I've a big problem, my NS server under Linux , takes me a lot of CPU.
For example, in a P4, 1 mb L2 Cache, 1 GB RAM, 2.8 GhZ and HT, with 16 slots, it takes 67% Of CPU.. i think it's a lot.
I've tested also in a DualXeon, 2 GB ram, 2.8 GhZ 2 micros, and It seems not work well.., becouse virtual stats are collapsed and idle is 0%.
I've seen windows NS too, it takes 14 players about 3% in a dual xeon 2.4 ghz processor..
Is there a fix about my linux server ? or the solution is to install windows ?..
Thnx a lot, mi mail is : crk01@newlightsystems.com
Full Version: Linux Ns Server Takes Lot Of Cpu, Not Windows One
Unknown Worlds Forums > Natural Selection > Natural Selection Discussion > General Server Discussion
running HT when the HLDS process can't handle HD is a waste of half of your processor. I have a p4 and run HLDS as well and I noticed a good gain going from HT to normal single processor mode. Without a HT aware app you are chopping the speed of your CPU in half to "simulate" two processors and insure that if a single app runs away with a CPU other apps can use the "other half" of the HT cpu.
I'm running other half life based servers, like counter strike, or DOD, and the extreme CPU load only appears to be in NS, not in CS 1.5, 1.6 or DOD for example.
When I ran Redhat 7.3 I would almost never go over 30-35% CPU usage. Most people couldn't believe how little CPU usage I was using, I couldn't understand why other people weren't getting the same statistics.
Recently, I've upgraded my system to Fedora Core 2 and now my usage is around 60% for a 14 player server. Over the next couple of days I'm going to stick another Hard disk in my system and reload RedHat 7.3 to see if the usage goes back down as an experiment.
Recently, I've upgraded my system to Fedora Core 2 and now my usage is around 60% for a 14 player server. Over the next couple of days I'm going to stick another Hard disk in my system and reload RedHat 7.3 to see if the usage goes back down as an experiment.
Any results from that test?
What you are seeing here is evidence of what I call 'distro bloat' and redhat suffers from it worse than any other distro, partly as a side effect from the distro's popularity. As RH the company has more and more people request/demand their distro support a wider and wider hardware platform, the kernel they ship gets more and more bloated.
I'd suggest you look into some other distros, slackware or debian being prime examples of distros with a light footprint and a good stock kernel. Even if you insist on runnng redhat you can always rebuild your kernel and strip out all the crap your computer will never have in it. For example, if your computer lacks SCSI you can remove a massive amt of code from the kernel that you will never need. Same goes for USB, on most servers the USB code will never be needed.
Check out the kernel howto for instructions on how to rebuild your kernel. Running slackware I never see more than about 20% cpu usage so you really should try a few other distros. All those slick looking GUIs and graphics that you can't avoid running redhat really slow your server down.
I'd suggest you look into some other distros, slackware or debian being prime examples of distros with a light footprint and a good stock kernel. Even if you insist on runnng redhat you can always rebuild your kernel and strip out all the crap your computer will never have in it. For example, if your computer lacks SCSI you can remove a massive amt of code from the kernel that you will never need. Same goes for USB, on most servers the USB code will never be needed.
Check out the kernel howto for instructions on how to rebuild your kernel. Running slackware I never see more than about 20% cpu usage so you really should try a few other distros. All those slick looking GUIs and graphics that you can't avoid running redhat really slow your server down.
| QUOTE (KParks @ Jul 29 2004, 11:50 PM) |
| Any results from that test? |
No, I haven't done it yet. Rather I'm playing with custom kernel compiling in hopes I can figure out a universal way to make this better. If I find something that works I'll write up a guide to help others. If nothing works I might go back to trying the reload of 7.3 again.
Under Fedora Core 2 (FC2) I tried recompiling the 2.6.7 kernel and selecting only optimizations for the AMD processor. Then I tried it for just the Pentium Pro. Then I stripped out everything to the bare minimum that I needed in order to make the system run. Each time it didn't seem to make a difference in how much CPU usage the HLDS process took up.
Right after I starting the HLDS server it would be sitting there taking up .3 to 4% of the cpu with no one on the server. When I joined the server, it would jump up to 5%
So, I took a spare hard disk, downloaded the RedHat 7.3 ISO images and installed that again. Guess what, I'm back to the same CPU usage I was before, about 30-35% for a 14 player (on Classic) server.
