It is a private server. I personally don't want lots of public users on for that reason, and because I set it up as a private server for my group of coworker and friends. Any advice on how to disable sv_cheats for the clients though?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: hlds_linux Digest, Vol 12, Issue 90 Send hlds_linux mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of hlds_linux digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: net_splitpacket_maxrate (Andreas Grimm) 2. Re: net_splitpacket_maxrate (Ronny Schedel) 3. Possible fix for server lags introduced by one of the latest updates (Ronny Schedel) 4. Re: net_splitpacket_maxrate (Carl) 5. Re: server.cfg for l4d to disable sv_cheats for clients (Kevin J. Anderson) 6. Re: server.cfg for l4d to disable sv_cheats for clients (Tom Richardson) 7. server.cfg questions (Christopher Szabo) 8. Re: net_splitpacket_maxrate (Saint K.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:18:49 +0100 From: "Andreas Grimm" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate To: "'Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list'" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <002e01c99671$ab6df230$0249d6...@net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Did I understand it correct? High net_splitpacket_maxrate: - High CPU load - Less lags, cos packets are compressed Low net_splitpacket_maxrate: - Low CPU load - More lags, cos bytes are sent uncompressed :-O -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Paloma Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:54 AM To: 'Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list' Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate I didn't notice how much CPU it adds. I imagine under normal gameplay that it's minimal. Don't set it to 66, that'd be a terrible idea. The value is in bytes/sec and defaults to 15000. You don't want to set it lower. In the pictures, I was setting it to 300000. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J?K? T Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate Have you noticed how much more cpu this uses up? net_splitpacket_maxrate 66 Going to test this out right now myself. Pictures look good, hope this works out nice. :) Thanks Tony. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:37:06 -0800 > Subject: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate > > I was experimenting with net_splitpacket_maxrate and it seems it has a > definite noticeable effect. Assuming your server's CPU can handle the extra > load required by splitting an extra amount of large packets and compressing > this, I would recommend setting this to the same as your sv_maxrate (unless > your maxrate is zero, in which case you should set it to a real high value). > Look at these pictures: > http://www.sourceop.com/randomimages/net_splitpacket_maxrate/ > > Because of the constant stream of large amounts of incoming data, every > packet in the screenshots is part of a fragmented set. The CVar limits the > rate of these packets specifically and defaults to only 15000. This is a > problem because when there is large amounts of action, it is common for > update packets to be split because of their large size. If most of the > update packets need to be split, your rate will suddenly be dropped to > around 15,000. > > I see no drawback to increasing the value of this CVar other than the > increased CPU load your server might get since it will be splitting and > compressing more outgoing packets. > > Hope this helps, > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _________________________________________________________________ How fun is this? IMing with Windows Live Messenger just got better. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/messenger.aspx _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:36:13 +0100 From: "Ronny Schedel" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate To: "Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <fb8f712c9ce4432badb85ac39c969...@notebook> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original The split packet size is set by net_maxroutable (1260 by default). If you enable net_showsplits, you can see the splits of big packets in the console. A packet bigger than 1260 bytes - header is splitted into different packets. I don't see any change when I set net_splitpacket_maxrate to a different value. This is more like a cache or something. >I was experimenting with net_splitpacket_maxrate and it seems it has a > definite noticeable effect. Assuming your server's CPU can handle the > extra > load required by splitting an extra amount of large packets and > compressing > this, I would recommend setting this to the same as your sv_maxrate > (unless > your maxrate is zero, in which case you should set it to a real high > value). > Look at these pictures: > http://www.sourceop.com/randomimages/net_splitpacket_maxrate/ > > Because of the constant stream of large amounts of incoming data, every > packet in the screenshots is part of a fragmented set. The CVar limits the > rate of these packets specifically and defaults to only 15000. This is a > problem because when there is large amounts of action, it is common for > update packets to be split because of their large size. If most of the > update packets need to be split, your rate will suddenly be dropped to > around 15,000. > > I see no drawback to increasing the value of this CVar other than the > increased CPU load your server might get since it will be splitting and > compressing more outgoing packets. > > Hope this helps, > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:05:14 +0100 From: "Ronny Schedel" <[email protected]> Subject: [hlds_linux] Possible fix for server lags introduced by one of the latest updates To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <d8c8c0c804aa46f89b1d6ea5f5c0a...@notebook> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hello, concerning to the thread of Tony Paloma about the net_splitpacket_maxrate, maybe I have discovered the source of the lag problems. The problem seems to be the decompression client side of the split packets. When I enabled net_showsplits, a lag appears when a split packet was received. Normally, you don't receive alot of split packets, but in high action situations, you probably receive much more which causes lags. The possible solution could be to turn of the compression of split packets server side with: net_compresspackets 0 After some oberservations, it seems to be much better now. Best regards Ronny Schedel ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:18:03 -0500 From: Carl <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I don't think packet splitting has to do much with compression. This looks more like application layer MTU. Andreas Grimm wrote: > Did I understand it correct? > > High net_splitpacket_maxrate: > - High CPU load > - Less lags, cos packets are compressed > > Low net_splitpacket_maxrate: > - Low CPU load > - More lags, cos bytes are sent uncompressed > > :-O > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Paloma > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:54 AM > To: 'Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list' > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate > > I didn't notice how much CPU it adds. I imagine under normal gameplay that > it's minimal. Don't set it to 66, that'd be a terrible idea. The value is in > bytes/sec and defaults to 15000. You don't want to set it lower. In the > pictures, I was setting it to 300000. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J?K? T > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate > > > Have you noticed how much more cpu this uses up? > > net_splitpacket_maxrate 66 > > Going to test this out right now myself. > > Pictures look good, hope this works out nice. :) > > Thanks Tony. > > > > > > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:37:06 -0800 >> Subject: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate >> >> I was experimenting with net_splitpacket_maxrate and it seems it has a >> definite noticeable effect. Assuming your server's CPU can handle the >> > extra > >> load required by splitting an extra amount of large packets and >> > compressing > >> this, I would recommend setting this to the same as your sv_maxrate >> > (unless > >> your maxrate is zero, in which case you should set it to a real high >> > value). > >> Look at these pictures: >> http://www.sourceop.com/randomimages/net_splitpacket_maxrate/ >> >> Because of the constant stream of large amounts of incoming data, every >> packet in the screenshots is part of a fragmented set. The CVar limits the >> rate of these packets specifically and defaults to only 15000. This is a >> problem because when there is large amounts of action, it is common for >> update packets to be split because of their large size. If most of the >> update packets need to be split, your rate will suddenly be dropped to >> around 15,000. >> >> I see no drawback to increasing the value of this CVar other than the >> increased CPU load your server might get since it will be splitting and >> compressing more outgoing packets. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Tony >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> > please visit: > >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > How fun is this? IMing with Windows Live Messenger just got better. > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/messenger.aspx > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:25:52 -0700 From: "Kevin J. Anderson" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] server.cfg for l4d to disable sv_cheats for clients To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed If you are going to modify your server like this, please make sure to make it private so public players can't join it from the lobby. There is nothing more annoying than to join a server from the lobby that is running a ton of plugins and changes. This is not fun. I'm pretty sure most here will agree. Kevin YankeeDeuce wrote: > Install SourceMod (http://www.sourcemod.net/). In your server.cfg add > sm_cvar before any options that require cheats to be on. > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Adam Abel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, I'm new to running a source server, but I've setup my server.cfg >> with custom rules based on the cvar available online to change how vs >> plays. Most of the changes require sv_cheats to be set to 1. Shortly >> after running the server I realized that all the clients can activate >> cheats, spawning tanks, witches, and noclipping. I turned on >> rcon_password and a password on the server, but it didn't help. Is >> there any way to lock out the clients without disabling sv_cheats or am >> I going to have to wait for the SDK to come out? Thanks. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:39:13 +0000 From: Tom Richardson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] server.cfg for l4d to disable sv_cheats for clients To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Please do us all a favour and keep your server private so that people wanting a vanilla game experience don't end up being forced by matchmaking to play your idea of how versus should be balanced. 2009/2/24 Kevin J. Anderson <[email protected]> > If you are going to modify your server like this, please make sure to > make it private so public players can't join it from the lobby. There > is nothing more annoying than to join a server from the lobby that is > running a ton of plugins and changes. This is not fun. I'm pretty > sure most here will agree. > > Kevin > > YankeeDeuce wrote: > > Install SourceMod (http://www.sourcemod.net/). In your server.cfg add > > sm_cvar before any options that require cheats to be on. > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Adam Abel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hello, I'm new to running a source server, but I've setup my server.cfg > >> with custom rules based on the cvar available online to change how vs > >> plays. Most of the changes require sv_cheats to be set to 1. Shortly > >> after running the server I realized that all the clients can activate > >> cheats, spawning tanks, witches, and noclipping. I turned on > >> rcon_password and a password on the server, but it didn't help. Is > >> there any way to lock out the clients without disabling sv_cheats or am > >> I going to have to wait for the SDK to come out? Thanks. > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:48:36 +0100 From: Christopher Szabo <[email protected]> Subject: [hlds_linux] server.cfg questions To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" "You're running into scheduler latency problems with those settings. Pingboost 2 on Linux also uses select(), which uses a jiffies (on older kernels), and isn't really a good thing to use anyways. You're going to have to use sched_rr/sched_fifo instead of sched_other. (as long as your running a full preemptive kernel)" That didnt help either.. _________________________________________________________________ Hitta b?sta priserna p? MSN Shopping! http://shopping.msn.se/co_16199-msn-shopping.html ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:51:40 +0100 From: "Saint K." <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate To: "'Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list'" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, Thanks a lot for the info. We see a significant drop in choke which is caused by some updates a while back. Choke levels on full-action dustbowl 26 players were around 70%, now dropped to around 20%. CPU load hasn't changed a bit. Cheers, -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Paloma Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:37 AM To: 'Half-Life dedicated Win32 server mailing list'; 'Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list' Subject: [hlds_linux] net_splitpacket_maxrate I was experimenting with net_splitpacket_maxrate and it seems it has a definite noticeable effect. Assuming your server's CPU can handle the extra load required by splitting an extra amount of large packets and compressing this, I would recommend setting this to the same as your sv_maxrate (unless your maxrate is zero, in which case you should set it to a real high value). Look at these pictures: http://www.sourceop.com/randomimages/net_splitpacket_maxrate/ Because of the constant stream of large amounts of incoming data, every packet in the screenshots is part of a fragmented set. The CVar limits the rate of these packets specifically and defaults to only 15000. This is a problem because when there is large amounts of action, it is common for update packets to be split because of their large size. If most of the update packets need to be split, your rate will suddenly be dropped to around 15,000. I see no drawback to increasing the value of this CVar other than the increased CPU load your server might get since it will be splitting and compressing more outgoing packets. Hope this helps, Tony _______________________________________________ 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1967 - Release Date: 02/23/09 18:22:00 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux End of hlds_linux Digest, Vol 12, Issue 90 ****************************************** This e-mail and any attachment are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. Unauthorized publication, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail and its associated attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
