What are the chances of sustaining 980+ fps on a public server with
20+ players and max rates ?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Kveri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting, it looks like a bug in documentation. I'll test it on
> brand new dual E5335 xeon server.
>
> Kveri
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 13 Nov 2008, at 08:00, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Gary:
>>
>>>> With -pingboost 2, HL1 actually uses select() for its delays.
>>>
>>> -pingboost 2 uses alarm(), -pingboost 1 uses select()
>>
>> I was careful to check this before I originally posted; what I said
>> about
>> was accurate, as least at the OS level. You can confirm this with
>> "strace".
>> I see output like this for -pingboost 2:
>>
>> ...
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85065}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85091}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85122}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85147}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85170}, NULL) = 0
>> select(1, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 1000}) = 0 (Timeout)
>> select(1, [0], NULL, NULL, {0, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85971}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 85996}, NULL) = 0
>> recvfrom(5, 0xbfa3efe4, 4010, 0, 0xbfa3ff90, 0xbfa3efcc) = -1 EAGAIN
>> (Resource temporarily unavailable)
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86058}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86083}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86102}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86120}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558338, 86161}, NULL) = 0
>> ...
>>
>> In constrast, -pingboost 1 gives output like this:
>>
>> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60244}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60272}, NULL) = 0
>> recvfrom(5, 0xbfb5ecb4, 4010, 0, 0xbfb5fc60, 0xbfb5ec9c) = -1 EAGAIN
>> (Resource temporarily unavailable)
>> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60340}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60360}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60388}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60415}, NULL) = 0
>> gettimeofday({1226558633, 60442}, NULL) = 0
>> setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, {it_interval={0, 0}, it_value={0, 1000}},
>> NULL) = 0
>> pause() = ? ERESTARTNOHAND (To be
>> restarted)
>> --- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) @ 0 (0) ---
>> rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x804a910, [ALRM], SA_RESTART}, {0x804a910,
>> [ALRM],
>> SA_RESTART}, 8) = 0
>> setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, {it_interval={0, 0}, it_value={0, 1000}},
>> NULL) = 0
>> sigreturn() = ? (mask now [])
>> select(1, [0], NULL, NULL, {0, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
>>
>> It sounds like Valve flipped the definitions of the functions since
>> creating
>> the versions you posted.
>>
>> With our kernel configuration, load-balancing, etc, both -pingboost 1
>> and -pingboost 2 provide very stable framerates with extremely low
>> jitter.
>> On a Core2-based machine, we typically see a stable ~982fps with -
>> pingboost
>> 1 and a stable 1000fps with -pingboost 2. Rarely, either method will
>> dip
>> slightly. Typically with -pingboost 2, the dips are into the upper
>> 990s.
>>
>> -John
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
