[bf1942] AMD FPO

[Kevin Lockitt]

The issue of SMP has been already been covered sometime ago (see
attached).

The bottom line here is that you don't need an "SMP build" to take
advantage of an SMP box. The performance gains (more likely a loss) from
the significant amount of work it would take to make an "SMP build"
would not be worth the effort. Most of the server's work is done in a
single thread and the the I/O thread spends most of its life blocked.
You can take advantage of an SMP box simply by using processor affinity
which does not require an "SMP build".

Kevin Lockitt

kevlar at blackbagops.com
www.blackbagops.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Wolberg [mailto:MMmmGood at cox.net] 
Sent: Sunday, 21 September 2003 4:34 PM
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Subject: Re: [bf1942] AMD FPO


I agree with you on the SMP build Troy, however most of our BF boxes are
dual CPUs, as we can run multiple BF servers per box ( 5 in the highest
case ) so it wouldnt be too useless here.

I've always been a fan of Intel, just the fact alone that they are
easier to maintain ( had two dual amd's fail on us and not a single xeon
so far ) says it all for me.  I just wanted to try something different,
see how it went as far as the Linux BF server went versus Windows.

Jon
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Troy Chinnery" <t_chinnery at iprimus.com.au>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] AMD FPO


> An SMP build would be useless if the server is single-threaded 
> however,
and
> most servers are (single threaded).
>
> Personally, I would go with the P4 (I'm not an Intel zealot either). 
> In my (albiet limited) experience with running game servers, I find 
> the P4s to
be
> easier to maintain. And due to HTT you can run an SMP kernel too iirc.
>
> Jon Wolberg wrote:
> > Troy-
> >
> >     Thanks for the great info.  It would be very  nice to have a SMP
build
> > for the server since the windows one isnt smp-aware, but that would 
> > mean
a
> > lot more work for Andreas, so I dont think it'll happen.  I was just
trying
> > to get an idea of what HW to use for our linux testbed, a P4 3.0C or

> > a AthlonXP 3000.
> >
> > Jon
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Troy Chinnery" <t_chinnery at iprimus.com.au>
> > To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [bf1942] AMD FPO
> >
> >
> >
> >>Jon, I'm pretty sure than an SSE2 optimised build running on a P4 
> >>would
> >
> > easily
> >
> >>beat an SSE optimised build running on an Athlon-XP. Needless to say
> >
> > however,
> >
> >>I doubt very much they will release several different builds. I 
> >>think
the
> >
> > best
> >
> >>we could hope for would be maybe an i686 build in addition to the
standard
> >>i386 build. (Maybe a build for SMP too? How many threads does the 
> >>server actually have? Only 1?)
> >>
> >>Though I do agree heartily that it would be nice to have an 
> >>Athlon-XP
> >
> > build as
> >
> >>well as a P4 build. This probably wouldn't annoy anyone because 99% 
> >>of
> >
> > people
> >
> >>wouldn't run this kind of server on a lesser CPU. But there are many

> >>variations of these chips also.
> >>
> >>Troy.
> >>
> >>Jon Wolberg wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hey All-
> >>>
> >>>    I dont know if this has been asked/answered before, but is the 
> >>>linuxded optomized to take advantage of the higher FPO output of 
> >>>AMD chips over Intel?  Has anyone done any testing at all on AMD 
> >>>vs. Intel with the linuxded?
> >>>
> >>>Jon
> >>
> >
> >
>


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus at clutteredmind.org>
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Does BF1942 Linux Dedicated Server benefit from SMP?
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 03:52:40 +1000
Size: 2882
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/bf1942/attachments/20030921/6e6f038a/attachment.eml>