Server Optimization Request

[darkpeace 0]

Note: the below tends to go on a bit, I may 'optimize' it later :P

The server does not send message indicating which player is the 'cause' of desync.

FACT: If one players link suffers or drops the server starts hitting 100% CPU load very fast, until their link settles or they drop after 90sec of "Lossing connection" (which initially takes too long to appear IMHO)

(I have screenshots to prove this, where a player with 6kb/sec joins, starts desyncing, and the server CPU load rises, thus pushing server fps performance way down, to the point where it affects other players.... very bad)

These settings could eliminate desync

(or at least the main cause of it)

============================

It would be nice if the below was configurable by admins:

-MinimumClientFPS to play, (weighted average sustained over 10sec)

-Minimum Bandwidth to play,

-Minimum Bandwidth to join and chat when game in progress.

-Minimum/Maximum Server Bandwidth given per player (not just in total as is the current)

-Maximum Ping to play

-Maximum Ping to join and chat when game in progress.

-Delay before "Lossing connection" (it is too long by far, it should appear or flash yellow the instant it is noticed, if it lasts over 3sec alert other players of the player with a potentially bad link)

-Time (in ms) a Players ping / bandwidth can be 'out of limits set above' before being kicked (setting to 0 just drops the player with a "fix link" message straight away)

Obviosully the ability to detect a resyncing ADSL/Cable would be useful, but not as difficult as it sounds. Being that a player who has sustained over 256kbps (or whatever minimum bandwidth is set to) for 10sec could trigger a flag on the server and thus be excluded from the 'If link drops then kick this player' since they are not on dial-up obviouslly (using 256kbps+ as example) and within 5-120sec thier link should resync.

The option to overide this would thus be useful

As in: "Time (in ms) a Players ping / bandwidth can be 'out of limits set above' before being kicked (setting to 0 just drops the player with a "fix link" message straight away)" above.

I am sure there would be other useful settings to add to the above list.

Note that many of the above are similar to Punk Buster in RTCW.

This would also stop bandwidth cheating using NetLimiter (sonuds dumb, but it can cause a server to desync out and wreck a game).

(Some players cap their upload/download speed to 'cheat', and yes it does work to some degree, the above could combat this)

The above might sound ruthless to some but they would (used correctly) reduce server CPU load (and thus boost server performance), so everyone wins, except the poor bastard causing desync, that should not be playing on your server anyway.

It's 'funny' watching CPU load on a 2nd monitor when a Dial Up or ISDN (single channel 64kbps) player joins a big battle server and within 5 min (usually much sooner) the server CPU hits 100% and stays there, there is initially 'some' desync on that player, and server fps drops like a stone.

(This can be monitored with NetLimiter and Task Manager on a 2nd monitor)

Same is true during an ADSL or Cable 'line resync' sometimes lasting over 90sec (which is the bane of most ADSL owners)

However a simple firmware upgrade (or downgrade) can fix this issue straight away (eg: Recent D-Link DSL-504 firmwares sometimes drop the link to retrain, and sometimes this takes 90sec as it occurs twice for an unknown reason)

Server Performance dives, and in big battles it goes below 8fps, to the "point of no return"..... All because *one player* thought they wouldn't do any harm by joining, or lying about their connection type. Once at 8fps the server it taking 125ms per simulation cycle, and this starts to 'carry over' the desync to all other players, at this point a #reassign or #shutdown is usually done by the server admin (who is surely sick of burning money on a server that some idiot desyncs)

Surely admins need more controll over their assets, some pay AU$3000 a year just to host a box, we don't want people wrecking that for us.

The upside servers can be made more (or less) tolerant of low bandwidth / high ping players to suit the desires of the admin (depending what size battles they wish to host, what drain on CPU they can handle, etc)

Q1) Why does a desyncing player cause OFPR_Server.exe process to start hamming the CPU (100% load) and thus lead to server fps reduction ? (sometimes to the point where it can not recover usually around or under 8fps)

Likely because the server is keeping track of where everyone is in time 'relative' to everyone else, so the load increases exponentially

Using NetLimter to graph bandwidth to/from players it can be noted that some players who lack bandwidth to play larger battles do not drop, they just keep getting "Lossing Connection" over and over until the game ends. (and the game is just one big lagfest because of it)

A simple message in game to a desyncing player (with the cause being a slow link, not ADSL/cable line resync) should just get a message "You lack the required bandwidth to play here, please upgrade your link to a higher speed before returning". Ideally the ID would then be banned for 5+ minutes to deter them from joining again.

Thankfully I have noticed the low (almost 0 at times) upload requirement of players, and I commend the effect put into this.

This would be fantastic at LANs and online alike (I have seen LAN players with dodgy NICs, chipset drivers, NIC drivers, cable, etc, have their connection drop in/out sometimes, ideally they should be warned beforehand, and if they fail to comply then punished by disconnection from the server)

Same online, admins want the above features, badly, to put an end to the main cause of desync. (ignorant players on slow links, or from other countries with stupidly high pings)

The only other causes of desync are non optimized missions, low performance servers being pushed too hard by some missions, and players on max detail getting under 15fps which can cause some desync.*

* - Join a client with only 3-8fps to a high load server and see if your server performance suffers.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Quote[/b] ]Q1) Why does a desyncing player cause OFPR_Server.exe process to start hamming the CPU (100% load) and thus lead to server fps reduction ?

we discovered this quite a few months back as our servers got faster - we saw that slower servers or slower lines would be the cause of mass dysync

this is what is happing,

A) server is fast enough to run CTI

B) Server line is fast enough to run CTI with loads of players

C) Player lags out and the server "hiccups"

D) Servers that can just barely run CTI start to back log information hoping they will catch up - this is dysync - (and why we have min and max bandwidth settings) since the server is only fast enough to run CTI it cant compensate for delays, and dysync becomes non stop because it can not simply catch up from where it fell behind

E) faster servers with faster lines and CPUs can catch up eliminating Dysync after a few minutes which is what you are on to - but this is old information that is all ready known (you have to do allot of reading to find it)

now comes the solutions

there are many, the ones you wish for require two ways of thinking, have the Server EXE kill laggers or have the server it self monitor pings and kill those laggers

but this is where your idea fails

the settings at which you decide when to kick a lagged out client

the server would have to watch the clients and time their lag and if they fail to improve disconnect them

the time it takes to watch for such things two things will happen

A) the client will Disco

B) the client's ping will stabilize

totally defeating what you want to accomplish

In the end all I can say is I commend you for wishful thinking

but you have to see that OFP is 3 years old and our server runs just fine - so BIS wont allocate $$ to fix a 1 minute problem

They have done a dam good job in the past 3 years, please don't expect them to do more

wait for OFP2 to bitch

I know I will

[darkpeace 0]

Here in Australia its a totally different story mate.

A) Most the players lack the bandwidth to play MFCTI

B) Our servers are far faster than you think

C) Server sided bandwidth is ample

Finding has little to do with the server side, it is client related (lack of bandwidth/poor ping).

Server testing was peformed on a system with 1000 Mhz and Dual Geil DDR550 (running at Dual 500 with faster timings to better perform on 1000 Mhz FSB), as memory bandwidth starts to become very important in MFCTI, as I am sure you are aware.

