Dual Xp 2000+ With 2gigs Of Ram... Good For Ns?

VoltaGeVoltaGe Join Date: 2003-06-09 Member: 17136Awaiting Authorization
in Linux Server Support
<div class="IPBDescription">I'm not sure why it chuggs =\</div> I just setup a server running linux with the latest public release of ns (2.01) on a:

Dual AMD 2000XP+ with 2gigs of ram, just wondering what the best heapsize + server cvar configs/settings would be the best to optimise this gaming server?

At current the heapsize is on ~180 and it can handle up to 16 players (it does tend to chugg a little). My aim is to get this server running smoothly with 20 players?

Suggestions please? (I've never setup a server a Linux NS server, always had to do it on a windows box, but now that its a perminant arangement I think that linux is the best option)
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • The_MAzTerThe_MAzTer Join Date: 2003-01-04 Member: 11784Members, Constellation
    just run 2x 16 slots (16 on each cpu)

    20 slots can be laggy on a XP 2000, but should be posible

    ram is a bit overkill, 512mb would be enaugh <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • JoeBlowJoeBlow Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12899Members
    What OS?
    What version of HLDS?
    Whats your network connection?

    I run a 22 player server on a P4 2.66 and I takes between 30-40 % CPU most of the time, peaking at about 70 in *extremely* long games on maps like bast
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • VoltaGeVoltaGe Join Date: 2003-06-09 Member: 17136Awaiting Authorization
    latest version of redhat

    hlds 4110

    100mbit pipe

    hope that helps.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • JoeBlowJoeBlow Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12899Members
    edited November 2003
    I'm assuming you mean 3.1.1.0. Are you running 3.1.1.0 beta something? or just the basic install. Also, redhat is far from the most streamlined distro, so that is definitely hurting you a little (or a lot, depending on how its set up). I would suggest moving to something like Slackware or (my favorite) Gentoo for your server, but a lot of people use redhat so its not like you have to. I would not specify heapsize or any of that and just let HLDS determine. When your server is "chugging" what CPU usage are you seeing in top?

    **edit

    Also, I would follow the instructions <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=40291' target='_blank'>Here</a> to make sure you are running as fast and securely as possible
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • HukkaHukka Join Date: 2002-11-05 Member: 6989Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--The MAzTER+Nov 10 2003, 11:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The MAzTER @ Nov 10 2003, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> just run 2x 16 slots (16 on each cpu)

    20 slots can be laggy on a XP 2000, but should be posible

    ram is a bit overkill, 512mb would be enaugh <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    18 player limit for 2000 XP+ should be best thing..
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • billcatbillcat Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 4903Members, Constellation
    I'd go so far as to say that the redhat distro blows for running servers. It's not so bad for doing desktop stuff, but even this is a stretch.

    Sure it's great for wintel kiddies who can't use a cmd line and need KDE shoved in their faces every time they boot up. I'd follow the suggestion above and get as far away from redhat as fast as you can. You'll end up with a distro that isn't loading 100 CPU eating applications that you'll never use.

    You can go a long way tweaking any distro to be lean and mean, I just think that out of the box redhat is more bloated than any other distoro. Try out slackware or debian and work your way up. It'll be a bit more work to get stuff working but you'll end up knowing how and why it works and have it setup just the way you want rather than being compiled for 30 different platforms and all possible hardware combinations. If you must use redhat start by shutting off KDE/Xwindows at boot so you can just use the console, for a large CPU savings. Then run 'ps -ef' and after you **** you pants about how much **** that distro loads, start removing stuff you don't need. After you've got that all slimmed down, recompile your kernel and build it for just the hardware you really have.

    That's just my two cents.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • VadakillVadakill The Almighty BSO Join Date: 2002-04-02 Member: 373Members, NS1 Playtester
    There is nothing wrong with Redhat, I use it and it runs fine. I wish people would stop warring over what distribution is better, it doesn't matter, it's all in how you configure it during and after install. Honestly, I think people pick on Redhat because it's the closest counterpart to Microsoft in the Linux world. Big business doesn't automatically = Evil.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ArkaineArkaine Join Date: 2002-07-12 Member: 914Members
    edited November 2003
    <!--QuoteBegin--billcat+Nov 22 2003, 03:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (billcat @ Nov 22 2003, 03:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can go a long way tweaking any distro to be lean and mean, I just think that out of the box redhat is more bloated than any other distoro. Try out slackware or debian and work your way up. It'll be a bit more work to get stuff working but you'll end up knowing how and why it works and have it setup just the way you want rather than being compiled for 30 different platforms and all possible hardware combinations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    ...or you could do RedHat, get the thing running, and work your way down. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
    Really doesn't matter...heh.

    I am quire partial to Debian and RedHat, but that's because those are the only two I've worked with so far, hehe.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • BonelessBoneless Join Date: 2002-09-03 Member: 1270Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--Vadakill+Nov 22 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Vadakill @ Nov 22 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is nothing wrong with Redhat, I use it and it runs fine. I wish people would stop warring over what distribution is better, it doesn't matter, it's all in how you configure it during and after install. Honestly, I think people pick on Redhat because it's the closest counterpart to Microsoft in the Linux world. Big business doesn't automatically = Evil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    indeed...

    I don't get the point about the default services installed in redhat... You don't need 'em... OK: When RH install finishes you are asked if you want to start the GUI by default: Just say "no"... Later load ntsysv and disable those uneeded services (easy way)... hold basic services (cron, sshd, iptables and such) and you're done! Plz no more pointless rants about distros if there's no serious performance and/or compatibility problems...
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.