[bf1942] SMP

cookypuss shawn at lantrocity.com
Sat May 17 19:18:21 EDT 2003


sorry for adding fuel to the fire, but what about these guys?

http://www.supercomputerinc.com

~cooky

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Kiblin" <tom at defenderHosting.com>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] SMP


> Aubrey,
>
> Beowulf clustering, or any clustering won't work well in the gaming
> world.
>
> 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.
>
> Tom
> 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 mailing list