Assuming everyone elses server is slow is rather arrogant. Esp considering your own servers peaks at 32fps, while other servers can actually *sustain over 32fps in MFCTI* once the 'client' end is sorted, alleviating the need for a 4ghz CPU.

I am sure your solution causes your server to reach 100% CPU load rather frequently, if not hit 100% and stay there :P

Far from ideal

There are far better solutions than throwing money into overclocking a server, and there is more than one solution to this problem.

Enforcing that all players have low pings, fast download/upload speeds, are only a few hops away and have firmware that fixes line retraining / resyncing issues is a far cheaper alternative.

And 'client filtering' can be configured at the server end to stop the problem from even occuring

Although CPU power is important hosting MFCTI eliminating the actual 'cause' of desync is a far better solution than allowing it to occur in the first place, and have the server bear the load.

Q) What if the players link does not recover ?

A) You are stuck with recurring desync until the end of the game, or until the player is dropped.

The above settings would help 100's of admins, and boasting about your (peak 32fps, sustained FPS = unknown) server is not actually helping too many admins, sure it attracts some USA players to your server, but most the players in Europe, Asia, Australia & surrounding areas are not really that interested in playing on an overseas server.

I am doubtful, as you are, that any of the above settings would be added to the server, so LANs and wireless WANs are really the best options in Australia until everyone can get real broadband.

No amount of CPU power will help someone on Dual ISDN (128/128kbps) play MFCTI. The infrastructure we have to deal with down here is not great by any means, yet we still acomplish great things regardless. (It forces us to be highly efficient)

I am sure with a few dial up players, the odd ISDN, and slow 256/64 ADSL your server would lag / desync.

================================================

Worlds Fastest Lag Free CTI server (on the Internet perhaps :P)

Roughneck Whore House - rn1.roughnecks.org

P4 4.0 Ghz HT 961 FSB - 1 gig dual DDR PC4500 - Scuzzy HDs

================================================

So the RAM runs at Dual 562.5 Mhz async to 961FSB ?

Or does it run at 480.5 Mhz sync to 961 FSB ?

I am also unaware of a 3329/800 Pentium 4 that would overclock to 4000/961, so I assume your server CPU runs at 4084.25 Mhz

A P4 Galatin (Northwood + 2mb L3 cache, 800 FSB) or Athlon 64 (939 with Dual DDR) at around 2600 Mhz would likely outperform your server before they are overclocked.

[cain2001 0]

So the question, does bandwitdh effect the server that much? Is there a big diffrence between 10-20ms and 150ms?

The biggest problem today is that most servers have max message sent at "512", which means the server will send to many message at the same time when someone desynces the CPU load will already be at 100% and theres no way to catch up.

If the server uses "384" instead the CPU load might never go higher then 95% and then there will be plenty of power to remove the desync.

I belive OFP netcode aint 100% supporting big CTI games, i remember almost 2 years ago on the SWEC server when we played 20vs20 games on ST.P and Desertrats3, with server FPS at 10 and playable.

St.P gives many small messages each second, (many bullets each sec) also in CQB maps server ftps can go from 10 to 20 due to gaps in game play.

On a battlefield1985 map or a CTI theres many big packets for a whole minute. (Tank driving, chopper flying) Games like Joint ops can support 100+ Players with this type of maps, OFP have a max at 40-50 Depending on the server.

So I belive Cleanrock should make a CTI version lite, with basic scripts, say max 20 SQS Files. Then we would have a CTI with 30 players. BUT, atm theres no one who wants to play 30 slots CTIs, just 14ppl ctis with no lag and theres plenty of servers that handels that today.

So the answer is OFP is fine, what we seek is just a waste of time, run a 3.0Ghz server with a decent connection and you will be able to play every single map there is out there. Only thing i want to is to remove the 50fps limit so OFP DMs and CQBs can run their servers at xxx fps like in Counter-strike. A CS server runs at 800fps when they playing for big money, so they can get perfect quality gaming.

[darkpeace 0]

Yeah, Way I see it for CTI is currently:

=============================

-384 kbps minimum downstream

-96kbps minimum upstream*

(certain misconfigured server settings would require the upload figure to be much higher, like 192kbps+)

-85ms maximum ping or less

-Server 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4 (Northwood, 512 L2, 800FSB, Dual DDR) minimum (pref Linux as it may allow for thread length configuration, to get a higher peak and sustainable server fps)

As for the 50fps limit because of the way it was coded it is limited by thread length (so 20ms threads would peak at 1000ms / 20ms = 50fps), the people over at www.udpsoft.com found a way to reconfigure Half-Life to work with 1 or 2ms tics, to get 1000 or 500fps sustainable peaks.

However Half-Life netcode is far different from Flashpoint.

Hopefully Flashpoint 2 will have CTI built in, from the ground up, and by the time it comes out Dual Core CPUs will be available for DIY OFP2 servers, so it best utilise them and perform well.

CTI itself could use a few optimisations aswell. Although I suspect there are limits.

eg:

-Corpses in water should be cleaned up within 60sec

-Pilot corpses should be cleaed up within 60sec

-Stray Ammo should be cleaned up within 60sec

-Disabled Vehicles should be cleaned up within 3 minutes

-A new Repair Truck with new scripting should be made that just 'replaces' the vehicle, this would fix a few underlying issues

Does Mike Mevlin still work on MFCTI, or is it all in CleanRocks hands now ?

[cain2001 0]

I talked to cleanrock earlier today, and asked him if the crcti lagged alot, he said with the new version he never had any problems on decent server.

Only problem with the crcti is that my comp sucks can cant handle it playing at 1500m viewdistance

I belive the next step in CTI is to make a map, where it generate new bushes, roads, cties before each game. So like we all have been saying, lets hope and wait for OFP2

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Assuming everyone elses server is slow is rather arrogant. Esp considering your own servers peaks at 32fps, while other servers can actually *sustain over 32fps in MFCTI* once the 'client' end is sorted, alleviating the need for a 4ghz CPU.

I am sure your solution causes your server to reach 100% CPU load rather frequently, if not hit 100% and stay there :P

Far from ideal

it's not arrogant, we have tested over 9 server types in the last three years running them months at a time and we simply know what is going on in game

all OFP servers will Load to 100% CPU usage - if you actually think a Dual CPU helps the OFP servers you need to go back and re reseach the server loads and and what they can handle - We've spent years on this where you have ot

and as for the 32 FPS you need to read Suma's post on this subject - it's stated clearing why this is caused and the fact that 32 fsp is the same thing as 50 fps simply becuase of a forumla error

the CPY still out puts the same no matter what you see for top end FPS

Yeah, Way I see it for CTI is currently:

=============================

-384 kbps minimum downstream

-96kbps minimum upstream*

(certain misconfigured server settings would require the upload figure to be much higher, like 192kbps+)

-85ms maximum ping or less

-Server 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4 (Northwood, 512 L2, 800FSB, Dual DDR) minimum (pref Linux as it may allow for thread length configuration, to get a higher peak and sustainable server fps)

Yeah, Way I see it for CTI is currently: this is what we run during CTI when the server hiccups the server will push out to 2000 kbps

=============================

-1500-2000 kbps minimum downstream

-1500-2000kbps minimum upstream*

and a 2.4 ghz is not fast enough for CTI and since your line speed is slow and your CPU is slow your whole post is pointless

Power is in the server

Here in Australia its a totally different story mate.

