Sever Error
AClockworkOrange
Join Date: 2003-08-02 Member: 18748Members
Join Date: 2003-08-02 Member: 18748Members
i just installed a fresh copy of hlds (windows) and natural selection 2.0
every time i try to connect i get this error in the console window and then the game crashes... im running a barebones game for now.. no metamod plugins..
sv_getspace: overflow on messagebegin/end
anyone have any ideas??
every time i try to connect i get this error in the console window and then the game crashes... im running a barebones game for now.. no metamod plugins..
sv_getspace: overflow on messagebegin/end
anyone have any ideas??
Comments
Are you using the updated NS 2.0 dll (for use with 4.1.1.1.d) ?
What version of windows ?
Any mods i.e. metamod running ?
I'm not a windows server op but if you give a few more details on the above it will make it easier for others to offer some help.
Also if you figure out what the problem is - post it up - someone else may also have the same issue and benefit.
Win32 HLDS 4.1.1.1D. Metamod 1.16.1 (or 1.16.2). Base NS 2.0 dedicated server files. (haven mentioned an updated .dll for the windows beta, but I can't find any other mention of that. I see one for linux, but not windows.)
Other than Adminmod 2.50.56, I'm not running an MM plugins. (I've also tried running without AM at all. It still crashes even after AM is commented out of MM's plugins.ini.)
The server starts up fine, but then crashes as soon as someone joins.
Here's a screenshot of the error:
<img src='http://www.usd.edu/~mrognsta/other/hlds_ns2_crash.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Thanks in advance.
(Edited to include information I posted below.)
Metamod 1.16.2 doesn't fix it. I've also tried disabling Adminmod altogether. That didn't fix the issue either. So I think the problem is the HLDS update and not AM.
does anyone know know of any bots that work on hlds 2.0?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
"Search" knows.
Sorry if that seems harsh, but if I can find out with a tiny amount of work, so can anyone else. I've seen the same questions asked over and over the past few days, when the solutions were only a search away.
I actually had searched for threads about crashes. If you notice, I posted in several of them pointing out my crash which seemed similar even though the error message was different. It seems that no two threads have exactly the same error. Some of the error messages would clearly point to the MOTD (talking about sending messages to clients when they join) and hint at the character limit (referencing 192). My particular error did not include any such clues. Once I quit searching for threads about crashes and only looked for MOTD, I finally found one thread that clearly answered my question as to the exact limit. That answer wasn't in any other thread that I saw even after doing a specific search for it. Most said something along the lines of your MOTD is too big, but they didn't spell out how big was too big.
So, should I have searched for "MOTD"? Probably. But I had already read five threads about MOTD-related crashes. None of them answered my question. And I didn't really care all that much about what the exact limit was since my server wasn't crashing anymore. I just threw the question out there on a whim. It was a little harmless intellectual curiosity. I don't have a problem with you asking me to search for my own answers. I think generally I'm pretty good about that. I do think you could have done it a little more constructively though. You act like the limit has been explicitly specified in practically every other thread. Well, it wasn't. Based on the search I would think you wanted me to run, my question had been answered a whopping one time and not even by you. Furthermore, in the time it took you write your smartalec " 'search' knows" and then qualify it by explaining that you really don't mean to harsh (maybe it just comes naturally), you could have answered my question five times over. Or if you didn't want to answer it, you could have ignored it altogether. Look, I can understand being frustrated about answering the same mundane questions day after day. I can understand the desire to vent a little hostility. Goodness knows I'm tempted to do it often enough. And I know some questions warrant a flame, but I don't think mine did. Are you honestly going to tell me that you have always searched for the answer before throwing out a little tangential, obscure, whimsical question after the main issue in a thread had been resolved?
Now maybe I'm reading way too much into your post. Maybe your "don't mean to be harsh" actually was used to indicate that you phrased your suggestion as kindly as you could, and not used as a thinly veiled jab. I wasn't in a bad mood before reading you post though, so I don't think I'm jumping at *nothing*. But something sure rubbed me the wrong way. In the end, though, I'm still not in a bad mood. I answered my question, and my server doesn't crash anymore. So I suppose all is well that ends well.
On a separate note, it seems like a lot of people are having similar but not identical problems with this seemingly arbitrary MOTD limitation. The solution is not particularly obvious. My error gave no hint about the MOTD even with 20/20 hindsight. I didn't see anything about a MOTD limit in the NS documentation. There isn't a sticky thread about it. Even after seeing the other threads about MOTD-related crashes, I could see someone ignoring that advice because it doesn't make much sense when looking at the particular error s/he got. No other big HL mod has this problem. NS 1.04 didn't have this problem. Taking all of that into account, maybe a sticky about this would make some sense.
(Edited for typos.)
My response was not intended to be a jab, nor was it directed specifically at you, but at anyone reading the thread in the hopes of reminding them to expend some effort searching for the answer before engaging the time of others. Yes, I could have just typed "192", but my point about searching wouldn't have been made nearly as effectively, now would it?
<!--QuoteBegin--mathyou+Aug 4 2003, 12:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mathyou @ Aug 4 2003, 12:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you honestly going to tell me that you have always searched for the answer before throwing out a little tangential, obscure, whimsical question after the main issue in a thread had been resolved?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I'm looking for a fact, and not querying for opinion, technique, or some other less concrete item, yes. I'm a strong believer in this document:
<a href='http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before' target='_blank'>How To Ask Questions The Smart Way</a>
(item #1 in the "Before you ask" section)
At least I didn't reply with a curt "<a href='http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#rtfm' target='_blank'>STFW</a>" <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->