tom at defenderHosting.com
Sat May 17 14:21:41 EDT 2003
Beowulf clustering, or any clustering won't work well in the gaming
We've tried, but the latency between machines is just too great.
Looking at other solutions, as Beowulf just doesn't scale/perform well
for game servers.
On Sat, 17
May 2003 aking at gblx.net wrote:
> Just popping in here.. has anyone had experience doing beowulf for bf
> servers? This might be a REALLY cool thing to get in on. Not sure if any
> other games out there do it or not. I'm sure clustered bf servers would
> make bf a solid contender out there, so far as online servers. Like my
> buddy, Ricky and I say, 'Who's got that?! NOBODY!'
> Aubrey King
> Global Crossing, Ltd.
> IP Systems Engineering
> Systems Administrator
> On Fri, 16 May 2003, ScratchMonkey wrote:
> > --On Friday, May 16, 2003 6:58 PM -0700 Jon <MMmmGood at cox.net> wrote:
> > > Well currently we run 5-6 BF servers on dual xeon 2.66s with a max all
> > > together of about 110 players. Would be nice though to squeeze a bit more
> > > out of it though.
> > Multithreading won't do that in that situation, BF is too much of a CPU hog
> > so the primary thread will still be tied up for some server. The main
> > advantage of multithreading is this case would be to reduce any blocking
> > for lengthy stuff, but that can also be accomplished with a suitable state
> > machine. The state machine is harder to code and get right, but uses less
> > resources than a separate thread since there's no tasking cost.
More information about the Bf1942