Linux server beta

[HitmanFF 6]

Signature check now works fine for Linux version. Thanks Bebul & Co!

I can confirm this. I haven't been able to test for very long yet, but there were no signature check timeouts so far!

Excellent job

[whisper 0]

I now get a client disconnection everytime several minutes after mission launch....

A simple "Session Lost" message on client side, server logs only says "player is disconnected"

Signature check timeout?

[Cormega 0]

Any word on server netcode?

what word do you expect?

Expect to hear if its possible for large scale battles (100+ players) with the current net code, if not, will it be addressed soon or is it a waste of time to organize a tournament based on large scale battles, basically.

[whisper 0]

some update on my session lost issues : I'm disconnected faster when I connect with QG enabled on client than when I've no addon/mod loaded.

It's like the signature check last shorter when fewer addons (quite logical) and is then less prone to timeout. Very wild guess.

I've a question though, not necesseraly linux related : I've not installed QG on the server, though I can connect on server with QG enabled on the client. Is that normal?

[Lobanak 0]

I've a question though, not necesseraly linux related : I've not installed QG on the server, though I can connect on server with QG enabled on the client. Is that normal?

Have you enabled equalMod required in your config file? than this is the problem.

[Bebul 0]

some update on my session lost issues : I'm disconnected faster when I connect with QG enabled on client than when I've no addon/mod loaded.

It's like the signature check last shorter when fewer addons (quite logical) and is then less prone to timeout. Very wild guess.

I've a question though, not necesseraly linux related : I've not installed QG on the server, though I can connect on server with QG enabled on the client. Is that normal?

Assume you are disconnected due to signature check timeout. I think, the "session lost" should appear just after the island and everything is loaded. If you try to connect again, the data should be cached, so the timeout is almost impossible to appear again. So, if you are disconnected again and again, it seems, some addon has wrong singature - is somewhat corrupted (maybe some of your trials to test signature checking functionality?).

I think, you can connect on the server with QG enabled on the client, as addons which will be used during MP session driven by server are not curious about QG...

[whisper 0]

some update on my session lost issues : I'm disconnected faster when I connect with QG enabled on client than when I've no addon/mod loaded.

It's like the signature check last shorter when fewer addons (quite logical) and is then less prone to timeout. Very wild guess.

I've a question though, not necesseraly linux related : I've not installed QG on the server, though I can connect on server with QG enabled on the client. Is that normal?

Assume you are disconnected due to signature check timeout. I think, the "session lost" should appear just after the island and everything is loaded. If you try to connect again, the data should be cached, so the timeout is almost impossible to appear again. So, if you are disconnected again and again, it seems, some addon has wrong singature - is somewhat corrupted (maybe some of your trials to test signature checking functionality?).

As far as I remember, I didn't modify anything on original BI files since installation, and the server files come from this client installation.

The disconnect doesn't appear during connection or on mission launch. It is several mimnutes after game launch, while playing. The delay before being disconnected is not always the same.

Isn't there a signature test done again after mission launch, at regular intervals?

Perhaps all this is not related to signature checks. I'll try with signature check disabled to test it tonight.

Quote[/b] ]I think, you can connect on the server with QG enabled on the client, as addons which will be used during MP session driven by server are not curious about QG...

You mean, signatures are verified only on addons used by missions? Interesting.

[HitmanFF 6]

You mean, signatures are verified only on addons used by missions? Interesting.

Looks like all addons' signatures are verified upon connecting to the server. If you have an unsigned addon, you get disconnected, regardless of the server's mission.

[whisper 0]

You mean, signatures are verified only on addons used by missions? Interesting.

Looks like all addons' signatures are verified upon connecting to the server. If you have an unsigned addon, you get disconnected, regardless of the server's mission.

good remark! You're right. So it's probably only for QG addons that server is "not curious"

[Bebul 0]

You mean, signatures are verified only on addons used by missions? Interesting.

Looks like all addons' signatures are verified upon connecting to the server. If you have an unsigned addon, you get disconnected, regardless of the server's mission.

good remark! You're right. So it's probably only for QG addons that server is "not curious"

You are right, I was mistaken. (All addon's signatures are verified.)

(In spite of server being not curious about QG addons, the client is always boasting and punishes itself )

[whisper 0]

I still am a bit confused about how the signature system works, I try to gather as much infos about it.

If I'm not mistaken, a client with a signed addon not present on server should also be kicked, isn't it? QG addons are only an exception?

[Dwarden 1124]

if i'm not mistake imagine the signature system like PGP for emails ...

it 'should' work same way with the public 'read' key and 'private' sign key

[Bebul 0]

I still am a bit confused about how the signature system works, I try to gather as much infos about it.

If I'm not mistaken, a client with a signed addon not present on server should also be kicked, isn't it? QG addons are only an exception?

Client with a signed addon, even not present on server, should not be kicked for such file. What is signed should be considered OK by server. (If server does not trust some keys, it should not list them in its keys folder.)

QG addons are not any exceptions.

[whisper 0]

OK, I think I got it

There is no way some1 could sign a cheat add-on with BI key, for example, so we are ok

[FinnTux 0]

Anyone having problems with changing missions as admin?

