[bf1942] Server Utilization

[Rick Thompson]

I don't have any hard data to back it up but our feeling is that CPU time 
on BF servers has been flat since version 1.4x

We did notice an increase in idle server CPU with BF1.5/DC.6 but watching 
it close showed that they were using no more than previous versions with 
slots full or at least, no measurable difference. EOD and BF also increased 
at idle but it did not seem nearly as prominent as when running DC.

What about the new map/mode scheme? Have any of you done any comparisons 
with  switching mods/modes vs a regular map change? We don't see any 
greater load to speak of which kind of surprised me. Any map change still 
takes a horrible amount of horsepower but a mod/mode change does not seem 
to worsen it.

What about the daemon to renice the process at map changes, any of you 
using it with good results?

Rick


At 12:47 PM 2/16/2004 +0100, you wrote:

>Well, normally I dont care much if the server is taking up CPU when
>idle.
>Sure it's normal. But when the idle servers is using 10-20% of a 2.4GHz
>Xeon processor, something's wrong. Perhaps this extra 10% is added on
>top
>of the utilization when it has all slots occupied. I don't know if it
>is.
>Changes in server behaviour with each version makes it hard to make good
>server planning and determining good prices for the customers.
>
>Roland
>
> >
> > Idle gameservers do use some cpu and always have, it is not
> > something new
> > with 1.6 and it is not relegated to BF servers, we see it on
> > HL and UT
> > servers as well. We did noticed a slight increase with 1.5
> > when idle that
> > seems to be at worst case on the first map after startup.
> >
> > It is not a big deal to us because we have enough horsepower
> > to run all the
> > servers we put on any given box when all of them are full. We
> > don't play
> > the average game and hope that all the servers won't fill up
> > at once so we
> > don't care if it is sitting there idling at 20% or running full tilt.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
> > At 11:00 AM 2/16/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >The way we setup our boxes is not of your concern. Each company has
> > >different policy regarding "overselling" or not. And the
> > discussion I
> > >started is not about that, but about idle servers taking up
> > CPU, which
> > >is not good imho. Especially when the problem was introduced
> > with 1.6.
> > >So I'd like to see if there is something that can be done
> > about it. I'm
> > >still hoping a solution can be found in the kernel configuration, so
> > >let's focus the discussion on that part. Anyone?
> > >
> > >Roland
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >We have private and public servers combined. Private
> > > > servers, which are
> > > > >normally empty during the day, are taking up valuable CPU
> > > > now. And they
> > > > >are effecting performance which is not good, of course.
> > > > >
> > > > >Roland
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Be a good providor, and dont oversell your boxes then.
> > > >
> > > > I:nCisT
> >
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.583 / Virus Database: 369 - Release Date: 2/10/2004
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.583 / Virus Database: 369 - Release Date: 2/10/2004