From here on I'm just going to be talking out loud, maybe this will click with someone or maybe I'll just be babbling:
I have a real hard time blaming this on Distro bloat since I pretty much stripped out everything except the drivers, file systems and CPU optimizations when I recompiled the kernel for FC2. I think there is something else going on here. Could it have something to do with the version of the C libraries on a system (unless they are all statically linked)?
I noticed something different between the two systems. First, in the HLDS console if I type "stats" on the Redhat 7.3 system I show 35-49 FPS. When I do that on the FC2 system I show 70-95 fps. Could this be an indicator of cpu usage? The FPS is doubled or nearly doubled on the FC2 system vs the RH7.3 system and so is the CPU usage.
I think this might have something to do with the HZ settings in the kernels. The HZ setting increases the interactivity of the server. Basically the amount of times per second the Kernel is interrupted to do something else. At a HZ=100 setting the Kernel is interrupted every 10ms, at 512 it's approx 5ms and 1000 its every 1ms.
In this KernelTrap article they talk about how previously the 2.4 kernel (the one in my 7.3 box) is typically set at HZ=100. On Redhat 8 and 9 Kernels this is set to HZ=512. Nearly all 2.5/2.6 Kernels are set at HZ=1000. Could this one change affect the perfomance of Linux systems so dramatically? I think I'm going to see what happens if I recompile the FC2 kernel with HZ=100 setting...this might take a while so don't hold your breath.
Right after I starting the HLDS server it would be sitting there taking up .3 to 4% of the cpu with no one on the server. When I joined the server, it would jump up to 5%
So, I took a spare hard disk, downloaded the RedHat 7.3 ISO images and installed that again. Guess what, I'm back to the same CPU usage I was before, about 30-35% for a 14 player (on Classic) server.
From here on I'm just going to be talking out loud, maybe this will click with someone or maybe I'll just be babbling:
I have a real hard time blaming this on Distro bloat since I pretty much stripped out everything except the drivers, file systems and CPU optimizations when I recompiled the kernel for FC2. I think there is something else going on here. Could it have something to do with the version of the C libraries on a system (unless they are all statically linked)?
I noticed something different between the two systems. First, in the HLDS console if I type "stats" on the Redhat 7.3 system I show 35-49 FPS. When I do that on the FC2 system I show 70-95 fps. Could this be an indicator of cpu usage? The FPS is doubled or nearly doubled on the FC2 system vs the RH7.3 system and so is the CPU usage.
I think this might have something to do with the HZ settings in the kernels. The HZ setting increases the interactivity of the server. Basically the amount of times per second the Kernel is interrupted to do something else. At a HZ=100 setting the Kernel is interrupted every 10ms, at 512 it's approx 5ms and 1000 its every 1ms.
In this KernelTrap article they talk about how previously the 2.4 kernel (the one in my 7.3 box) is typically set at HZ=100. On Redhat 8 and 9 Kernels this is set to HZ=512. Nearly all 2.5/2.6 Kernels are set at HZ=1000. Could this one change affect the perfomance of Linux systems so dramatically? I think I'm going to see what happens if I recompile the FC2 kernel with HZ=100 setting...this might take a while so don't hold your breath.
I would have to say you're most likely right. In FreeBSD -pingboost doesn't work, so we up the HZ of the kernel which does the same thing. ie increase increase server fps, which increases cpu usage, and lowers players pings.
Also in one of the valve mailing lists someone (I believe steven hartland) found that some versions of the linux kernel (2.4 I believe) incorrectly report the cpu usage via top.
http://www.mail-archive.com/hlds_linux@lis...m/msg27542.html
This is perhaps not so likely in your case considering the fps is lower as well. If it was the same fps then I'd be more inclined that it was being reported incorrectly.
Also in one of the valve mailing lists someone (I believe steven hartland) found that some versions of the linux kernel (2.4 I believe) incorrectly report the cpu usage via top.
http://www.mail-archive.com/hlds_linux@lis...m/msg27542.html
This is perhaps not so likely in your case considering the fps is lower as well. If it was the same fps then I'd be more inclined that it was being reported incorrectly.