1) log in as admin - #login <adminpw>

2) #missions

3) server crashes

This has happened with every linux version so far

I have Debian 4.0 running in VMWare server 1.0.4 (had 1.0.3)

[[GLT] Legislator 62]

Regarding to my post on page 10 of this thread I found the solution of the problem. It has nothing to do with any server version It's an error caused by an errornous addon of queens gambit. Just wanna know you that.

Your linux server files run very good We haven't encounter any problems! Thanks to BIS and everyone who worked so hard on it.

[Revellion 0]

Anyone having problems with changing missions as admin?

1) log in as admin - #login <adminpw>

2) #missions

3) server crashes

This has happened with every linux version so far

I have Debian 4.0 running in VMWare server 1.0.4 (had 1.0.3)

not at all here. works fine on mine. tried running it on a non virtual machine for the sake of testing?.

[SeppSchrot 0]

Anyone having problems with changing missions as admin?

1) log in as admin - #login <adminpw>

2) #missions

3) server crashes

This has happened with every linux version so far

I have Debian 4.0 running in VMWare server 1.0.4 (had 1.0.3)

I encounter this issue when there are missions whose names are not all lowercase. Remember, all addons/missions need to have lowercase file names. Use tolower for it.

(Yet I think the proper reaction would be an error message, not a crash)

I found a minor flaw:

When I stop the server within some seconds after starting, it throws an segmentation fault instead of shutting down properly.

I think this is when server process is interrupted while doing some init stuff.

Oh and one last thing: I think you should include a precompiled tolower.c instead of relying on all admins have an compiler installed.

[FinnTux 0]

I'm pretty sure I had all files lowercase. And yes, same happened when running the server in bare metal. Actually in two machines (debian 3.1 and 4.0).

Good news is that it works now. I don't know if it is the new server binary or the fact that I re-uploaded my game installation to the server. Or both...

[X-Rolando 0]

Howdy... I'm running opensuse 10.3 x64 (GCC 4.2, 2.6.22 kernel) on an X2 3800+ and I'm getting some error messages and then a dump.

The first error (No entry '.profilePathDefault' probably has something to do with me not designating the "My Documents\Arma" equivalent. Would anyone mind refreshing my memory and tell me how and where to designate profilePathDefault? I've tried "-profiles=" so far.

You can find the full thing here.

[HitmanFF 6]

Howdy... I'm running opensuse 10.3 x64 (GCC 4.2, 2.6.22 kernel) on an X2 3800+ and I'm getting some error messages and then a dump.

The first error (No entry '.profilePathDefault' probably has something to do with me not designating the "My Documents\Arma" equivalent. Would anyone mind refreshing my memory and tell me how and where to designate profilePathDefault? I've tried "-profiles=" so far.

You can find the full thing here.

The first few messages (No entry... and PreNLOD) sound like the arma server is unable to open the right files (pbos and bin). Could be access rights, or lower vs. upper case (did you run the install script or at least tolower?). Is the server being started from the right folder? What happens if you try running as root (for testing purposes only, but this would then exclude access rights issues).

[X-Rolando 0]

I did run the install script but for some reason the Dta folder wasn't renamed to dta. Thanks for the heads up!

[Bebul 0]

has anyone noticed a particular bug with many missions when running the armaserver on a particular piece of hardware?

a good sample is Evolution R b14 on a Xeon 3050 2.13Ghz Dual-Core CPU with 2GB ram on 32bit Ubuntu.

On all other servers i've tested so far on other hardware the mission works fine. as in Server FPS is any between 20-40 or so and AIs spawns in towns fine and scripts are runned.

But on this Xeon machine's arma server. some scripts fails to run properly when triggers are entered and the alike. and the server FPS is around 51-64. and afaik the server should have an internal limit at 50 FPS yet it skyrockets above it.

and the memory use reported in #monitor is 55M while the real process is accounted for using 267MB.

Any BI Dev able to explain why this occurs?.

We are unable to reproduce this, but we have fixed something definitely low level, which can possibly help.

New linux server is comming soon.

[Bebul 0]

New beta of the linux server is available from the same location.

BI ftp server

[Revellion 0]

has anyone noticed a particular bug with many missions when running the armaserver on a particular piece of hardware?

a good sample is Evolution R b14 on a Xeon 3050 2.13Ghz Dual-Core CPU with 2GB ram on 32bit Ubuntu.

On all other servers i've tested so far on other hardware the mission works fine. as in Server FPS is any between 20-40 or so and AIs spawns in towns fine and scripts are runned.

But on this Xeon machine's arma server. some scripts fails to run properly when triggers are entered and the alike. and the server FPS is around 51-64. and afaik the server should have an internal limit at 50 FPS yet it skyrockets above it.

and the memory use reported in #monitor is 55M while the real process is accounted for using 267MB.

Any BI Dev able to explain why this occurs?.

We are unable to reproduce this, but we have fixed something definitely low level, which can possibly help.

New linux server is comming soon.

tested with new binary. still same behaviour.