Why do you want 1000 FPS servers?
2008/11/13 Faustas Buškevičius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please
visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