A) Most the players lack the bandwidth to play MFCTI

Finding has little to do with the server side, it is client related (lack of bandwidth/poor ping).

Enforcing that all players have low pings, fast download/upload speeds, are only a few hops away and have firmware that fixes line retraining / resyncing issues is a far cheaper alternative.

And 'client filtering' can be configured at the server end to stop the problem from even occuring

Q) What if the players link does not recover ?

our server out put to clients is 100-250kbs on MFCI 1.16 with 18 clients and will drop as more ppl disconect

your out puts are low due to your server flashpoint.cfg settings, if you think those are better settings and your server lags thats your fault and not OFP servers or BIS since our's works like a charm

and to clue you into gaming client speeds 95% are on fast lines cable of handing the speed i posted 10-20 times over

get your facts straight please

Q) What if the players link does not recover ?

A) You are stuck with recurring desync until the end of the game, or until the player is dropped.

totally wrong - this lasts for a minute and is the fault of the OFP server exe getting confused over that client - it always clears up after a minute and is toally livable

you'll have to live with it im afraid

No amount of CPU power will help someone on Dual ISDN (128/128kbps) play MFCTI. The infrastructure we have to deal with down here is not great by any means, yet we still acomplish great things regardless. (It forces us to be highly efficient)

I am sure with a few dial up players, the odd ISDN, and slow 256/64 ADSL your server would lag / desync.

IDSN players dont really lag much we had two regular players with such lines

and I think you are confusing player Dysync with over all CPU Dysync

as a lagged player starts to lag player's Dysync around him in close quarters will start to rise due to him - this is a formula BIS explained once b4, players that are far away from him will have not as much dysync

if the player lags to death the server does choke but this clears up with in a few minutes after the player is kicked or his line clears up

so your state ment is about 80% true since IDSN can hadle smaller CTIs

================================================

Worlds Fastest Lag Free CTI server (on the Internet perhaps :P)

Roughneck Whore House - rn1.roughnecks.org

P4 4.0 Ghz HT 961 FSB - 1 gig dual DDR PC4400 - Scuzzy HDs

================================================

So the RAM runs at Dual 562.5 Mhz async to 961FSB ?

Or does it run at 480.5 Mhz sync to 961 FSB ?

Our ram is PC4400 (550 mhz) actually and is underclocked in the memory speed settings and then overclocked with a raise in Overal FSB to get the best possible set up and runs the same FSB as the CPU this helps with stability

as for the CPU a 3.4 on a well cooled system works fine for us running above 4.0 ghz

Power is every thing in CTI, if you cant see that with your 2.4 then you have some personal issues you need to sort out

because you dont have the experience with OFP server you think you do

and you tottaly miss the fact our server is the best place to play large scale CTI maps on the net with Kaos right behind us

this statement is not due to arogence it's due to fact that you are trying to discredit a proper server set up with utter nonsense

[RN Malboeuf 12]

I belive OFP netcode aint 100% supporting big CTI games, i remember almost 2 years ago on the SWEC server when we played 20vs20 games on ST.P and Desertrats3, with server FPS at 10 and playable.

So I belive Cleanrock should make a CTI version lite, with basic scripts, say max 20 SQS Files. Then we would have a CTI with 30 players. BUT, atm theres no one who wants to play 30 slots CTIs, just 14ppl ctis with no lag and theres plenty of servers that handels that today.

So the answer is OFP is fine, what we seek is just a waste of time, run a 3.0Ghz server with a decent connection and you will be able to play every single map there is out there.

yes OFP does have its problems and you are right

our 4.0 is simply Over kill we can afford

his comments would be worth the effort he has made if this was the start of OFP2 and the the near end of OFP

as for the CTI stream lining we have started to do this with 1.16 and have seen our Ground war version (no choppers) last 4-5 hours with out an once of lag with 18 players

avaible at www.mfcti.com which is the new starter league for MFCTI

[Placebo 29]

RN Malboeuf when you quote and reply to a number of points raised by a person do it all in one reply please, 6 posts one after another is messy and lazy.

[darkpeace 0]

I enjoy our different views and solutions to the same problem

I personally use Geil DDR550, running on 2.8v at 500mhz with the faster timings (CAS 2.5) on a 1000mhz FSB, on a Intel i865pe (no point having PAT at 1000 FSB, it doesn't work). Mainly due to price/performance ratio, its AU$150 cheaper than other DDR550, has similar timings, and performs 99% as well, it handles higher voltages though and is guaranteed at 3.1v

We both have a similar mind when it comes to hardware I think, but I find an overclocked Athlon 64FX still outperforms a highly overclocked Pentium 4, with less cooling issues (2U rack for online servers / towers for LAN servers)

OFPR might be a few years old, but Half-Life (based on Quake II engine) is even older, and look what it has become, would it be a bad thing for BIS to strive for a community that size, with tht much effort put into server performance.

Why go to a LAN to play Counter-Strike, when you can do that fine on Dial-Up ?

Might as well encourage Flashpoint, as "The LAN Battle simulator to play"

When was the last time you had a dial-up player on an MFCTI server ?

We get them constantly here

You describe a different problem, and equally different solutions

Also coding is not very hard, doing the above is far from impossible (it would take a dedicated programmer under 1 week to do and test)

===========

RN Malboeuf: "and you tottaly miss the fact our server is the best place to play large scale CTI maps on the net with Kaos right behind us"

Yep there is seriosuly nothing like a playing at:

Roughnecks Whore House (www.roughnecks.org) - Fastest CTI server on the net!

-With 279ms+ ping to 64.27.26.116:2302 (using far smaller than 1024 byte packets)

-From Australia

-In vastly different TimeZone

-When the server is normally empty (as it is now, 8:07PM GMT+10)

There are more servers outside America than within it, I come from a Flashpoint Minority myself, just like America is a Flashpoint Minority compared to Europe. Europe being where most of the battles happen.

Thankfully due to ties with British players (semi realistic SAS squads, with Aussies and Brits) we get to hear some of the news

Server Tally:

==========

56 in North America

3 in South America

12 in Asia (Japan, China, South Korea)

228 in Europe

5 in Australia (to support New Zealand and Oceania Region)

RN Malboeuf: "this statement is not due to arogence it's due to fact that you are trying to discredit a proper server set up with utter nonsense"

I never discredited the RoughNeck server, I just came to share a finding that you are still in dennial about.

===========

I still agree a fast server eliminates many problems:

Examples below:

----------------

P4 Galatin (2MB L3 cache, 512kb L2 cache, 800 FSB, HyperThreaded w/ OFPR_Server.exe affinity on CPU0) I still think it an ideal solution, esp when OFPR_Server.exe runs on around 7 threads (performace reduction over multiple CPUs due to cache coherency and load limits over multiple CPUs), of course it would be overclocked via the FSB with higher performance memory.

