[bf1942] Map change process leak with 1.6rc2
AthlonRob at axpr.net
Mon Feb 9 11:01:57 EST 2004
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 00:32, Steven Hartland wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "AthlonRob" <AthlonRob at axpr.net>
> > It seems to me it would be more reliable to check and see if the server
> > has a PID than to see if it has given you the console back (which, may I
> > remind you, doesn't work at all right now).
> Yes hence raise it as an issue to get it fixed :P
Good luck with that....
> > Without a PID, the server isn't running (and even when it is loading a
> > map, it has a PID). No PID = No server. No server = No PID. Seems
> > pretty straightforward and reliable to me. I suppose you don't really
> > need the sleep in there, either.
> The issue is finding the PID though isnt it. When changing map the PID
> is changing so u may hit the moment when you cant determine the PID.
> It all becomes more difficult when your running more than one server
> on the machine where your then into scanning run line / process open
> ports. All in all unreliable as I stated.
Again, I don't know exactly how to do this under Windows, but doing that
under Linux is all fairly straightforward. Many GNU utilities have been
ported over to Windows, mostly via CYGWIN...
Netstat tells you what processes are bound to what ports. ps can tell
you what command lines what processes are using. cut and grep solve a
few more problems. I don't see the lack of reliability in there... then
again, with the lack of command line utilites available for Windows...
maybe the CYGWIN tools just won't work for you?
> > As for load increases... I would imagine the load increase would be
> > about on par with having a serial port driver loaded in the background.
> > You did say you were running Windows, right? So you can't be too
> > concerned about load...
> Hehe lets not get into a Linux vs Win32 argument.
It wasn't meant to much as a Linux vs Win32 argument. I think we can
all agree at the very least Windows eats many more CPU cycles than Linux
when you're talking about dedicated servers, if for no other reason than
because it requires the big GUI.
I can't imagine if you were terribly concerned about grep'ing for a few
PIDs eating CPU cycles that you would *not* be concerned about the load
the GUI puts on your CPU is all.
More information about the Bf1942