[bf1942] Linux server status report: 2003-03-31

[Paul Richards]

Is it not possible to add a switch or setting where we can choose the
maximum cpu usage that the server can use on a map change? Or just have a
switch that makes the server use only say 50% of the CPU on a map change, at
least then we have the choice of whether our servers run slower during a map
change... Or it automatically goes to a lower priority and therefore doesnt
effect other processes running....

This is probably a tall order, but alot of people will need to run more than
one BF server on a single CPU system, I would think a solution is definitly
needed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fredriksson, Andreas" <andreas.fredriksson at dice.se>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: [bf1942] Linux server status report: 2003-03-31


>
> Andrew,
>
> the CPU load comes from all the disk I/O and file parsing going on
> at level load time.
>
> There's not much to do about this except maybe providing callbacks to
> some external root-uid process that can change the niceness of the
> main bf1942 thread during loading. But that way clients will have to
> wait longer before they can connect to the new map, so it's not
> a perfect solution either.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Chen
> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> Sent: 3/31/2003 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report: 2003-03-31
>
> At 05:20 AM 3/31/2003, you wrote:
> >- The Linux server is compiled with gcc3 now, and this has uncovered
> >   some pretty nasty bugs that were masked out by gcc2/msvc. I'm still
> >   sorting out library issues and how we are going to distribute the
> >   package. Would a completely static version be acceptable for people
> >   with older distributions?
>
> Hehe, I called it, didn't I?  :)
>
> How about a static version and a dynamic version?  That way we can
> choose
> which one we want to run.  The solution should NOT be maintaining both a
>
> gcc2 and gcc3 build, though.
>
> In other news...
> Is it possible to make the server NOT obliterate the CPU on
> mapchange/daemon restart?  This applied in win32 as well.  On restart,
> it
> pretty much sucks up all available CPU time, meaning that you can only
> run
> 1 BF server on a single CPU system.
>
>