When the P4 PreScott gets 2MB L2 cache and a smaller die, it would overclock more, and likely outperform the above.

On the AMD front is the Athlon 64/FX which are around 25% - 60% faster at equal clock speeds at certain tasks, so when they go 90nm and reach 2.8ghz (possibly with cache or Dual DDR2 memory controller upgrade) they will start to dominate the (overclocked) OFPR server field.

However combining the above settings I suggested (this thread is titled "Server Optimization Request" after all) with a fast server would be the more ideal solution.

Thankfully in a LAN environment with vast resources (some of) the above is possible today, however hosting such a server on the Internet is becoming of less and less interest to me, as we have a few servers here already, the continued costs of 10mbps dedicated line are not justifiable financially (in Australia), so local LANs with insane (once off) costs are a better option for many, esp since 85% of my mates have dial-up, and a good chunk of them can't even get a v90/v92/k56flex connection (33.6kbps or less)

Now, I do highly doubt that BIS will ever go back and improve the server with the above suggestions, esp considering how sidetracked this thread has become. Hopefully they are working on *OFPR2 server now*, getting multiple simulation cycles in 1 thread timeslice, and spanning the (OFPR2 Server) load over multiple CPUs so when Dual Core stuff comes out before OFP2 is released they will have prepared for it, and we won't have this "single cpu = faster" situation we have now.

Some brief history:

===================

Australia mate, Australia, I don't need or want to hear about the Internet bandwidth in America. It does not help me at all. It would be considered an unrealistic scenario to any scientist or engineer planning in Australia.

I've been playing OFP since the demo mate, and analysing it just as long as you have but on LANs, for LANs, with Gigabit backbones, since in Spring 2001 Australia did not have jack in the way of internet connections faster than 128kbps, so the only real option was LANs.

I started in Multiplayer gaming LANs back in the days of one really old flight-sim for 286/386/486 systems, good old Retaliator F-22/F-29, which did not support LANs, it was pure manual serial/modem handshake and 2 players max.

Moving onto Doom using IPX networking in DOS latter on, before games had dedicated servers, or used TCP/IP, back when BBS's where a better way to share information than the Internet, and FidoNet was as good as it got.

Obviously a slow progression to TCP/IP, 4+ players and dedicated gaming servers occurred, then in Spring 2001 we all got Flashpoint, and eventually patched to 1.46, the rest is recent history.

As I have an interest in http://sourceforge.net/ I found CTI by 'accident' one day, at http://mfcti.sourceforge.net - from there the real LANs begun, Counter-Strike was left for dead, even Battlefield 1942 could not compete.

===================

Try a 10 hour Everon CTI (on 1.1b) then a 20 hour Nogova CTI only 8 hours later. 4-5 hours of anything isn't really a test [:P]

Heck I run MemTest86 on workstations for 24 hours before installing an OS to ensure there are no 'pre burn in memory errors', one of which would render the OS useless (not straight away, but over time that 1 corrupt bit would be noticed, and cause problems)

Bear in mind 1.1b was not that server friendly, and the server was only an Athlon XP PR1600@PR2000 with apx 320 FSB, there was minimum desync and side finances where in scientific notation at the end of the game [b)], (no joke it was)

This was back before the building limits where put in, and barracks could be placed inside other barracks, and other buildings, you could hide a smaller building inside a church for example, and build anywhere you desired.

We played realtime (no time acceleration) and actually battled well into the game night (in Australia we are hardasses).

Best way to win a LAN is to be relentless, many opponents fold after 4 - 7 hours, so long as you can fight harder, longer, even if your lossing the battle, just hold out for hours, if the other side all falls asleep then you win. All their offensive and most defensive capability stop. Usually a ref would declare the winner, but sometimes you just want to eliminate them all B)

===================

Q) What if the players link does not recover ?

A) You are stuck with recurring desync until the end of the game, or until the player is dropped.

I did say "What if the players link *does not* recover", not when it recoveres what happens, which is what you correctly noted above, when a player link recovers fully in a timely manner the server does recover, usually almost straight away, however as I stated:

"Q) What if the players link does not recover ?"

Well obviously since it never recovered, and may be choking on 6kbps or nothing at all for periods during line retrains (our phone lines in Australia are not the best mate)

Then this happens:

"A) You are stuck with recurring desync until the end of the game, or until the player is dropped."

It can be recreated in lab conditions faster and prob cheaper than it can be recreated online, either method yeilds factual, consistant and reliable results.

===================

RN Malboeuf: "Power is every thing in CTI, if you cant see that with your 2.4 then you have some personal issues you need to sort out"

When did I say the server CPU was 2.4ghz ?

I recommended it as a *minimum* for the server CPU for small CTIs.

How the CPU relates to personal issues I will never know.

***Bear in mind that MFCTI 0.98 was around well before 2.4ghz CPUs.***

===================

RN Malboeuf: "-1500-2000 kbps minimum downstream / -1500-2000kbps minimum upstream"

As I stated above the *players* minimum recommended is 384/96, I would not try to host a MFCTI server for multiple players on such a link, it would be at an ISP on 10/100 Ethernet, if not on a LAN on a Gigabit backbone.

===================

RN Malboeuf: "...if you actually think a Dual CPU helps the OFP servers you need to go back and re reseach the server loads and what they can handle - We've spent years on this where you have not"

I have probably spent longer doing this stuff than most, I just don't post it all over the forums since making money from computer knowledge in my spare time is better than giving away free advise [:P]

To quote myself from above: "Hopefully *Flashpoint 2* will have CTI built in, from the ground up, and by the time it comes out *Dual Core* CPUs will be available for DIY OFP2 servers, so it best utilise them and perform well."

I was referring to OFP2, not OFPR, which everyone is well aware does not improve in performance over 2 or more CPUs, or over HyperThreaded virtual CPUs, or over VMware virtual CPUs. (cache coherency, and the fact it limits itself to 50% over 2 CPUs, or 25% over 4 CPUs)

Dual Core CPUs have only just gone into development (Intel & AMD wise, excluding the UltraSPARCs grand plans that never where), and OFP2 better bloody damn well use them, or http://www.es.com may be providing the next "grand scale war simulation for civilians"

===================

Don't get my wrong, with the CTIs of today a 3ghz or faster CPU would be better than 2.4ghz

As for the 1.5 - 2.0 mbps for the server, it's not an issue with Intel CSA 1gbps integrated into the Northbridge section of the system (thus using no PCI / Southbridge bandwidth, which helps with other things)

The 384/96 kbps per player minimum sustained would be accurate, we both agree on that (LAN or Internet wise), however Dual ISDN (128 kbps) does not meet this requirement in the downstream direction, so when push comes to shove and they don't have the bandwidth to download everything realtime, they desync.

===================

RN Malboeuf: "and to clue you into gaming client speeds 95% are on fast lines cable of handing the speed i posted 10-20 times over"

Well to clue you in, *in Australia*, as I already mentioned, only 10% of the 20 million of us actually have 'access' to broadband. (Thats access to it, usually at work, the home installation figure is far far lower, most people are still on dial-up)

Apx 1 million of us have ADSL at home (and the statisics include partners twice, so the real figure will be lower than that still)

Funny thing is WOLF host the VBS1 video file, for the world to see on the OGN server.

