Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also remain stable. Unfortunately there isn't at this point a completely definable optimum, it is dependant on your hardware and software configuration and you will need to test, essentially for, each new norhtbridge, as bus latencies are the killer here. dexion wrote: it seems to handle things very well, i might want to just leave well enough alone. Waste of ram though -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the kernel into ram - this may or may not be advantageous - look at page faults for your processes - might be a good idea to get pmon from systeminternals. disablepagingexecutive will page less data during general system run time, this is not always an advantage as windows dynamic paging algorithm is quite strong. there is another option you can add here to change your IOPageLockLimit (key not there by default), this allows you to specify the amount of ram windows will allow for IO paging operations. dexion wrote: Hi all, Just wondering about something. I have all windows2003 boxes and run multiple instances of hlds and srcds. I notice for instance that if I run x bumber of servers I am using 1.6 gigs of ram total, but only about 1000 of that would be in the actual physical ram. The rest is is virtual. I have 2 gigs of ram per box. My question would be, is there any performance gain in trying to push more of the hlds/srcds process into physical ram? I dont really experience any problems, but I would like to use the ram as opposed the virtual since I have it why not use it if there is a benefit. Would the -heapsize switch help since I do not use it? Anyone out there know how to get windows to be more sparing with the virtual and push more into physical ram? Why would the os want to use any virtual since im under the physical ram in the first place? Seems silly. tia dex ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Serious Config Hack - Lag Comp bug
I didn't say you can only see 24fps - that'd be the Electronic Engineers that make that claim. If you want to read between lines, please do it with other peoples writings. No, you can react alot faster, but there are many important conditions which will take a significant time to cover here. The point merely is, that in order to epxloit this bug accurately, you will require as much, and possibly more skill than not using it. You gain in one area and loose massively in another. - Have a think about why we haven't (often) moved from static crosshairs for example. Clayton Macleod wrote: yes, let's all just pull numbers out of our asses and tout them as fact...I have a request for the next one...please tell us all how we can only see 24fps! Sheesh. On 8/12/05, James Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben - please don't start new subject threads by hitting reply to other mailing list messages - whilst your mail program may not be dynamic enough to present data in a non-linear form, mine is - and the meta data (There is an in-reply-to: messageid header in your mail) keeps this new topic under old threads. - This is not a bug in my software, you aren't attepting to continue a topic, so don't reply to a topic. Just a minor gripe. Thanks. With regard to these settings - I've seen this mentioned a while back too. Whilst it's a problem, the advantage is not real - you only gain the ability to inaccurately shoot at something which you cannot see. The advantage through areas such as double doors is a misnomer because - the reason you cant react to it straight is because the visibility time is very low. This time frame doesn't change length as a result of this bug, you simply remove all triggers except human timing. Now, the human brain operates at around about 17Hz, it is capable of appearing faster as a product of associativity and connectivity aswell as a continuous and asynchronous network layout. The point merely is, that humans are not very goot at replicating individual 10hz triggers - thus I think it's unlikely that a significant number of kills is going to be gained by this. If this is as far as a player is willing to cheat (seems a bit odd to go so far, and no further, except in fear of vac maybe) then it's not unlikely they have some reasonable skill to play the average masses anyway, and in this regard, any annoyance they generate is likely more attributable to general CS anger. Try the reaction time test on asciitable.com - see if you can get 0.1s regularly. -- Clayton Macleod get ye flask You cannot get ye flask. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Serious Config Hack - Lag Comp bug
It's not outlooks fault either. Here's the header that was created that is the offender: X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thread-Index: AcWeq+K0e0wALzL7T2KnLlJT231tWgARJ6HQABYa2uA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As you can see, the messages in this thread have been replied to, and as such, the mailer has added in reply to headers with a message ID. This is RFC compliant and at no point have any of the applications involved done anything wrong. The user clicked reply, when in fact they didn't want to reply, they wanted a fresh message :) Ben wrote: Oh well, I thought there was only outlook or pine. And I know which I'd rather use out of those too :P -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of m0gely Sent: 12 August 2005 23:44 To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] Serious Config Hack - Lag Comp bug Ben wrote: Apologies, I wasn't aware that other mail clients had a problem with it and it's a convenient way of doing it. It's not that other mail clients have a problem, it's that Outlook merely groups by the subject rather than viewing the messages in threaded fashion. Similar to this: http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/images/utsonline/messages/6.gif You can see who is replying to who. So your message appears in this view as a reply to someone else, that in until it's read and is obviously a new thread. -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] RE: Serious Config Hack - Lag Comp bug (Faaip)
