----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Peligro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [plug] Segmentation fault in Counter-Strike 1.3 Linux server
>Now I know that aside from improper crimping, loose connectors, proximity to >power lines, and faulty wiring, the only step left to resolve collisions is >to get a switch. Thanks. yup... collision is detected if the message is garbled... garbled message is causes by you mentioned above and many more... >Is it okay to coil patch cords? (Rick Moen must be laughing right now with my >English) We sometimes wind patch cords so it's neat, tidy, and doesn't sag. >I've heard that coiling patch cords is bad. The coil becomes a rough >electromagnet, causing interference and mucking up the signal inside the >patch cord. Is this true? yup... there are two kinds of interference... EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference) and RFI (Radio Frequency Interference).. creating a coil will produce electromagnet which will lead you to EMI... so therefore avoid creating a coil.. oh btw forgive my english.. i admit im very poor in grammar... i really hated english subject since elementary... :-< basta english na subject hindi na ako nakikinig > I enabled memory-parity checking in the BIOS. Will this correctly check the > memory for bad addresses? My BIOS once flagged a faulty memory module, and > wouldn't proceed with the boot-up process, so I replaced it with a good one > and it's been fine ever since. The memory in my Counter-Strike server runs > fine and doesn't get flagged by the BIOS. Maybe I should download those > lm-sensors from the net to make sure. i believe rick already satisfies you with his answer >Am I correct in assuming that the server crashes because collisions forces it >to recalculate more than usual to compensate for the increased latency of >clients and to accurately reconcile clients' hits? This increase in >calculations goes way out of hand for the server to handle, so it segfaults. >Is this correct? I've also read that the Counter-Strike 1.4 update has a bug >fix that makes the server default to 32MB heapsize. Is this bug-fix related >to my problem? I don't know what a heapsize is. Please pardon me for my >ignorance. I'm just an accountancy graduate, but I'd like to know more. it doesnt matter to me if you are accountancy graduate or any non-computer course.... what important most is that we are willing to learn what we love :-> regarding to your question above... collision is on the physical layer... if there is a collision, it will not pass thru to the next layer, it will simply drop and ignore it... let the retransmission do the work....... before the server receives the packet (which at application layer or layer 7), it is already clean up by the lower layers especially at the layer 4 or transport layer. > The server compensates for the lack of error-resolution with the UDP > protocol, and the collisions adds more overhead to the error-resolution > process. Is this a correct assumption? udp is unreliable protocol unlike tcp.. it means it doesnt care if the other end receives the packet or not... but take note that there are protocols (usually at layer 7 protocols) that are the one who is handling the reliable connection even though it is using udp... take for example of radius protocol which is using udp... it will send accounting record to radius server and waits for server's acknowledgement for confirmation if the radius server received the accounting record or not thru udp also... if there is no acknowledgement for a given time, it will retransmit again until it receive a confirmation... fooler. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