WOLf being purely Australian / New Zealand based

And as we cover 2 countries plus the surrounding Oceanic area our player base is not so concentrated (esp considering not many people in our corner of the world play OFPR), unlike America where 100 players might live within 500km of each other, and the telco infrastructure is everywhere you look.

We also don't like our Telco very much, too much advertising, too little R&D and improvement plans, and jack all infrastructure out in the bush. So unless you live in a capital city (and in the ACT the nations capital the population is only 300,000 or so) your pretty much stuck on 33.6 kbps (if your lucky, more like 24kbps)

===================

The above is just the tip of the iceberg of the stuff I deal with every day.

They call us the lucky country, but when it comes to IT, we got shit fast PCs (we are as inovative in IT as we are in combat, just do a lookup on "Australia" AND "Soldier" for an idea.

However we have bugger all bandwidth amoung us, mostly in frame relays and racks of ISDN (which is too expensive for most people and does not aggregate bandwidth in a manner that allows for gaming in typical 'home' setups)

===================

So I await the day of OFPR2 CTI, and when ADSL2+ is released in Australia so we can all get 6mbps upload in Australia, but our lame telco holds us back. (We might be a Westernised country, but our infrastructure has not changed much, many old wooden phone poles cover the width of our country still)

The fastest link you can get here for home is 1536/256 ADSL (some do 2048/384 at the DSLAM now though), but that is assuming you are one of the 5-8% of people with ADSL at home.

Some have to put up with 256/64 ADSL, and the rest can't even get ADSL (dispite manipulated statisitics that say 95% of us can get ADSL, even though there are only enough ports for 10% of us)

[darkpeace 0]

and as for the 32 FPS you need to read Suma's post on this subject - it's stated clearing why this is caused and the fact that 32 fsp is the same thing as 50 fps simply becuase of a forumla error

the CPY still out puts the same no matter what you see for top end FPS

Sorry to double post (it didn't raise my post count) but I thought this was worth an extra entry in the forum.

Where was it said this is a "forumla error" ?

Last I heard it was timeslice length related, and they wouldn't recode it, so 32fps means 32fps and 50fps means 50fps.

It appears to me to be 'wanting' 20ms timeslices, and getting 2 x 15.625ms ones instead (thus [20ms / (2x15.625ms)] = 64%. Where 64% of 50fps peak being 32fps.

Or 1000ms / 20ms lengh timeslices = 50fps peak

vs 1000ms / (2x15.625ms) len timeslices = 32fps peak

Where the maximum server fps is limited by the amount of timeslices in 1 sec, but the OFPR_Server.exe seams to want 20ms, and this gets rounded to 2x15.625ms in most Windows current operating systems.

I guess that is why 107 of 276 OFPR Servers are Linux based, the other admins just shy away from it, or don't use it because they are unaware it can raise performance, and save dollars.

Since work wants me to learn SuSe 9.1 Pro, I may aswell migrate the GarageLAN, ACT server to it, and reap the benefits

[russin 0]

wow 2 malbo's hahaha look at all that typing hehe

[RN Malboeuf 12]

RN Malboeuf when you quote and reply to a number of points raised by a person do it all in one reply please, 6 posts one after another is messy and lazy.

this is a big thread with lots of detail, and it is the best way to do as such

thanks

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Quote[/b] ]Yep there is seriosuly nothing like a playing at:

Roughnecks Whore House (www.roughnecks.org) - Fastest CTI server on the net!

-With 279ms+ ping to 64.27.26.116:2302 (using far smaller than 1024 byte packets)

-From Australia

-In vastly different TimeZone

-When the server is normally empty (as it is now, 8:07PM GMT+10)

that may be your line, we have lots of Auzi Regulars like CAGE who plays onour server or KAOS server and he has no such issues, his MS remains in the 100s

Quote[/b] ]There are more servers outside America than within it, I come from a Flashpoint Minority myself, just like America is a Flashpoint Minority compared to Europe. Europe being where most of the battles happen.

156 European servers 16 in use average (not 200+ plus dead servers simply do not count)

41 NA servers with 12 in use

You better have a look at the All seeing Aye and re-think that statement you may see allot of servers out side of the NA but one simple fact remains - NA servers are used more

Quote[/b] ]I never discredited the RoughNeck server, I just came to share a finding that you are still in dennial about.

there is no denial that high end P4 Brutes blow away all other server - plus there is no one running high end 64bit machines to prove other wise - lower end 64 bits are just simply not up to the task and you are in denial of that fact it seems

Quote[/b] ]I've been playing OFP since the demo mate, and analysing it just as long as you have but on LANs, for LANs, with Gigabit backbones, since in Spring 2001 Australia did not have jack in the way of internet connections faster than 128kbps, so the only real option was LANs

I know that - but your problems stems from the fact that you think a coding problem can be fixed and dysync lowered - comparing OFP to CS and the information of a gaming area that is active makes me think you dont have a clue over the data xfer required in over compared to CS - CS is simple and thusly needs little in the way of CPU and NetCONs - you simply can not compare the two

Quote[/b] ]This was back before the building limits where put in, and barracks could be placed inside other barracks

huh? you need to get out more there are no buuilding limits - please do not rate some ones hack version to MFCTI - there are no building limits in MFCTI 1.16 there are Vehicle limits yes but on a derver like ours we have raised those twice as high as any other server

Quote[/b] ]I did say "What if the players link *does not* recover",

yes you did

see it says here

Q) What if the players link does not recover ?

Quote[/b] ]When did I say the server CPU was 2.4ghz

-Server 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4 (Northwood, 512 L2, 800FSB, Dual DDR) minimum (pref Linux as it may allow for thread length configuration, to get a higher peak and sustainable server fps)

Quote[/b] ]Well to clue you in, *in Australia*, as I already mentioned, only 10% of the 20 million of us actually have 'access' to broadband. (Thats access to it, usually at work, the home installation figure is far far lower, most people are still on dial-up)

I will say this once

- Sorry you cant play thanks for all the fish

you miss the fact you are supposed to kick the player

Quote[/b] ]I have probably spent longer doing this stuff than most, I just don't post it all over the forums since making money from computer knowledge in my spare time is better than giving away free advise [:P]

well is sure does not show - the fact remains is you ask for the impossible because you dont seem to comprehend the obvious

I will re-stat it for you in simple terms

Get a faster server

[RN Malboeuf 12]

I guess that is why 107 of 276 OFPR Servers are Linux based, the other admins just shy away from it, or don't use it because they are unaware it can raise performance, and save dollars.

you're confused i think - every one knows Win2k servers are better for OFP and the fact that they out perform all linux servers - the time slice issue is in no way affecting our servers - the fact remains win2k based servers have broke all the OFP records - every single linux attempt has failed

Linux can not handle hard core CTI maps because of its design - you need to research that again since you missed out on that

Since we have proved this MS has donated win2k3 to RN in thanks - they took notice in a very hard Tech question I posted with ther win2k support divisions that made them all think - our results were confirmed by MS showing linux based multy CPUs Suffer after a simple hour in OFP CTI whre MS does not

I swear you really need to catch up on things dude

[Placebo 29]

RN Malboeuf when you quote and reply to a number of points raised by a person do it all in one reply please, 6 posts one after another is messy and lazy.

this is a big thread with lots of detail, and it is the best way to do as such

thanks

No it's not the best way, it's the easiest way for you and that's not acceptable, using proper paragraphs and quoting tags it's easy to reply to everything in one post and to make it clear and understandable.

