Eric (Deacon) wrote:
I am interesting in less disk space because I have only small HDDs.
I am struggling to understand why you would have and use a ~650MB hard
drive. http://www.newegg.com/app/manufact.asp?catalog=14DEPA=1
--
Eric (the Deacon remix)
I am only a private server admin and I
Matthew Donnon wrote:
I'm curious, is that HDD more or less megs than system ram?
- Original Message -
From: ruwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
I am interesting in less disk space because I
Sindre wrote:
although not optimal, it works just fine for most small scale purposes.
- Sindre
= Original Message From Jason Arden [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
LOL this guy made his Linux installation one big partition... good game.
-Jason
ruwen wrote:
William H. \ Du Chene wrote:
You
Where do you get these from? I picked up a bunch of 2-3 GB drives on eBay
for about 5 bucks each, and these work great for running a server.
Eric (Deacon) wrote:
I am interesting in less disk space because I have only small HDDs.
I am struggling to understand why you would have and use a
But wouldn't the performance of such old drives have a negative impact on
server performance?
- Original Message -
From: ruwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
Eric (Deacon) wrote:
I am
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DLinkOZ
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 2:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
But wouldn't the performance of such old drives have a negative impact on
server performance?
- Original Message -
From: ruwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
In a bold display of creativity, MadScientist wrote:
The gui doesn't require squat in the way of resources.
You don't pay for RAM?
At about $0.15 per megabyte for a 512MB stick of PC3200 DDR RAM, I'm not
sure that's the most valid argument you can come up with.
--
Eric (the Deacon remix)
In a bold display of creativity, Mike Frysinger wrote:
people really should stop looking at it as 'windows 2003 performs better than
linux' and start going 'does valve know how to write a linux server' ?
I thought the question was which OS yields the best performance when it
comes to running HL
William H. \ Du Chene wrote:
You could simply put the server on FreeBSD.
If you were to install FreeBSD 5.2 and the linux binary compatibility
layer,
you may well find that ( on the very same hardware ) the linux server will
run faster and your users do not exprience nearly as much lag than on
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
In a bold display of creativity, MadScientist wrote:
I'm comparing apples to apples... i.e. the latest Windows to the latest
Linux. But even still, W2K is more expensive than Linux or FreeBSD, and
that will still leave you with extra money
interface. If you intend to install a lot of third party software as
well, then you will need more space.
- Original Message -
From: ruwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
William H. \ Du Chene wrote:
You
I am interesting in less disk space because I have only small HDDs.
I am struggling to understand why you would have and use a ~650MB hard
drive. http://www.newegg.com/app/manufact.asp?catalog=14DEPA=1
--
Eric (the Deacon remix)
___
To unsubscribe, edit
Eric (Deacon) said:
Uh, yeah, feel free to compare apples to gophers all day long, but the
fact is that when you order a box from Dell or whoever else, it's going
to come with a Windows OS on it, usually XP these days. XP, Win2k Pro,
either way, it's going to be just fine.
You do know most
I'm very much surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) at the ratio of analytical to
anecdotal evidence in this thread. I know that a lot of you make money by
hosting game servers, and usually when money is on the line, people get a
lot more serious about value for the money.
Based on the comments thus
I wouldn't call it anecdotal, as this subject has been rehashed
adnauseum for years now. Its just a fact, that a couple years ago and
beyond, the linux hlds server outperformed the windows one hands down
all day long. then in the last year or two, linux performance has
slowly but surely taken a
: 20 May 2004 16:55
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
I'm very much surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) at the ratio of analytical to
anecdotal evidence in this thread. I know that a lot of you make money by
hosting game servers, and usually when money is on the line, people get a
lot
]
Sent: 20 May 2004 16:55
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
I'm very much surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) at the ratio of analytical to
anecdotal evidence in this thread. I know that a lot of you make money by
hosting game servers, and usually when money is on the line, people get
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 00:35, Mike Maynard wrote:
We saw a major performance INCREASE moving to Win2k3 from a heavily tweaked
Gentoo config.
Thats the problem with gentoo - you can tweak so much things and i am pretty
shure that the one who tweaked your server did not know exactly what he
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 00:35, Mike Maynard wrote:
We saw a major performance INCREASE moving to Win2k3 from a heavily
tweaked
Gentoo config.
Thats the problem with gentoo - you can tweak so much things and i am
pretty
shure that the one who
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 00:35, Mike Maynard wrote:
We saw a major performance INCREASE moving to Win2k3 from a heavily
tweaked
Gentoo config.
Thats the problem with gentoo - you can tweak so
Sounds interesting there Mike I'd love to see the stats that
led u to this conclusion.
Steve / K
- Original Message -
From: Mike Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
Errr... no
We
Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
Sounds interesting there Mike I'd love to see the stats that
led u to this conclusion.
Steve / K
- Original Message -
From: Mike Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED
Thanks for that Mike. Will be testing CS on an AMD 64 on multiple
OS shortly but very interesting to see the differences u experienced.
Steve / K
- Original Message -
From: Mike Maynard
No stats saved but when we had Gentoo on the box it averaged over 80% util
and was very sluggish.
The gui doesn't require squat in the way of resources.
- Original Message -
From: Shane Robinett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
If you know how to run windows right, you can remove much
.
Screen savers...just say no
- Original Message -
From: Donald Holl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS opinions please
Right, but maybe his server is at home or does have a monitor connected.
- Original Message
In a bold display of creativity, MadScientist wrote:
A Win2k Pro box would work just fine.
I'm comparing apples to apples... i.e. the latest Windows to the latest
Linux. But even still, W2K is more expensive than Linux or FreeBSD, and
that will still leave you with extra money for hardware.
The gui doesn't require squat in the way of resources.
You don't pay for RAM?
-Mad
--
http://www.madslab.com
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 10:01 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does not Windows have a higher resource over head??
Leading to less on the boxen ??
people really should stop looking at it as 'windows 2003 performs better than
linux' and start going 'does valve know how to write a linux server' ?
Ooks Server wrote:
The gui doesn't require squat in the way of resources.
I wouldn't say that. I am no one to provide formal benchmarks to prove
numbers, but for one, open the task manager and put it on the process
tab so you can see CPU load per app. Now start moving the task manager
around.
In a bold display of creativity, MadScientist wrote:
I'm comparing apples to apples... i.e. the latest Windows to the latest
Linux. But even still, W2K is more expensive than Linux or FreeBSD, and
that will still leave you with extra money for hardware.
Uh, yeah, feel free to compare apples to
In a bold display of creativity, Mike Maynard wrote:
We saw a major performance INCREASE moving to Win2k3 from a heavily tweaked
Gentoo config.
That echoes what most have discovered. There are many good reasons to
use Linux/BSD as your server's OS, but performance is not one of them.
If you're
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Does Win2k have any advantages/disadvantages compared to Win2k3?
-Nathan
--
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives,
32 matches
Mail list logo