This is from a thread between Vadakill and I:
| QUOTE | ||
Well, alot has changed. First off, using patches are the best way to get performance. http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/ patch your kernel with it. any ck# will do. They include the staircase Process Schedular. Info available here. Keep in mind that the amount of CPU latency more important that actual CPU usage. For example, your latency was 5ms and mine was <1ms, then if we both used identical systems and util was 50%, my pings would be lower than yours and my system would be more responsive via SSH. ck patch sets are geared for desktops...however,
Meaning this might be something to experiement with. I haven't run a NS server in quite a while. But in theory, HL isn't a server.  hahah, Silly I know, but listen. HL isn't a realtime process either, so WTH is it? Its an interactive process, meaning if you leave ineractivity on, it *should* get more time slices (lower latency) per cycle. If you renice it, it will be given a minumum amount of time slices in the schedular. And if bursting is enabled (/proc/sys/kernel/interactive) then we should see a large performance boost by using more time slices.If you have alot of I/O activity, in your lilo or grub append evelator=cfq (i spelled it wrong, but you know what I mean). This will lighten disk activity and lower disk iowait. It is a Fair Queuing Async IO schedular. meaning disk reads are very fast and writes are placed when they have a chance. Another big problem with servers is memory. Cron jobs and old file handles being cached into memory. 2.6 includes a really cool feature called swappiness (/proc/sys/vm/swappiness) echo # > /proc/sys/vm/swappiness where # is a value between 0 and 100. 100 means commit alot of stuff to VM, 0 means hold out as long as you can. default is 60. You might want to set this to 30, this way map changes are swapped out and the ingame memory growth doesn't require any swap commits. HZ settings should be 1000 or atleast 500, this is due to the fact that HL needs more clock cycles that a db server. So, in short, turn off pre-emption, bump HZ to 1000, enable "Use register Arguments", :MTRR support", use ACPI if you have it. Now, you might not see a change in cpu utility, but HL should run better  Sorry It took me so long to check this thread, I just haven't been checking my email  I hope this was informative and helpful. |
Now, with that all said. Vada was onto somthing.
| QUOTE |
I noticed something different between the two systems. First, in the HLDS console if I type "stats" on the Redhat 7.3 system I show 35-49 FPS. When I do that on the FC2 system I show 70-95 fps. Could this be an indicator of cpu usage? The FPS is doubled or nearly doubled on the FC2 system vs the RH7.3 system and so is the CPU usage. |
CPU usage is not an indicator of HLDS performance. FPS is all that matter. 100%, 40%, who cares really. 20% CPU and 14FPS = The suck. 100% and 75FPS = l33t lag free server. For example. SETI and Dnet clients take 100% CPU usage, but their nice level is VERY low. If you renice to -20 or so, then it occupies more minimum time slices reducing other processes abliltiy to use those slices. HLDS can utilize more CPU time (resulting in higher FPS) because it occupies more slices. HZ has to do with the number of ticks per timeslice I believe. maybe want to google for it.
edit: HT now has a penality in SMP evalutation now as of 2.6.5 or 2.6.6. you can download schedutils (by Robert Love) to set CPU Affinity for HLDS
Utter BS to system lag:
- System "bloat"
- crappy distros
- windows is better
- NS needs -O3 -march=athlon-xp
- NS was written for windows and not linux
- linux is becoming more unstable with 2.6
- the 2.4 is better for servers than 2.6
im thinking that the cpu usage and the fps are proportional to eachother. if you use hl booster and pump the fps up to 500, the cpu usage is stuck at 50% with 0 players on it.
then, if you turn hl booster off and the fps drops back down to 60 the cpu usage drops down to 1-2%
and since the hl engine is based on fps, that would be a good assumption.
then, if you turn hl booster off and the fps drops back down to 60 the cpu usage drops down to 1-2%
and since the hl engine is based on fps, that would be a good assumption.
I dont have a problem with CPU useage (16 players 24% CPU PEAK) My problem is RAM, it seems to not be clearing the ram its using on MAP Change, on first statup the RAM is on about 34% -- as-soon as the map changes, it goes up to 99% - and stays there till i kill the server, which takes it t oabout 75%, i re-boot the machine and its back on the low 34% (this 34% is after the server has been started, before first map change)
System Specs
AMX XP2800+
GB DDR 400 Ram (Corsair CL2.5)
120GB hdd (SATA)
Redhat 9
HLDS_L 1.1.1.2 (Insecure RCON)
I have the latest admin mod and amx 9.7
System Specs
AMX XP2800+
GB DDR 400 Ram (Corsair CL2.5)
120GB hdd (SATA)
Redhat 9
HLDS_L 1.1.1.2 (Insecure RCON)
I have the latest admin mod and amx 9.7
| QUOTE (GiGaBiTe @ Sep 16 2004, 10:49 AM) |
| im thinking that the cpu usage and the fps are proportional to eachother. if you use hl booster and pump the fps up to 500, the cpu usage is stuck at 50% with 0 players on it. then, if you turn hl booster off and the fps drops back down to 60 the cpu usage drops down to 1-2% and since the hl engine is based on fps, that would be a good assumption. |
Proportain...maybe...but not enough to even make a graph by it. There is a 'correlation' between FPS and CPU usage. But like I said, they aren't truely proportional to each other. Too man factors play into running this type of usage. (meaning the HLserver).
