Because it works and I don't have the time (read: too lazy) to move to
and configure a native linux ftp server. I've used bpftp for many years,
and this is one of the few cases where a usable gui really comes in
handy - when they created bpftp, they did a bang up job on the gui, and
since it
I run a few copies of hlds on the following x32 VMs
Debian 6
Ubuntu 11.04
CentOS 5
Fedora 14
SUSE 11.4
Plus, two other computers with 12-15 copies of hlds running under
Debian 6 x86_64
I like Debian 6 the best for anything from configuring an Ethernet
interface to installing a development
I use Gentoo, I guess it's good but fuck if you're not into linux then
you're going to balk the first time you have to start using -USE flags what
the fuck man. I can't wait to mess it up enough to finally give myself the
motivation to go to Ubuntu.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:15 AM, edman747
Slackware 13.37 64 bit with the 3.3.7 kernel. Rock solid. Gets the job
done. Not really for the linux newbies, as it doesn't do much
hand-holding. Slackware is a basic distro without a lot of gui bells and
whistles. I used to use Windows 2000, but got tired of the regular BSODs
everytime I
Why are you using a Win-FTP-Server on linux?
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
@list.valvesoftware.com
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 3:45:37 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS
Slackware 13.37 64 bit with the 3.3.7 kernel. Rock solid. Gets the job done.
Not really for the linux newbies, as it doesn't do much hand-holding. Slackware
is a basic distro without a lot of gui bells and whistles. I
performance?
From: Ook ooksser...@zootal.com
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 3:45:37 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS
Slackware 13.37 64 bit with the 3.3.7 kernel. Rock solid
ooksser...@zootal.com
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 3:45:37 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS
Slackware 13.37 64 bit with the 3.3.7 kernel. Rock solid. Gets the job
done. Not really for the linux newbies
optimized for windows and therefore gives better
performance?
From: Ook ooksser...@zootal.com
To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
hlds_linux@list.valvesoftware.com
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 3:45:37 PM
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS
Is Gentoo a good distro for goldsrc HLDS? What distro's do you server ops use
and recommend? I'm not looking for a OS battle here. Just a simple answer with
a small explanation why. :)
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list
I use Debian Squeeze 32 bit for my game servers (all are VMs). I just
like their packaging system. Was on Arch for quite a long time, but
didn't care for package updates breaking the system (a little too
close to bleeding edge for me). I do have some other servers runnig
on CentOS, but they're
Ubuntu 10.04 x64 here - Valve uses the same as well for their servers.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Steven Sumichrast packh...@gmail.comwrote:
I use Debian Squeeze 32 bit for my game servers (all are VMs). I just
like their packaging system. Was on Arch for quite a long time, but
I've used CentOS, Debian, Arch, and Windows 2003/2008. Gentoo is what I've
stuck with, and it's great. However, as you should know, X is a bad idea.
You need to be 'into it' if this is the path you're wanting to take. Debian
is a lot easier to maintain, and I recommend that if you're wanting to
I'm using SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and openSUSE since 9.1. Stable and
easy to use.
And even with kernel 3.1.10-1.9-default the performance is great.
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 07:57:23 +0300, Kyle Sanderson kyle.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've used CentOS, Debian, Arch, and Windows 2003/2008.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] OS optimizations for *nix for hlds servers
I agree - i run Gentoo on one box and CentOS on the others and both have
2.6.x kernel. Outperforms 2.4 mostly on HT and Dual CPU boxes (mp
TCP tweaks won't help much :)
This *can* help with consistency of gameplay:
games:~$ cat /etc/cron.d/games-halflife2
# halflife 2 crons
# game servers are all that matter
*/10 * * * *rootps auxwww | grep srcds_i486 | grep -v grep | awk
{'print $2'} | xargs renice -20 -p /dev/null
#
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS optimizations for *nix for hlds servers
TCP tweaks won't help much :)
This *can* help with consistency of gameplay:
games:~$ cat /etc/cron.d/games-halflife2
# halflife 2 crons
# game servers are all that matter
*/10 * * * *rootps auxwww | grep
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:19 PM +0800 Daniel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TCP tweaks won't help much :)
OTOH, if you run TCP-based apps on your game server (such as web or email),
you should prioritize your game packets by marking them with the
MinimizeDelay value in the TOS field, and then
Hello,
Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:17:00PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal:
Anyone have any optimizations/tweaks to the os/network that they want to
share? I thought it might be beneficial to start a thread on it so we could
get input from everyone to see what works / doesnt work.
For Linux...
in my experience (with the first hlds version under cs 1.5/1.6), the 2.4.x
performance on pentium4 was terrible. i then upgraded to 2.6.x and kept sticking
with it every since, even though i'm currently using dual athlon mp boxes.
as far as i recall, most ppl agreed that the performance with 2.6.x
--On Monday, November 22, 2004 9:13 PM -0700 Matt Heler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 0
# change syncookies to 1 if you will use them
net.ipv4.tcp_ecn = 0
net.core.rmem_max = 8388608
net.core.rmem_default = 262143
net.core.wmem_max = 8388608
net.core.wmem_default = 262143
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of raoul
bhatia
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] OS optimizations for *nix for hlds servers
in my experience (with the first hlds version under cs 1.5/1.6), the 2.4.x
performance on pentium4 was terrible. i
Anyone have any optimizations/tweaks to the os/network that they want to
share? I thought it might be beneficial to start a thread on it so we could
get input from everyone to see what works / doesnt work.
--
Dedicated Servers Available
East Coast Only - 1200gb BW
p4 thru xeon - AIM:
But the following in your sysctl.conf on Linux and then issues a sysctl
-p /etc/sysctl.cnf
net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 0
# change syncookies to 1 if you will use them
net.ipv4.tcp_ecn = 0
net.core.rmem_max = 8388608
net.core.rmem_default = 262143
net.core.wmem_max = 8388608
net.core.wmem_default =
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,
56 matches
Mail list logo
