[ut2004] Upload and Download speed adjustment
admin at ztnet.com
Sun Nov 21 22:19:41 EST 2004
Downloads from the server will always go at client rate speeds. This is to
ensure the server is not impacted by the sending of these things to clients.
There's a good little bit of info for you.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Giuliano Chianelli" <giuliano at rogers.com>
To: <ut2004 at icculus.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 6:28 AM
Subject: [ut2004] Upload and Download speed adjustment
> Running a ut2004 server on my linux box (pclinuxos kernel 2.4.22)
> does anyone know what to change to increase the upload/download speed for
> maps and textures when clients log on? Im running a VCTF style server with
> custom maps and velicles.
> Thanking in advance for all your help.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Woods" <klaatu at fnordco.com>
> To: <ut2004 at icculus.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [ut2004] 64 bit client problems with downloads
>> Look! Up in the sky!
>> It's a struct! It's an array!
>> It's BACK-SEAT CODERMAN!
>> More powerful than an overloaded function! Faster than an improved bubble
>> sort! Able to malloc tall heaps in a single bound!
>> BACK-SEAT CODERMAN! Debugging your programs from afar... FOR GREAT
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:10:46 -0800
>> Tom Emerson <osnut at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday 19 November 2004 10:09 pm, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
>>> > There's a lot more involved than just reading bytes from a socket
>>> > [...]
>>> > [...] it's both inaccurate and impolite to show up and tell someone
>>> > that their bugs aren't "rocket science". [...]
>>> Well, it wasn't my intention to be rude, but from what you're saying it
>>> like it is a problem of perception -- namely, mine :)
>>> I perceive a "percentage complete" calculation to be relatively simple,
>>> that debugging it would take no more effort than to set a breakpoint on
>>> final result > 100.0 and "take a look" at the underlying variables at
>>> point, then backtrack to find out why they are incorrect. Either the
>>> calculation is incorrect or the values passed to the routine are bogus.
>>> find it hard to imagine how the calculation would be "wrong", so that
>>> incorrect inputs [the "GIGO" principle]
>>> What I gather you're saying is that figuring out why the numbers passed
>>> to the
>>> routine are "wrong" is a bit harder than merely inspecting memory --
>>> this is
>>> just a guess, but perhaps you are passing a 32-bit pointer to a routine
>>> internally uses a 64-bit pointer and "whatever" resides in memory just
>>> to the pointer doesn't cause the treated-as-64-bit pointer to point
>>> of allocated memory. [if it did, well, you'd have caught that a long
>>> ago I'd imagine ;) ] Of course, the fact that the routine is using a
>>> pointer could be totally unexpected because when compiled for 32 bits,
>>> would be using a 32-bit pointer "as expected", and the program wouldn't
>>> exhibit the incorrect behavior.
>>> The other point to this thread is "why does this bug exist in the first
>>> place?" An accountant once told me "if you're off by a penny, you might
>>> well be off by a million dollars" -- the fact that the program reaches
>>> AND THEN STARTS OVER should have been a "red flag" for the whole
>>> process -- something is causing the program to retry the download EVERY
>>> and it may be as simple as forgetting to "close" the file initially
>>> downloaded, so it "never" validates properly from the redirected
>>> (yeah, I'm guessing again :) but so long as I'm guessing, if it is
>>> related to whether or not the file is "closed" properly, perhaps there
>>> is a
>>> race condition where you [or the "virtual machine"] believe the file to
>>> closed, but the "real" machine hasn't done that yet...)
More information about the ut2004