Ghozer:
What NS are you running? You probably don't have a memory leak if it is being "freed" when you kill the pid. Look at these and see if it helps:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=1...light=ram+usage
http://home.earthlink.net/~jknapka/linux-mm/vmoutline.html
only a Small percentage is being freed.. heres some more exact figures (obviously cant be EXACT cause that would be down to the byte but 
)
Fresh Boot 33% Used
Start HLDS_L with NS - 56% Used
Change Map - 99% Used
Kill HLDS_L with NS - 75% used
IT Doesnt free the full 66% that it should free if It freed ALL that NS used...
if its 33% without HLDS_L and 99% With it (after map change) - when i kill it it should free up 66% of the ram, returning it back to 33% -- which it doesnt... :\
)Fresh Boot 33% Used
Start HLDS_L with NS - 56% Used
Change Map - 99% Used
Kill HLDS_L with NS - 75% used
IT Doesnt free the full 66% that it should free if It freed ALL that NS used...
if its 33% without HLDS_L and 99% With it (after map change) - when i kill it it should free up 66% of the ram, returning it back to 33% -- which it doesnt... :\
| QUOTE (Ghozer @ Sep 17 2004, 09:02 PM) |
only a Small percentage is being freed.. heres some more exact figures (obviously cant be EXACT cause that would be down to the byte but  )Fresh Boot 33% Used Start HLDS_L with NS - 56% Used Change Map - 99% Used Kill HLDS_L with NS - 75% used IT Doesnt free the full 66% that it should free if It freed ALL that NS used... if its 33% without HLDS_L and 99% With it (after map change) - when i kill it it should free up 66% of the ram, returning it back to 33% -- which it doesnt... :\ |
Type in free -m and you'll see that its not all really *used*. You should really read those links that I gave you. I promise, its very informative
For example, check out my system info on http://users.evilsquid.net/phpsysinfo/ and http://littlenemo.evilsquid.net/sysinfo/
Both of which are production servers and you'll see that ran is using "100%". But If it were really that high, I'd be swapping, which I'm not using any. Read those articles I gave you, then explain the VM system quite well.
hmm, i think hlds has problems reporting accurate cpu usage. look at hlds's report of cpu usage and at the same time look at the operating systems report. i was amazed at what the difference was.
windows reported
cpu#1 26%
cpu#2 9%
hlds reported
cpu#1 90%
maybe we can con valve into releasing the hlds source so we can start optimizing it.
windows reported
cpu#1 26%
cpu#2 9%
hlds reported
cpu#1 90%
maybe we can con valve into releasing the hlds source so we can start optimizing it.
I've actually never seen CS or TS, or other mods for that matter go over 10-15% on my linux hlds. NS has only been the one where you have 16 players and the cpu is @ 70-80%.
Due to this, I am going to go back to windows since there is really no motivation to "fix" the problem on linux....
sigh
Due to this, I am going to go back to windows since there is really no motivation to "fix" the problem on linux....
sigh
Hi all.
I tested the server on a P4 ( now without booster ) with preemtible activated and SMP ( P4 with hipertrheading ) and the CPU Load on kernel 2.6 is "lower" at TOP but it gets lower performance than booster -1 or -3 of course.
I think that there must be a logical combination of lots of parametres starting with kernel and finishing in tickrate.
I assume also that NS tooks anytime, anyway more resources than any HL mod.
So, now i run it at sys_ticrate 300, kernel 2.6 and it goes normal, fps are up and down, but i think i can optimize this touching sys_ticrates.
I tested the server on a P4 ( now without booster ) with preemtible activated and SMP ( P4 with hipertrheading ) and the CPU Load on kernel 2.6 is "lower" at TOP but it gets lower performance than booster -1 or -3 of course.