Sorry, to 0.01 or to 0.1? Zack Sloane wrote: Ya, its called CSP 1.1. Opi made it for Caleague.com's usage. It blocks a bunch of commands, not just those two, but it locks cl_interp to .01 and cl_interpolate to 1. On 8/12/05, Faaip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to say how, because it is my greatest advantage, but the tools for fixing this are already available and in-place on one of my servers as a test. So far the results have been perfect. Keep looking. -Faaip The I am posting this here because it's important and I don't trust that it won't get filtered out if submitted through the bug report tool - the bug exists on the source server anyway so it's vaguely relevant *** This relates to cl_interp cl_interpolate settings. When the lag compensation system in the source engine calculates how much to roll back object positions by for hit detection it takes a number of things into consideration, and one of them is the value of cl_interp that is set on the client. cl_interp sets the number of seconds in the past that your client looks for updates to use for interpolation and adds an additional latency, hence why the lag compensation takes it into account. If you start a server with a bot and set sv_cheats 1, sv_showhitboxes 2 (make sure you have the default interpolation settings) you will see the difference between the client side position of the bot (the model) and the server side (the multicoloured hitbox). When you fire a shot near the bot, you will see that hitbox snap back fairly precisely onto the position of the model. That is the lag compensation rolling back the bots position to compensate for your latency. The hack works because of a bug in the lag compensation that does not check whether the client is *actually* using interpolation. Therefore you can set cl_interpolate 0, cl_interp 0.1, and during hit detection the lag compensation will roll back the target's position to BEHIND where it was on your screen. This means you can shoot people after they have disappeared, i.e. through narrow gaps like the double doors on d2 even if you do not have the superhuman reactions to do it legitimately. Combine this hack with a toggle script so that you can turn it on and off as needed, and you will have a very powerful and very unfair advantage over your enemy. To see it, set cl_interpolate 0 and keep cl_interp at 0.1 You will see that when you shoot near the bot that the server rolls back the position to *behind* where you see it, and to register hits you need to shoot at the position that the hitbox snaps back to. The lag compensation thinks that that position is where you see the model on your screen due to your cl_interp value, but your client is not actually using it because cl_interpolate is set to 0. ** I think this needs to be urgently urgently fixed! ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds -- -- Zack Sloane http://zteknology.com We Put Personal Back in Personal Computer! You Dream it, We Build It! ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
RE: [hlds] Serious Config Hack - Lag Comp bug
I disagree, it would be simple to tweak the interp value you use in your exploit to match your average reaction time, so that you just aim your crosshair at the double doors, then shoot normally when someone crosses and score a hit. And don't forget that when you're not using it you can just toggle back to your desired not-exploit interp settings. - No, you can react alot faster, but there are many important conditions which will take a significant time to cover here. The point merely is, that in order to epxloit this bug accurately, you will require as much, and possibly more skill than not using it. You gain in one area and loose massively in another. - Have a think about why we haven't (often) moved from static crosshairs for example. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
[hlds] Bug in CS:S
If the Player have no Money then he goes to the Spec. Team and than back to the Team he Plays and you have now 800$ Cash !!! Any Fix on the way ??? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
RE: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Right, I do plan to have a test server to see any benefit if at all. Odd, no one commented on the -heapsize question. dex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:03 AM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also remain stable. Unfortunately there isn't at this point a completely definable optimum, it is dependant on your hardware and software configuration and you will need to test, essentially for, each new norhtbridge, as bus latencies are the killer here. dexion wrote: it seems to handle things very well, i might want to just leave well enough alone. Waste of ram though -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the kernel into ram - this may or may not be advantageous - look at page faults for your processes - might be a good idea to get pmon from systeminternals. disablepagingexecutive will page less data during general system run time, this is not always an advantage as windows dynamic paging algorithm is quite strong. there is another option you can add here to change your IOPageLockLimit (key not there by default), this allows you to specify the amount of ram windows will allow for IO paging operations. dexion wrote: Hi all, Just wondering about something. I have all windows2003 boxes and run multiple instances of hlds and srcds. I notice for instance that if I run x bumber of servers I am using 1.6 gigs of ram total, but only about 1000 of that would be in the actual physical ram. The rest is is virtual. I have 2 gigs of ram per box. My question would be, is there any performance gain in trying to push more of the hlds/srcds process into physical ram? I dont really experience any problems, but I would like to use the ram as opposed the virtual since I have it why not use it if there is a benefit. Would the -heapsize switch help since I do not use it? Anyone out there know how to get windows to be more sparing with the virtual and push more into physical ram? Why would the os want to use any virtual since im under the physical ram in the first place? Seems silly. tia dex ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