[darkpeace 0]

This is going nowhere fast.

Cage, like me, I suspect is one of the few with 1536/256 ADSL, I would call him my equal in any local OFPR game, he is an exemplary soldier. How he performs on an overseas server however I remain to see.

Frankly I am surprised he gets 100ms to an American server (considering the speed of light, electrity, and other laws of physics, he should getting around 250 - 300 ms)

The servers several TimeZones away look empty to me too, and less are in use, wow, that makes perfect sense, this would be because you are around 6 or so hours behind them. While we are 10 hours ahead of them. I doubt you even play on any non American servers, let alone servers in another time zone.

Eg: The US servers look empty to me now mate (different TimeZones would be the obvious reason), but I am sure if I didn't sleep for 24 hours and recorded the results every 60 sec then the servers (in any country) would be far, far from idle.

Using the same logic you applied above that means only 6 USA servers are active out of 57, the other 51 should be decommissioned, you can not eb seriously thinking the Europe servers (like the homeland of Flashpoint) are idle so often.

Do you honestly think people would put resources into hosting idle / empty servers ?, the ISPs would deactivate them within 2 months of almost no use for sure.

I assure you, I have little (if any) catching up to do, and am yet to see even one shred of proof that Windows servers are faster, (esp those stuck peaking at 32fps)

If a server peaks at 50fps (20ms timeslices), and another server peaks at 32fps (2x15.625ms timeslices), it is very obvious which one will be faster, It isn't really a question of Operating System, however statistically speaking almost 100% of Windows servers peak at 32fps, and almost 100% of Linux servers peak at 50fps.

When 31.25ms < 20ms your logic alone is flawed

Thus when 50fps gives same performance as 32fps the same basic fundamentals of math apply.

For the same reason reducing floating point accuracy over distance may improve performance (or decrease CPU load, and thus provide a smoother MFCTI experience)

Now forgetting your server can do anything, as it is only 25% faster than a 3ghz server, and only has 1mb cache.

MinErrorToSend=0.02 (double default) might help in CTI/RTS missions, Where as MinErrorToSend=0.005 (half default) might help in smaller Close Quarter combat on fast servers.

Thus having mutliple server/flashpoint cfg files is way to go, esp at LANs, where bandwidth is rarely an issue.

Now you can say this does not matter on your server, well thats 1 of 276 servers, and the other 275 server admins no doubt are after settings they can also experiement with to record results, and their servers may only be 2.4ghz give or take.

I am currently test this (deliberately) on an Athlon XP PR2800+ (2083mhz, Barton, 512 kb L2, 333fsb), and 2 hours into "MFCTI 1.16A Nogova, Heavy Resistance, High Income, Weather" (out since the 17th from Mike Melvin) the server CPU sometimes spikes to 100%, but sits at a rather nice 97%, thus giving 30-32fps on a Windows server.

Now the same test on a Linux server, with CPU at 97% load, would yeild 30 - 50fps (30fps during the spikes and 50fps when under 100% load).

So keeping the server around 97% lets the peak fps occur more often (duh), thus raising the average, and noticable (player perceived) performce.

Consider this is on an older spec server, 2hours into a heavy game.

When I am shown a Win2K server peaking at 50fps I will want to know how it was done.

Ideally I think the trick is running around 97% average, so on a decent server (far far faster than the above, an almost constant 40-50fps can be acheived in MFCTI)

Also, I still have yet to see the proof / formula you speak of that indicates that 32fps =(same performance as)= 50fps.

Considering your 4ghz server is running under 32fps (you say it hits 100% load often, thus it can't be at 32fps in MFCTI),and almost all your players are on high speed American Cable, with low ping and high bandwidth, then I would conclude, based on the facts above, that Linux (can) be faster when/if configured.

Just like a Windows server it takes ages to setup, tweak, record results (#MONITOR 1, 60, 120, 300 & 1800 used, over several games) to balance settings and CPU to that 'magic' 97%.

So as is obvious to anyone, there is usually more than one solution to a problem, some are effecient and scale well (over a range of CPU grades), others throw raw CPU power, bandwidth, mass advertising (it helps convince the masses I'll give it that much), resources, etc.

Both are perfectly acceptable responces to a problem (neither party is ignoring it, which would be the worst thing to do)

[darkpeace 0]

Here is a question for you Mr RN Malboeuf:

Does a Linux server peaking at 50fps (at 99% or less CPU load) scale the same as a Windows server peaking at 32fps load ?

eg:

-At 50% load they will both run at peak fps (50 vs 32)

-At 99% load they will both run at peak fps (50 vs 32)

-At 100%+ load they will start to slow down

*Now permitting 110% load in (for simplicity sake, have it just mean *below peak fps*, where 100% is peak fps, and more means it runs slower as documented)

-At 200%* load would the Linux Server run at 25fps, while the Windows server ran at 16fps ?

-At 400%* load would the Linux Server run at 12.5fps while the Windows server ran at 8fps ?

If not, (as in they scale the same past 100% load / aka: both do 16fps at 200%* normal load) then please explain why, since you obviously understand this far better than anyone else.

If so, (as in Windows/Linux scale differently past the 100% normal load) then please explain your answer aswell.

I would be most interested in your reply to this.

Please don't use the 'you can't have more than 100% load' as I defined it above, where Under 100% CPU load = peak fps (duh), but once you hit 100% the server 'slows down its outputs per second' to compensate,...

So past 100% CPU load do Windows and Linux scale the same, or differently. Only you have the knowledge to answer this question, as you say you have extensivly tested it.

I look forward to your reply / explanation.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Quote[/b] ]Frankly I am surprised he gets 100ms to an American server (considering the speed of light, electrity, and other laws of physics, he should getting around 250 - 300 ms)

mabey before you post that you should check where our server is located

we're one of the few servers on the west cost, 70% NA servers east, 20% are central and 10% are West

Quote[/b] ]I doubt you even play on any non American servers, let alone servers in another time zone

do it all the time, please dont assume stuff which you do not know

Quote[/b] ]you can not eb seriously thinking the Europe servers (like the homeland of Flashpoint) are idle so often

actualy that is a afact that no one with the EYE will dispute, at any givn time there are more servers then players - once again get your facts right - you're corect on the time issue but you failed to factor in the fact there are still more Euro servers and still the equal amount of NA players in thier repective time zones

Quote[/b] ]Do you honestly think people would put resources into hosting idle / empty servers ?, the ISPs would deactivate them within 2 months of almost no use for sure.

huh? many servers are run free on work or office lines or out of Univeristy lines, those servers remain in-active due to thier lag issues and are not in any way considered main stream servers - we know since we have and all the other squad paid servers are the most used power is where the game is at - I thought i explained that to you all ready