I think that there must be a logical combination of lots of parametres starting with kernel and finishing in tickrate.
I assume also that NS tooks anytime, anyway more resources than any HL mod.
So, now i run it at sys_ticrate 300, kernel 2.6 and it goes normal, fps are up and down, but i think i can optimize this touching sys_ticrates.
i stopped using hl booster on my server because it caused lots of server instaility and caused frequent crashes with a small amount of players (around 8 or so) and steam dont seem to handle it as well as won did.
| QUOTE (CrK01 @ Sep 21 2004, 09:23 AM) |
| Hi all. I tested the server on a P4 ( now without booster ) with preemtible activated and SMP ( P4 with hipertrheading ) and the CPU Load on kernel 2.6 is "lower" at TOP but it gets lower performance than booster -1 or -3 of course. I think that there must be a logical combination of lots of parametres starting with kernel and finishing in tickrate. I assume also that NS tooks anytime, anyway more resources than any HL mod. So, now i run it at sys_ticrate 300, kernel 2.6 and it goes normal, fps are up and down, but i think i can optimize this touching sys_ticrates. |
I'm curious, did you enable the SMP(HT) or just SMP ? And which version of 2.6? 2.6.8.1 is latest as of this writting.
Ok, I'm reading all your very clever ideas and would like to note that the BEST performance optimization is to turn log files off.
NS is way over the top with the information about each and every bullet and this causes a nasty hard disk thrashing. Switching log files off dropped my ping from 250 to 60 and my cpu from 99% to
NS is way over the top with the information about each and every bullet and this causes a nasty hard disk thrashing. Switching log files off dropped my ping from 250 to 60 and my cpu from 99% to
| CODE |
| PID PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND USER 1896 14 -1 215m 114m 10m R 66.9 12.9 2105:26 hlds_i686 Balrgsnapper1 |
The above is after a long game of ns_hera with 16 players on debian kernel 2.6.8 (and no patches or tweaks, which it does need for other reasons)
Hows about the mod team assign a ram drive of about 10 meg for log files which are swapped to disk end of the round while every one is in the ready room or is that too sensible and involves too few kernel tweaks?
RAM is cheap, CPUs are not so cheap
Puzl seems to think (and i guess would know) that Linux is getting a knee cap job from the Steam Team.
well, the truth is it is.
Linux is a modular operating system used mainly by programmers...
Each module is compiled specificly for compatibility and optimizations with the hardware that the software is being run on.
What -insert whoever the hell runs steam here- is doing is they are realeasing one package that is supposed to run on all machines...
And thats not even the worst thing, they are using shortcuts and and hackeyed strategies to "get things done" at the cost of performance, truth is they dont much care for linux.... Steam runs bad with ALL halflife mods when run under the linux platform, its not just natural-selection.
As much as i love linux, and as much as I hate using windows for ANY kind of server, i would say that it just dosent make sense to run a steam server on linux if you can do it on windows.... mind you this is a very recent change of opinion on my part.
Who cares about the mass security holes? Its a gameserver for gods sake, it dosent hold any creditcard numbers. Besides, you can strip windows down so much that theres barely anything left to hack, and you can be anal about ports and such.
With that said, i run my server linux =P the only reason right now is that many other software applications are running on it and are more critical than the gameserver, and they were programmed to work on linux only.
Linux is a modular operating system used mainly by programmers...
Each module is compiled specificly for compatibility and optimizations with the hardware that the software is being run on.
What -insert whoever the hell runs steam here- is doing is they are realeasing one package that is supposed to run on all machines...
And thats not even the worst thing, they are using shortcuts and and hackeyed strategies to "get things done" at the cost of performance, truth is they dont much care for linux.... Steam runs bad with ALL halflife mods when run under the linux platform, its not just natural-selection.
As much as i love linux, and as much as I hate using windows for ANY kind of server, i would say that it just dosent make sense to run a steam server on linux if you can do it on windows.... mind you this is a very recent change of opinion on my part.
Who cares about the mass security holes? Its a gameserver for gods sake, it dosent hold any creditcard numbers. Besides, you can strip windows down so much that theres barely anything left to hack, and you can be anal about ports and such.