It does seem like a waste of RAM, but that's how Windows manages resources. One thing to consider, Windows might be levearging your hard drive more becasue of it's speed ablities. What type of hard drive(s) are you running on your server? A good S ATA (while not nearly as fast as RAM) drive with an 8 meg buffer could be the reason your not seeing a performance lag in your server. One simple way of forcing Windows to use more ram and less hard drive for paging is to set you page file size and do not allow windows to manage it's own file size. But do keep in mind windows is designed to page data that is not needed out of RAM into the page file. Restricting your page file could set off a bit of thrashing. If you want to realy out do your self you could setup a RAM drive and tell windows to use that drive to page to, but this was more of a prank pulled on co-workers :). It not that stabile and a great laugh to see the confused look on someone face when they terminat that program using a mass amount of ram that doesn't seem to be doing anything. Dustin Tuft - Original Message - From: dexion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: RE: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Right, I do plan to have a test server to see any benefit if at all. Odd, no one commented on the -heapsize question. dex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:03 AM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also remain stable. Unfortunately there isn't at this point a completely definable optimum, it is dependant on your hardware and software configuration and you will need to test, essentially for, each new norhtbridge, as bus latencies are the killer here. dexion wrote: it seems to handle things very well, i might want to just leave well enough alone. Waste of ram though -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the kernel into ram - this may or may not be advantageous - look at page faults for your processes - might be a good idea to get pmon from systeminternals. disablepagingexecutive will page less data during general system run time, this is not always an advantage as windows dynamic paging algorithm is quite strong. there is another option you can add here to change your IOPageLockLimit (key not there by default), this allows you to specify the amount of ram windows will allow for IO paging operations. dexion wrote: Hi all, Just wondering about something. I have all windows2003 boxes and run multiple instances of hlds and srcds. I notice for instance that if I run x bumber of servers I am using 1.6 gigs of ram total, but only about 1000 of that would be in the actual physical ram. The rest is is virtual. I have 2 gigs of ram per box. My question would be, is there any performance gain in trying to push more of the hlds/srcds process into physical ram? I dont really experience any problems, but I would like to use the ram as opposed the virtual since I have it why not use it if there is a benefit. Would the -heapsize switch help since I do not use it? Anyone out there know how to get windows to be more sparing with the virtual and push more into physical ram? Why would the os want to use any virtual since im under the physical ram in the first place? Seems silly. tia dex ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list
RE: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
they are all 15000 rpm scsi drives in a raid 1 array they are quite fast but no where near as fast as ram. I think ill not tinker with what workes fine, just equip the servers in the future with 1500megs of ram instead. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dustin Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:05 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking It does seem like a waste of RAM, but that's how Windows manages resources. One thing to consider, Windows might be levearging your hard drive more becasue of it's speed ablities. What type of hard drive(s) are you running on your server? A good S ATA (while not nearly as fast as RAM) drive with an 8 meg buffer could be the reason your not seeing a performance lag in your server. One simple way of forcing Windows to use more ram and less hard drive for paging is to set you page file size and do not allow windows to manage it's own file size. But do keep in mind windows is designed to page data that is not needed out of RAM into the page file. Restricting your page file could set off a bit of thrashing. If you want to realy out do your self you could setup a RAM drive and tell windows to use that drive to page to, but this was more of a prank pulled on co-workers :). It not that stabile and a great laugh to see the confused look on someone face when they terminat that program using a mass amount of ram that doesn't seem to be doing anything. Dustin Tuft - Original Message - From: dexion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: RE: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Right, I do plan to have a test server to see any benefit if at all. Odd, no one commented on the -heapsize question. dex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:03 AM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also remain stable. Unfortunately there isn't at this point a completely definable optimum, it is dependant on your hardware and software configuration and you will need to test, essentially for, each new norhtbridge, as bus latencies are the killer here. dexion wrote: it seems to handle things very well, i might want to just leave well enough alone. Waste of ram though -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the kernel into ram - this may or may not be advantageous - look at page faults for your processes - might be a good idea to get pmon from systeminternals. disablepagingexecutive will page less data during general system run time, this is not always an advantage as