centos (default) >>> Kernel's Processor Settings which I tested: BIG SMP/PC Compatible, >>> 300/1000Hz, low-latency/server, preempt big kernel on/off, Core 2/newer >>> Xeon >>> >>> How it looks: >>> >>> Players: http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=playersrt1.jpg >>> CPU Load: http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cpucr5.jpg >>> >>> I don't know what can I do. Old Dual Xeons 3.0Ghz with HT works fine with >>> ~100. I think that 2x Quad-Core Xeon should works fine with 300 playing >>> players. Don't You think so? >>> >>> P.S. Sorry for my english ;-) >>> >>> Regards, >>> J.Morgan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > not it's not crazy. Running more than one cpu means the OS and programs have to keep track of which core they are on, maintain cache coherency, maintain the memory mappings..etc etc. If(when) the thread jumps to another cpu then the whole dataset has to get rarranged. I would start hard assigning servers to their own core and see if that helps out.
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