With that said, i run my server linux =P the only reason right now is that many other software applications are running on it and are more critical than the gameserver, and they were programmed to work on linux only.
on fedora core 3, with 10 players on a P4 2.0 ghz, the cpu usage is around 25-30%
its just the more players that join, the higher the ping gets, even if they on lan.
its just the more players that join, the higher the ping gets, even if they on lan.
I'f i were to setup windows on a box for hosting game-servers, would I need CAL's for each player that connects?
From reading the licensing terms on microsoft's website it appears not, however I have no experience with this so I was wondering if someone has a MS Server OS running game servers and knows what the situation is with licensing.
From reading the licensing terms on microsoft's website it appears not, however I have no experience with this so I was wondering if someone has a MS Server OS running game servers and knows what the situation is with licensing.
I'd say Microsoft has bigger fish to fry.
I've exactly got the same problem a 12-14 Player server is taking about 70 - 80% OF Cpu...
Cpu is a XP3200+, even though sys_ticrate is at 1000 (For better ping) it shouldnt be that high am i correct ?
i read the kernel recompile guide from VadaKill and havent tried it yet cause the server is in a datacenter not close to my home
So is this cpu usage normal at sys_ticrate of 1000 ?
Cpu is a XP3200+, even though sys_ticrate is at 1000 (For better ping) it shouldnt be that high am i correct ?
i read the kernel recompile guide from VadaKill and havent tried it yet cause the server is in a datacenter not close to my home
So is this cpu usage normal at sys_ticrate of 1000 ?
| QUOTE (frG @ Feb 21 2005, 09:02 AM) |
| Cpu is a XP3200+, even though sys_ticrate is at 1000 (For better ping) it shouldnt be that high am i correct ? |
Jeeze! The default 100. I never modify my ticrate and everything works fine. Jacking the rate up as high as it can go will of course increase your CPU overhead. Try reducing it. HL2DM's default ticrate is 66, and CS:S is 33.
| QUOTE (radonix @ Feb 16 2005, 01:46 AM) |
| I'f i were to setup windows on a box for hosting game-servers, would I need CAL's for each player that connects? From reading the licensing terms on microsoft's website it appears not, however I have no experience with this so I was wondering if someone has a MS Server OS running game servers and knows what the situation is with licensing. |
If your worried about it - use 'nix
MY english is not good. sry about this first. I like to share sum of my experience.
I m running linux for my ns server. I op 2 servers. 1 is ns 1 is co.
HW config both same. P4 2.4(socket 478)HT enable, 512MB ram, 80G SATA HD.asus p4p800.
SW config. Fedora core 2 running now. plugin, metamod 1.17.4p20,amx0.99,AMXMODX1.0 on 1 server.
B4 I use FC1(running 3.0b5). when over around 1x players on the server playing, it lag like in hell. & i checked the stats. it nvr up over 50fps(48.x-49.x), cpu loading around 6x-7x%.
Then I upgraded to FC2 kernel 2.6.9-1.11_FC2smp(running 3.0b5) I can have over 20 players(server max 24 players) online without any lag. the stats was 8x-99.3fps. cpu loading maximum is 5x%. it works fine.
Now. use same version of kernel running ns3.0, when over 15 players online. it also lag to 1xx-2xx ping.(no plugins has changed.) & the stats normal(no one on server) is 83.x-100fps. but when over 1x players, it go from 3-100 fps, very unstable. then I updated the kernel to kernel 2.6.10-1.14_FC2smp & the result is
stats
I m running linux for my ns server. I op 2 servers. 1 is ns 1 is co.
HW config both same. P4 2.4(socket 478)HT enable, 512MB ram, 80G SATA HD.asus p4p800.
SW config. Fedora core 2 running now. plugin, metamod 1.17.4p20,amx0.99,AMXMODX1.0 on 1 server.
B4 I use FC1(running 3.0b5). when over around 1x players on the server playing, it lag like in hell. & i checked the stats. it nvr up over 50fps(48.x-49.x), cpu loading around 6x-7x%.
Then I upgraded to FC2 kernel 2.6.9-1.11_FC2smp(running 3.0b5) I can have over 20 players(server max 24 players) online without any lag. the stats was 8x-99.3fps. cpu loading maximum is 5x%. it works fine.