windows dynamic paging algorithm is quite strong. there is another option you can add here to change your IOPageLockLimit (key not there by default), this allows you to specify the amount of ram windows will allow for IO paging operations. dexion wrote: Hi all, Just wondering about something. I have all windows2003 boxes and run multiple instances of hlds and srcds. I notice for instance that if I run x bumber of servers I am using 1.6 gigs of ram total, but only about 1000 of that would be in the actual physical ram. The rest is is virtual. I have 2 gigs of ram per box. My question would be, is there any performance gain in trying to push more of the hlds/srcds process into physical ram? I dont really experience any problems, but I would like to use the ram as opposed the virtual since I have it why not use it if there is a benefit. Would the -heapsize switch help since I do not use it? Anyone out there know how to get windows to be more sparing with the virtual and push more into physical ram? Why would the os want to use any virtual since im under the physical ram in the first place? Seems silly. tia dex ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit:
Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Nice, If you have two arrays, you can improve system performance by moving the Page file to the array that the OS is not on. But this only helps if the arrays are truely on diffrenet channels. Same would would go for a normal IDE drive - Original Message - From: dexion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:14 AM Subject: RE: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking they are all 15000 rpm scsi drives in a raid 1 array they are quite fast but no where near as fast as ram. I think ill not tinker with what workes fine, just equip the servers in the future with 1500megs of ram instead. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dustin Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:05 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking It does seem like a waste of RAM, but that's how Windows manages resources. One thing to consider, Windows might be levearging your hard drive more becasue of it's speed ablities. What type of hard drive(s) are you running on your server? A good S ATA (while not nearly as fast as RAM) drive with an 8 meg buffer could be the reason your not seeing a performance lag in your server. One simple way of forcing Windows to use more ram and less hard drive for paging is to set you page file size and do not allow windows to manage it's own file size. But do keep in mind windows is designed to page data that is not needed out of RAM into the page file. Restricting your page file could set off a bit of thrashing. If you want to realy out do your self you could setup a RAM drive and tell windows to use that drive to page to, but this was more of a prank pulled on co-workers :). It not that stabile and a great laugh to see the confused look on someone face when they terminat that program using a mass amount of ram that doesn't seem to be doing anything. Dustin Tuft - Original Message - From: dexion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: RE: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Right, I do plan to have a test server to see any benefit if at all. Odd, no one commented on the -heapsize question. dex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:03 AM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also remain stable. Unfortunately there isn't at this point a completely definable optimum, it is dependant on your hardware and software configuration and you will need to test, essentially for, each new norhtbridge, as bus latencies are the killer here. dexion wrote: it seems to handle things very well, i might want to just leave well enough alone. Waste of ram though -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the kernel into ram - this may or may not be advantageous - look at page faults for your processes - might be a good idea to get pmon from systeminternals. disablepagingexecutive will page less data during general system run time, this is not always an advantage as windows dynamic paging algorithm is quite strong. there is another option you can add here to change your IOPageLockLimit (key not there by default), this allows you to specify the amount of ram windows will allow for IO paging operations. dexion wrote: Hi all, Just wondering about something. I have all windows2003 boxes and run multiple instances of hlds and srcds. I notice for instance that if I run x bumber of servers I am using 1.6 gigs of ram total, but only about 1000 of that would be in the actual physical ram. The rest is is virtual. I have 2 gigs of ram per box. My question would be, is there any performance gain in trying to push more of the hlds/srcds process into physical ram? I dont really experience any problems, but I would like to use the ram as opposed the virtual since I have it why not use it if there is a benefit. Would the -heapsize switch help since I do not use it? Anyone out there know how to get windows to be more sparing with the virtual and push more into physical ram? Why would the os want to use any virtual since im under the physical ram in the first place? Seems silly. tia dex ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit:
RE: [hlds] Bug in CS:S
I dont think that is considered a bug. People just tend to abuse it when spectator is enabled on a server and especially with servers starting out with 16k. htmlDIV align=centerSTRONGEMFONT face=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif--nbsp;John --/FONT/EM/STRONG/DIV/html Original Message Follows From: [MLA]_Tron_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] Bug in CS:S Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:27:32 +0200 If the Player have no Money then he goes to the Spec. Team and than back to the Team he Plays and you have now 800$ Cash !!! Any Fix on the way ??? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] RE: Serious Config Hack - Lag Comp bug (Faaip)
