Personally I can agree with that and 1000fps server never was one of my goals. I'm after a server with _stable_ 500 fps (or 300, or whatever number *I* set it to be at), as long as its _stable_. Meaning, I would love to have a public server with _stable_ 300 fps, it's just that the fps is constantly dipping to, say, 70, or rocketing to, say, 980, neither of which is any good.
2008/11/13 AnAkIn . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You should already know that 1000 FPS server is just bullshit and that only > people that know nothing about servers buy them (a lot) so it gives more > money to GSP. > > There was an article that explained it which was posted on the HLDS mailing > list a while ago (The 1000 FPS Fairy Tale). > > 2008/11/13 en3my <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> "We" belive 1000FPS servers give the best gaming/aiming experience for >> pro-players. >> >> Using 1000FPS on public server is waste of resources if you're hosting >> company, but if you have gaming project and 1-2 pub servers - you make your >> server be the best in the list of available public servers. >> >> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- >> en3my >> www.2Po.eu >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "AnAkIn ." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:58 PM >> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] The 1000fps problem >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
