[ut2004] ut2004 stuttering

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

Sounds to me like you have chunk misalignment issues and your system is
being starved for IO, or you have a disk in the array that is bad and
causing bitmap re-calculations to happen all the time. Also many drives
(cheap ones, i.e "green" or "itellisense") will park the heads way more
often, leading to way high cycling counts, run smart tools over your drives
and see how high your counts are....

Take down your raid array and test is basically my advice.

I stopped using raid 5 for these and many other reasons which often would
cause inexplicable system jarring; after being stalwart user for many years
and dealing with the problems I stopped. Raid10 is hassle free and better
solutions IME.



On 2 June 2011 04:18, Alex Boag-Munroe <boagenator at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do use software raid 5, why do you ask?  That shouldn't be relevant
> really the game isn't exactly IO intensive and I seriously can't see the gun
> showing/not showing making any difference whatsoever to a RAID issue.
>
>
> On 1 June 2011 17:05, Joel Wiramu Pauling <joel at aenertia.net> wrote:
>
>> but you are running software raid 5 or similar?
>>
>> On 2 June 2011 03:12, kristjan <kristjan.ugrin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I did that, however I did cut out many maps, since game size is huge.
>>> Still stuttering - I've moved my monitor so I can see HDD lamp, the disk
>>> activity is completely
>>> unrelated to stuttering - so it's not because the game is waiting for I/O
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:41:58 +0200, Joel Wiramu Pauling <
>>> joel at aenertia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Try making a temporary ram disk if you have enough ram, copy over the
>>>> ut2004
>>>> dir and running from the ram disk. This will eliminate io issues.
>>>>
>>>> I have had problems (espeically with software raid5 or similar) setups
>>>> where
>>>> the system gets starved of IO.
>>>>
>>>> On 1 June 2011 10:07, kristjan <kristjan.ugrin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On previous less powerfull system it was performing a bit worse than
>>>>> 32-bit
>>>>> version,
>>>>> so I thought it's not that good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tried now with 64-bit version - same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:03:27 +0200, Alex Boag-Munroe <
>>>>> boagenator at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Why not the 64 bit version?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>>> kriko
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ut2004 mailing list
>>>>> ut2004 at icculus.org
>>>>> http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/ut2004
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> kriko
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ut2004 mailing list
>>> ut2004 at icculus.org
>>> http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/ut2004
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ut2004 mailing list
>> ut2004 at icculus.org
>> http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/ut2004
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alex Boag-Munroe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ut2004 mailing list
> ut2004 at icculus.org
> http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/ut2004
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/ut2004/attachments/20110602/7210bda2/attachment.htm>