cl_interp .01 cl_interpolate 1 Zack On 8/13/05, James Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, to 0.01 or to 0.1? Zack Sloane wrote: Ya, its called CSP 1.1. Opi made it for Caleague.com's usage. It blocks a bunch of commands, not just those two, but it locks cl_interp to .01 and cl_interpolate to 1. On 8/12/05, Faaip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to say how, because it is my greatest advantage, but the tools for fixing this are already available and in-place on one of my servers as a test. So far the results have been perfect. Keep looking. -Faaip The I am posting this here because it's important and I don't trust that it won't get filtered out if submitted through the bug report tool - the bug exists on the source server anyway so it's vaguely relevant *** This relates to cl_interp cl_interpolate settings. When the lag compensation system in the source engine calculates how much to roll back object positions by for hit detection it takes a number of things into consideration, and one of them is the value of cl_interp that is set on the client. cl_interp sets the number of seconds in the past that your client looks for updates to use for interpolation and adds an additional latency, hence why the lag compensation takes it into account. If you start a server with a bot and set sv_cheats 1, sv_showhitboxes 2 (make sure you have the default interpolation settings) you will see the difference between the client side position of the bot (the model) and the server side (the multicoloured hitbox). When you fire a shot near the bot, you will see that hitbox snap back fairly precisely onto the position of the model. That is the lag compensation rolling back the bots position to compensate for your latency. The hack works because of a bug in the lag compensation that does not check whether the client is *actually* using interpolation. Therefore you can set cl_interpolate 0, cl_interp 0.1, and during hit detection the lag compensation will roll back the target's position to BEHIND where it was on your screen. This means you can shoot people after they have disappeared, i.e. through narrow gaps like the double doors on d2 even if you do not have the superhuman reactions to do it legitimately. Combine this hack with a toggle script so that you can turn it on and off as needed, and you will have a very powerful and very unfair advantage over your enemy. To see it, set cl_interpolate 0 and keep cl_interp at 0.1 You will see that when you shoot near the bot that the server rolls back the position to *behind* where you see it, and to register hits you need to shoot at the position that the hitbox snaps back to. The lag compensation thinks that that position is where you see the model on your screen due to your cl_interp value, but your client is not actually using it because cl_interpolate is set to 0. ** I think this needs to be urgently urgently fixed! ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds -- -- Zack Sloane http://zteknology.com We Put Personal Back in Personal Computer! You Dream it, We Build It! ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds -- -- Zack Sloane http://zteknology.com We Put Personal Back in Personal Computer! You Dream it, We Build It! ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] Couldn't allocate dedicated SourceTV UDP port
Thank you very much. That helped! :-) Thanks for your help. Paul On 7/21/05, Martin Otten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By default SourceTV uses port 27020. is that port is in use you can change it in the command line with +tv_port someunusedport , eg +tv_port 27040 since 27039 is the CS:S server. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Jueckstock Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:02 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] Couldn't allocate dedicated SourceTV UDP port Hi! One of my customers has a CS:S server running on port 27039. Suddenly it stopped working. When I try to start the Server manually, I get the following Engine Error: Couldn't allocate dedicated SourceTV UDP port. I tried netstat -ano but I can't find a single process using port 27039. I also tried completely re-installing this particular CS:S server, but it didn't help. I also tried changing the port to a different port, it still does not work. The server is running Windows Server 2003 and is not using any Firewalls. However, other CS:S servers still run fine on the same machine. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! Paul ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled
Hi! One of my customers said he's having problems with VAC2 on his CS:S server, it is activated after the game server starts, but after a few seconds it turns off. He even tried to reinstall the game server, but it didn't help. The strange thing is that on the same server there are several other CS:S servers that use VAC2 without any problems. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! Paul On 8/10/05, Alfred Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a fix in the works for multi-nic machines. - Alfred Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paladin82 Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:43 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: RE: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled I have two nic's one is private, the other public. So I technically have 2 ip addresses. Here is my ipconfig. Ethernet adapter PNET: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.15.121.35 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : Ethernet adapter WAN: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 67.15.121.35 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 67.15.121.1 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alfred Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 5:54 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: RE: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled Does this machine have multiple IP addresses? - Alfred Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paladin82 Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 5:48 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: RE: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled Any help on this Alfred? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paladin82 Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:24 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: RE: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled I keep getting. Could not establish connection to Steam servers. VAC secure mode disabled. I have no firewall and nothing blocking any ports; I have another server that has no problems. I have updated multiple times. Any ideas on what I can try? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oum Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:04 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled I don't have any router or stuff like that, Windows Firewall is always disabled, and I have disabled my personnal firewall for testing, still nothing. I have sent a support ticket ref # 050808-000254 - Original Message - From: Alfred Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 3:04 AM Subject: RE: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled This isn't VAC1, it is a new set of servers. Something is preventing you connecting to them. Hping2 is a useful tool to debug network connectivity problems. Try running only 1 server on that machine and double check the firewall settings (on both the server machine and any router/NAT devices you may have). If that fails then go to our customer support site, it has a detailed debugging guide. - Alfred Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oum Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:56 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: Re: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled hping2 : this is source package for download only, I don't know how to use this. but anyway my firewall is already disabled, and even if enabled, I never had troubles with VAC1 before. Oum - Original Message - From: Alfred Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:39 AM Subject: RE: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled Could not establish connection to Steam servers.. It can't make a UDP connection to our Steam servers. Use a tool like hping2 to check for firewalls between you and the Steam servers. - Alfred Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oum Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:32 PM To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com Subject: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled WinXP sp2, firewall disabled, HLDS updated but no VAC : hlds console says : couldn't exec listip.cfg Could not establish connection to Steam servers. VAC secure mode disabled. Adding master server 207.173.177.11:27010 Adding master server 69.28.151.162:27010 ] version Protocol version 47 Exe
Re: [hlds] VAC secure mode disabled
One of my customers said he's having problems with VAC2 on his CS:S server, it is activated after the game server starts, but after a few seconds it turns off. He even tried to reinstall the game server, but it didn't help. The strange thing is that on the same server there are several other CS:S servers that use VAC2 without any problems. Any ideas? Are they by chance using the same ip address? If so you might need to specify the -sport option and allow it through the firewall? ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
One simple way of forcing Windows to use more ram and less hard drive for paging is to set you page file size and do not allow windows to manage it's own file size. But do keep in mind windows is designed to page data that is not needed out of RAM into the page file. Restricting your page file could set off a bit of thrashing. This is a bad idea. Windows is not designed to page out data that is not needed from RAM. It is designed to allocate space in the page file for running applications regardless of the amount of ram on the system. If you start a program it will automatically allocate space in the page file equivalent TO allow the storage of that application in the page file system only incase it needs to do so. You should always have a page file that is the equivilant size of the amount of memory you have even if you dont expect windows to use the page file for actually paging an application. You should read this http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223 ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
[hlds] DoD Exploit
One of my regulars pointed out someone doing something fishy on a server today and the idiot actually talked enough about it that I could track it down. http://www.gotfrag.com/dod/forums/thread/147822/ Basically it looks like they execute this command string and they get the run of the server. Well do the following bind p changeclass; wait; jointeam 4 enjoy! Farther down, someone added this: lol tis fun, especially at the beginning of the rounds, its like a free ride to spawn camping. its spec glitching but it starts you at the middle or some where close. Dont go to servers with FF on because your teamates will shoot you. ohh and flash british side, you spawn in a spot that you cant get out of. And this: they fixed the old one were while your dead you hit changeteam; changeclass and you choose spectatots than a weapon, but yea you spawn in teh middle of the map on all maps and if you run over a flag yout ake it off the map until you die. The log entries look like this every time the guy did it: L 08/13/2005 - 21:42:27: roflcakes10STEAM_0:0:2112501Allies committed suicide with world L 08/13/2005 - 21:42:27: roflcakes10STEAM_0:0:2112501Allies joined team 0%¾ $¾Ð|¾aÚÆexec %s.cfg ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
Re: [hlds] DoD Exploit
next time email Alfred/Valve directly, no need to spread word of things like this further than their ears. On 8/13/05, Your Name [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip -- Clayton Macleod get ye flask You cannot get ye flask. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