Now. use same version of kernel running ns3.0, when over 15 players online. it also lag to 1xx-2xx ping.(no plugins has changed.) & the stats normal(no one on server) is 83.x-100fps. but when over 1x players, it go from 3-100 fps, very unstable. then I updated the kernel to kernel 2.6.10-1.14_FC2smp & the result is
stats
| CODE |
| 17:42:42 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players 97.50 52.76 61.40 270 213 20.41 21 |
| CODE |
| 17:43:23 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players 97.00 49.01 56.64 270 213 11.91 21 |
| CODE |
| 17:44:23 CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players 95.00 58.35 75.65 271 216 50.02 21 |
CPU loading
| QUOTE |
| top - 17:48:11 up 9:42, 1 user, load average: 0.88, 0.88, 0.83 Tasks: 54 total, 3 running, 51 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 47.3% us, 0.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 51.3% id, 0.0% wa, 0.2% hi, 0.8% si Mem: 513868k total, 408008k used, 105860k free, 38256k buffers Swap: 1052216k total, 0k used, 1052216k free, 246964k cached |
Hope the developer team can find out how to fix it soon.
Thanks a lot.
Yeah, i have also found that NS 3.0 uses a heck of a lot more CPU than Beta 5..
Full 16 player server on Beta 5 = 40-50% cpu.
Full 16 player server on v3.0 = 65-70% (MINIMUM) and above.
Theres definately something wrong with it :/
I have also seen with just 5 players on the start of a map that the cpu usage is at 27% with NS v3.0, on Beta5 it was 10-20%....
Full 16 player server on Beta 5 = 40-50% cpu.
Full 16 player server on v3.0 = 65-70% (MINIMUM) and above.
Theres definately something wrong with it :/
I have also seen with just 5 players on the start of a map that the cpu usage is at 27% with NS v3.0, on Beta5 it was 10-20%....
| QUOTE (DaddyFox @ Mar 8 2005, 04:43 AM) |
| ...plugin, metamod 1.17.4p20,amx0.99,AMXMODX1.0 on 1 server.... ...then I updated the kernel to kernel 2.6.10-1.14_FC2smp & the result is... |
Do you have the metamod and AMX on just one server or both, I'm not sure I understand. If only 1 server, does the server without the plugin stuff do better?
When you upgraded to the 2.6.10 kernel, did you use RPMs or did you compile it yourself?
| QUOTE (Vadakill @ Mar 8 2005, 01:45 PM) | ||
Do you have the metamod and AMX on just one server or both, I'm not sure I understand. If only 1 server, does the server without the plugin stuff do better? When you upgraded to the 2.6.10 kernel, did you use RPMs or did you compile it yourself? |
First. Both servers have metamod with amx0.99 & amxmodx 3 of them together. (I have sum reason cuz I have to run amx & amxmodx together. cuz some plugin problems make me do that.)
Second: I just use yum to update. I didn't use RPMs or compile it myself. (that should be RPMs. right??)
Hi,
i provide a Natural Selection 3.01 Server on a Debian 3.1 with a Sempron 2200 und 512 RAM.
Ive build my own kernel and setted some things like fps_max and sys_ticrate, but the server needs too mutch cpu power.... with 14 Players on the Server i get 70-90 % cpu but memory looks nice ... about the 15% ....
So, what can i do??
One machine for one NS Server is ill
thx,
Xantrox
i provide a Natural Selection 3.01 Server on a Debian 3.1 with a Sempron 2200 und 512 RAM.
Ive build my own kernel and setted some things like fps_max and sys_ticrate, but the server needs too mutch cpu power.... with 14 Players on the Server i get 70-90 % cpu but memory looks nice ... about the 15% ....
So, what can i do??
One machine for one NS Server is ill
thx,
Xantrox
| QUOTE (xantrox @ Mar 27 2005, 11:28 AM) |
| Ive build my own kernel and setted some things like fps_max and sys_ticrate, but the server needs too mutch cpu power.... |
Try reducing the Hz setting.
Whoa. Amazing. I didnt think ns would take so much cpu :o I tried installing it on my server just to see how it would run - and - yeah, ~80%cpu at 15 player (1800mhz)
And by reading the other posts here it seems windows runs the server much better. So this seems like a serious server issue. Im not going to run a server that takes up most my cpu power when im also using it to NAT and other stuff.
Has anybody even had luch with the Hz thing? Lowering this would prolly mean less cpu utilization but also less hlds fps - which just suck.
Maybe one of you should contact the devteam and make sure they know about this issue and make them look into it asap.