Quote[/b] ]If a server peaks at 50fps (20ms timeslices), and another server peaks at 32fps (2x15.625ms timeslices), it is very obvious which one will be faster, It isn't really a question of Operating System, however statistically speaking almost 100% of Windows servers peak at 32fps, and almost 100% of Linux servers peak at 50fps

So why does linux Lag in major CTIs and win2k servers do not? why do you complain about lag issues yet we do not? our server has no such issues of the forever dysync - we get mabey 1 minute of lag per game, and not continual dysync like every linux server does - like cmon there has been years of testing on this

A) the ease of use for win servers alone makes them better

B) linux proves unstable in high MP CTI games over a period of 45 minutes - you should read up on why

C) the FPS are in no way an issue with our servers - why becuase your machines lag and ours do not - simple

Quote[/b] ]Now forgetting your server can do anything, as it is only 25% faster than a 3ghz server, and only has 1mb cache

lol it's allot faster then that, you are factoring in just GHZ and not taking into consideration of the higher FSB - we are one of the two known servers to be heavly overlocked - but even a 3.0 HT properly set up (FD with Binding and Win2k)is still as good as our - this is a known fact and is what allot of the squads are runnning - our squad has over 170 members in 4 Divisions and we thusly have the resoucres for servers in all Division, hell our server is only $88 a month and cheaper then every other squads servers (cept DK they get thier's pretty much free lol)

Quote[/b] ]I am currently test this (deliberately) on an Athlon XP PR2800+ (2083mhz, Barton, 512 kb L2, 333fsb), and 2 hours into "MFCTI 1.16A Nogova, Heavy Resistance, High Income, Weather" (out since the 17th from Mike Melvin) the server CPU sometimes spikes to 100%, but sits at a rather nice 97%, thus giving 30-32fps on a Windows server.

Now the same test on a Linux server, with CPU at 97% load, would yeild 30 - 50fps (30fps during the spikes and 50fps when under 100% load).

our macine does better

Quote[/b] ]and almost all your players are on high speed American Cable, with low ping and high bandwidth, then I would conclude, based on the facts above, that Linux (can) be faster when/if configured.

Our OFP squad is 50/50 NA and UK players and no one has issues - hell CHina and Japan squads request our servers every week for matches - guess why - but hey they are closer to you yet dont request your server

Quote[/b] ]Just like a Windows server it takes ages to setup, tweak,

lol - our servers are transferable - thusly it takes 6 minutes for a real server to dload off of ours, 2 mins to extraxt and 1 minute to turn on - ask any one I helped to set up OFP servers

Quote[/b] ]So as is obvious to anyone, there is usually more than one solution to a problem 0-Both are perfectly acceptable responces to a problem

true - but your's is unrealistic due to time,

[darkpeace 0]

Good to hear, but you didn't answer my question at all or provide any evidence. You also advised that the timeslice issue has nothing to do with it, when Suma has advised otherwise.

In my previous thread Suma advised that the fps will not be configurable by server admin (which would require massive changes to OFPR_Server.exe).

So a server that sustains 50fps all the time is faster than one can sustain only 32fps all the time (duh). This holds true so long as CPU load is under 99% (duh)

This is esp when **CTI IS NOT CONCERNED**, esp if your CTI is peaking your CPU, which I won't discuss, as it can be set up so that the CPU does not become a bottleneck)

I know you will rebut this saying your 4ghz CPU is not a bottleneck, however if it hits 99% load then it must be definition be classes as a bottleneck, and your 4ghz CPU does hit 100% in the examples you are providing, thus the sub 32fps performance, I mean, sure 32fps does not 'lag' as such... not that noticeably anyway ... then thus 50fps constant would 'lag' even less noticeably (20ms sever simulation cycle plus player ping on a 100mbps LAN is not noticeable, esp if desync ms for all players is 0, not 1, not 5, not 100000, just 0 all the time)

The 3ghz server I refer to has a 1000 FSB and Dual 550 (at 500mhz) DDR RAM (www.geilusa.com), with faster timings due to lower speed. So your server is 'less than' 25% faster than it, not more, I know how much difference the extra FSB and memory throughput make, otherwise I wouldn't have spent the cash on the RAM....

Of couse compared to a stock 3000/800/HT/Northwood with 512kb L2 cache, it would be more than 25% faster, I do agree with you (you know me better than to build an uber server with under 1000mhz mate )

I am not 'complaining' about lag either, I just made a post regarding a few suggestions to remove desync (its good in some ways for normal maps, however more control would be highly desirable, these requests would be easier to implement than multiple CPU support, or the ability to limit the server fps to whatever you want (255fps anyone ?), as this required massive changes as Suma advised.

But, BIS being BIS, I doubt they will incorperate even 1 of the above requests (I mean if they don't help you then I don't really care, esp if they help me help 200+ other admins, on more normal servers, and benefit the LAN community for more fair play / comps / etc)

My thread was then 'hi-jacked' (no offence intended), and spiralled out of control, mostly free adverising for a certain 4ghz Server with only 961 FSB, with no real evidence or proof about Linux been slower and just a repeated comment "everyone knows Win2K is faster".

Q) Is that Win2K Server, Adv Server, Workstation ?

(each have different timeslice lengths enforced by the Kernal, and the RoughNeck server still peaks at 32fps, prob averages around 28fps), so I can estimate your timeslices are 15.625ms, thus you are likely using Win2K Workstation.

I did say I was deliberately testing on a lower end server (to help other admins with a similar server). It is obvious that an Athlon XP PR2800+ could never have a 1000 FSB, and using high speed (500+) medium latency (CAS 2.5) memory would be folly on an Athlon XP anyway, esp an nForce 2 (Abit NF7-S) varient.

(Strange how I got 50 - 26fps out of such a low end machine, perhaps other admins on more of a budget than ourselves could benefit from this)

What was this you mention about multiple (not multy) CPUs on a Linux server ? (after adivising that multiple CPUs do not work well for OFPR_Server, due to cache coherency issues, and it been limited to less than 50% on each CPU, as in [1/(# of CPUs)]% load on each CPU, which is pointless, but it was never designed around it I guess)

You could just lock the Linux OFPR_Server process (affinity) to CPU0 and watch performance shoot up like a rocket to 50-55fps (I think its really 50fps, just the 'calibration' tends to 'wobble' at the start)

Using multiple CPUs on Linux and Windows = Roughtly Equal if under 32fps, otherwise Linux is faster

Locking to CPU0 in Linux and Windows = Linux faster

Locking CPU0 in Windows, and using multiple CPUs in Linux = Windows faster (but benchmark is not equal since CPU affinity was only performed on Windows, not Linux, which really fudges the results does it not ?)

(I assume you do *fair* benchmark comparisons, and not lock affinity to CPU0 in Windows, then in Linux run the server process over 2 or 4 CPUs, which would degrade performace, as we both agree)

I am well aware of the cache coherency issues over multiple CPUs, as above.

Just in your last post you mentioned multiple CPUs and Linux (basically throwing a spanner in the works for one set of benchmarks, and then streamlining Windows, while using Linux defaults, so benchmark = unfair = not really all that useful a comparison between the two Operating Systems)

I still have yet to see an explanation of your Linux Testing, regarding how they scaled (both locked CPU0 affinity) once the went under 50fps (or 32fps in Win2K) , or rather once they hit 100% CPU, did the Linux server suddenly drop to sub 32fps, as well as the Windows server, or did they both scale more evenly (as expected) from 50fps (or 32fps in Win2K) down to 3fps as tougher and tougher test missions where used ?

I ask as I am really interested in the results of your test (which I suspect was rigged as explained above, but I will know soon enough)

[RN Malboeuf 12]

lets make this simple

I'll show you my lag free server

and you show me your laggy server

Clue in dude - your server suffers from lag - this means you are out to lunch and dont have a clue

Our server does not lag - this is because we have been running OFP servers for three years and KNOW what we are talking about - not to mention I help run 9 other servers - and guess what they dont even have the issues you have or claim to think exist

nighty

[RN Malboeuf 12]

My thread was then 'hi-jacked' (no offence intended), and spiralled out of control, mostly free adverising for a certain 4ghz Server with only 961 FSB, with no real evidence or proof about Linux been slower and just a repeated comment "everyone knows Win2K is faster".

proof is in the forums under several threads

oh and proof is in our Game play

poof is in me not asking BIS to fix what is all ready a CPU HOGGIN game - thus the reasoning behind 15 squad's use of 3.0+ ghz power servers

all running windows except 3

[darkpeace 0]

Please provide the URLs with the explanation when providing a responce, it is just forum ethics

Were the benchmarks performed recently where a Windows server and a Linux server both running 1.96 both with CPU0 affinity only, where equally compared, where the Windows server outperformed the Linux one ?

I have never seen such a thead in the forums, even when searching, there is little real information available, just word of mouth (usually the loudest most frequent mouth too :P)

(Sure there are some dodgy comparisons, but not where the setup was equal on both platforms, mainly regarding the CPU affinity, as I've stated multiple times this is where my interest does lie, you also never provided an example on how the performance scaled down from 50fps as tougher and tougher test missions where loaded for benchmarking)

I asked for an explanation of your Linux testing, how it was done, etc, I still have not seen this, if you provide a link / URL to it, then it will be far easier for all.

I suspect this scenario currently:

-Linux was tried once, with CPU affinity set over all CPUs and as such suffered poor performance. Windows was then tried multiple times with CPU affinity was locked on 1 CPU (that is about as rigged as you can get test wise)

-I have several servers I use for testing

-They are for LANs

-You will notice above I don't boast about a certain server being the fastest in the world, etc

-Tried several different setups above using most configurations available today (see: http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId=647 for current Pentium 4 CPUs, including the Gallatin, the AMD CPUs most are aware of, and I have yet to try an Athlon 64/FX or Opeteron 1xx series in my own testing)

-I also don't use offensive language such as your repeated "Get a clue" comments, at all.

-I have provided a testing method, and other ideas, and yet to hear any real feedback regarding comparions

-I find a 3ghz/1000fsb (2400/800/HT overclocked) quite ample for MFCTI 0.99 to 1.16a core based missions (sadly many are based on 1.1 yet use their own internal revision such as 1.157, etc).

Esp once CPU affinity it set to real CPU0 (HyperThreading is Enabled in BIOS, yey Affinity is locked, it boosts performance slightly, and other tasks can be set to use virtual CPU1, vs having the CPU appear to the OS as just CPU0)

I only asked for info, that was not provided over several posts. I am starting to get the feeling I have been doing this longer than you have, and somehow your Linux setup / configuration was flawed (you mentioned 'multy CPU' on the Linux server, yet did not mention he affinity settings used in your benchmarks)

I also plan on testing a 2.6ghz Athlon 64 (1mb L2 cache, Dual DDR), at various clock speeds to see where it 'equals' a P4, so I can make better judgements (as the Athlon performs quite well esp considering its vastly slower clock speed). I suspect 2.6ghz+ is where it starts to tread on Intels heals, even with 1mb L2 cache I suspect it may beat out the P4 Gallatin (Northwood + 2MB L3 cache)

Besides being uninformative (and taking my time to read, and learning nothing since you provide no details on your test), I am also starting to consider your posting method rather (or very) offensive

Considering if the above settings existed your could use them on your own server to make it even better than it is now, then that would be cool I am sure you'd agree (assuming they implement them and you try them out, which prob won't happen)

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Please provide the URLs with the explanation when providing a responce, it is just forum ethics

Were the benchmarks performed recently where a Windows server and a Linux server both running 1.96 both with CPU0 affinity only, where equally compared, where the Windows server outperformed the Linux one ?

please use the search button, and stop wasting our time on nonsense - and please stop disregarding known CPU tests and trials

we have posted countless posts on server types and speeds and results, from linux to win2k -XP - hell we had a 98 server 3 years back too as the servers change we tested new server types, real world tests - speeds, the works

the simple fact remains, you lag - we dont - please dont make me put it more simpler since it may insult you

[darkpeace 0]

Did the search, and so such comparison was made (as per my request above)

3 years ago is quite awhile, was the comparison you spoke of (far above) a Win98 vs Linux benchmark on the old RN Dual Xeon server ?

I did not know Win98 supported Dual CPUs / MPS 1.1 or 1.4 (it doesn't but Linux does)

That answers my question (as far as I am concerned the comparison was made before the cache coherency issue was disclosed)

Thats all I wanted to know, and it has been dragged out to like 10+ posts, all a waste of time to any reader.

Not even worth summarizing, I'll perform my own tests

FYI: My 3000mhz (Northwood core Intel Pentium 4) on my 1000 fsb using Dual Geil DDR550+ does not ****ing lag, esp on a 1gbps backbone LAN, plugged into the backbone. with half the players on Gigabit anyway.

I mean seriosuly if you think that the above setup lags, you need a reality check (then again you did imply that 2x15.625ms was shorter than 20ms, and also advised the fps issue has nothing to do with timeslice length)

I asked a few simple questions

You replied saying my server lagged (it is on a LAN and has 0ms desync 100% of the time, the testing server above, the crudgy Athlon XP PR2800+, also rarely hits 100% CPU in MFCTI)

You then just kept saying Windows was faster, and beifly explained (in laymans terms) the dual CPU issue (neither of my servers are dual CPU, the comment refered to OFPR2 and BIS progress on it)

Then said my server lagged a few more times

Basically all he above posts are just adds for your server, which from Australia both Cage and myself get 250ms+ (using 32 byte packets), we also have several bandwidth bottlenecks between here and there via the International links, etc, etc (long explation short we do not get 1536kbps downstream from the states)

Thus our desire to setup local servers, and LAN communitys in our own country.

Sure beats playing on a server several time zones away, which you keep saying is the fastest in the world. I assure you that it isn't, since it hits 100% CPU and stays there, and PEAKS at 32fps (thus is sustains less)

My guess is your Min/Max bandwidth are set really, really high, so high that CPU hits 100% load.

But its fast, and doesn't lag for local American players, good for you

Thanks for hi-jacking this thread, and boosting your post count.

FFS: LAN lagging, god you come up with some crap