And by reading the other posts here it seems windows runs the server much better. So this seems like a serious server issue. Im not going to run a server that takes up most my cpu power when im also using it to NAT and other stuff.
Has anybody even had luch with the Hz thing? Lowering this would prolly mean less cpu utilization but also less hlds fps - which just suck.
Maybe one of you should contact the devteam and make sure they know about this issue and make them look into it asap.
it takes up so much cpu because linux is a poop operating system. it doesn't optimize nearly as much as windows.
| QUOTE (jasonmog @ May 5 2005, 09:19 AM) |
| it takes up so much cpu because linux is a poop operating system. it doesn't optimize nearly as much as windows. |
dont post ignorant comments about what you are unfamiliar with.
linux is not a bad os, and neither is windows. some of us just prefer linux for one reason or another.
the nice thing about linux is that you can change it. Im using windows right now, but when I start up my server im switching to linux strait up. In any old distro you'll get better multitasking and resource management just from the kernel, from there you can turn off unnecissairy features and change quite a bit to recompile the kernel with your custom settings, for further optimization, stability, and hack prevention. On top of that most distros are free, you can't go wrong with free.
The only thing I really have against windows is that its like a dell computer, it comes loaded with stuff I'd never care to use or want to have installed. It takes up space and power and can be sometimes quite hard to get rid of.
The only thing I really have against windows is that its like a dell computer, it comes loaded with stuff I'd never care to use or want to have installed. It takes up space and power and can be sometimes quite hard to get rid of.
| QUOTE (jasonmog @ May 5 2005, 06:19 AM) |
| it takes up so much cpu because linux is a poop operating system. it doesn't optimize nearly as much as windows. |
Actually, this is valves issue here not linux. Most other games(bf1942, ut, etc etc) have very solid linux server implementations that work better under linux than windows. This is because valve has a single person working on the linux port and his skills aren't up to par with the other games out there.
If valve would put the same amt of work into their linux code as the rest of the game vendors who care about linux, hlds would run like something other than crap.
I do agree with you tho, right now the wintel dedicated server runs better. I don't agree that this is linux fault, the fault is directly in valve's court.
| QUOTE (Vadakill @ Jul 31 2004, 01:13 PM) |
| <snip> In this KernelTrap article they talk about how previously the 2.4 kernel (the one in my 7.3 box) is typically set at HZ=100. On Redhat 8 and 9 Kernels this is set to HZ=512. Nearly all 2.5/2.6 Kernels are set at HZ=1000. Could this one change affect the perfomance of Linux systems so dramatically? I think I'm going to see what happens if I recompile the FC2 kernel with HZ=100 setting...this might take a while so don't hold your breath. |
What's happened with this testing...
Did it work? not work?
*necro*
Vadakill did this testing a while ago and it showed that 100 hz lowered CPU usage. Most new kernels have the option to change the kernel interrupt frequency in menuconfig now, so change it to 100 hz for server usage (as recommended). Also, removing desktop-friendly features such as preemption can also improve performance, but I personally haven't seen how much they lower performance as I always have preemption off.
Vadakill did this testing a while ago and it showed that 100 hz lowered CPU usage. Most new kernels have the option to change the kernel interrupt frequency in menuconfig now, so change it to 100 hz for server usage (as recommended). Also, removing desktop-friendly features such as preemption can also improve performance, but I personally haven't seen how much they lower performance as I always have preemption off.
2.6 kernels tend to allow you to change the user hz dynamically. Simply change sys_ticrate in your hlds and your server cpu occupancy will increase producing more server side fps and consuming more cpu. Finding the right balance of cpu/server fps is something each serverop is going to have to do for themselves.
Let me know if anyone has more detailed test results, as I'd be interested in seeing them.
Let me know if anyone has more detailed test results, as I'd be interested in seeing them.
The NSA servers run with pretty bad CPU even though they are windows boxes. They usually run somewhere from 30% to 35% cpu each. It's probly because of their size because they are much bigger than 16 man but when we ran a cs server of similer size it took almost 1% cpu full. 
QUOTE(Urd @ Jul 19 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]1563465[/snapback]
The NSA servers run with pretty bad CPU even though they are windows boxes. They usually run somewhere from 30% to 35% cpu each. It's probly because of their size because they are much bigger than 16 man but when we ran a cs server of similer size it took almost 1% cpu full.
That's because CS doesn't have structues like offense chambers or turrets. 30-35% still isn't horrible, especially if it's a huge server.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.