looks like i'm ignored again...doesn't matter...
Observation
- SWAT_OP-R8R
- Thread is marked as Resolved.
There are 201 replies in this Thread. The last Post () by Gast.
-
-
the code for missiles is 100% clean
there is nothing that can be fixed thereoh and no1 was going to ignore you... we were just assuming that you have ur usual chat lag so we were going to reply a few days later
-
"chat lag" - lol
-
ok,
yesterday while i was online two crashes at 19:31 and 23:22 German time. I have a nice Connection from Germany (in Game ping normaly at 27-29 and of course no fluct no loss) After the second crash i have had the yellow lag sign often (which is not normal for my connection). RP PVPs in New Tokyo was fine even with many NPC´s in but only 5 active Players in that sys.
When i logged in at 17:32 i have had nearly no missile tracking in Texas against Xeno NPCs.
-
ok lol
-
ok
-
yeah - looks like there is another prob with them... the ship models seem to be fine then
i need to do some more tests on this
btw. the server is back on normal processing and i enabled dll unloading this morning
maybe that will help to get rid of the memory leakand i did tests with flhook and you were right - it really causes a high amount of memory load
i was thinking about a solution of this problem and came up with the idea to change the server to an opteron 175 (for the same prize)
that one has more ram and is dual core
so i was speculating with the idea to run flhook and all other processes on the 1st core and fl on the 2nd core
there are only 2 probs
1. ive no idea how to do this and if this really will help to raise the performance
2. flhook does not run on a seperated process so im not sure if this is even possible -
ok
-
Quote
Originally posted by SWAT_OP-R8R
and i did tests with flhook and you were right - it really causes a high amount of memory loadi could reduce the array for welcome message and banner messages in the next version (as that is what takes most of what i included)...
QuoteOriginally posted by SWAT_OP-R8R
2. flhook does not run on a seperated process so im not sure if this is even possiblesince FLHook is a DLL loaded by flserver.exe it uses the same context: it has the same memory access and runs in the same thread... therefore impossible to seperate FLHook and flserver.exe
-
well that means the new server wont help much with that issue
hmmm
but im still interested in that
maybe the hardware experts can help out here a bit since im only good informed about those things when i buy a new PCcurrently the server runs on an opteron 148 2gb ram
optional to this there would be a opteron 175 available with a bit more hdd space and 4gb ramthe 148 is a single core cpu
the 175 is a dual core cpu
both run with 2.2gh which is ok - not good but okassuming we would change the server and assuming im able make a deal with the host again that we dont have to pay the 100 setup fee... would a change of the server be any good?
more performance?
very likely FLserver wont really gun good on 2 cores so there would be the need to assign it either to core 1 or core 2
or did anyone hear that fl does run on both cores? and if so would fl run with more "processing power"?
assuming FL would only run on one core i believe all other services could run on the other then? if so the "fl core" get more free capacities?
has someone experiences with that kind of stuff?@haegar
that means that there is no way to seperate that stuff into 2 processes? (just asking)
and whats that with those arrays?@saxxon
ive just read that stuff
and it looks like an old version of FLhook doesnt cause this problem
i will test this
if it is true it would be interesting to know the differences of those 2 versions because they seem cause the high load
i did tests yesterday and the serverload was about 80-100msec
when i turned off flhook the load was reduced down 30-35 (and that is a big difference and very likely our main problem with the lag atm)
when i activated flhook again the serverload increasedthis morning i activated dll unloading on the server and the memory usage of FLserver stayed at about 80mb (usually it does raise to about 200-230mb)
it looks like this does prevent the normal memory leak that fl has
but the serverload was still a bit high (not many ppl were online)
so im not sure about this -
Since the game is relatively old I don't think the server will benefit 2 core processor. If you run one application which is not multithreaded you actually see underperformance. So the real question question is if flserver is multithread or not.
For example the most of the applications in use in the moment still run better on 2.5 GHz single core procesor than on 2 GHz dual core, despite the fact that theoreticly the dual core chip has more processing power.
-
sorry, but i don't see an option to assign different CPUs to FLServer and FLHook:
even [SIZE=3]IF[/SIZE] the FLServer does call "hooked" routines from the FLHook.dll within a second thread (this would mean the FLServer is multi-threading), then i don't see any option as how to separate those 2.
i think i read on LR about an advice to assign FLServer to one CPU on a multi-processor system or u would get into troubles? if not then [SIZE=3]IF[/SIZE] (and only [SIZE=3]IF[/SIZE]) FLServer is multi-threading it could generally (by running its threads simultaneously) benefit from a second CPU...as for these arrays: i stored the data for welcome and banner messages in memory for quicker access. but i could modify this in order to reduce memory usage by always reading from the files instead. most likely the files with these messages will stay in the HD Cache and be in memory anyway...
i also heard from ppl that older FLHook versions (before V1.5.5) do have less server load. i will check for what changed between those versions (maybe too many timer procedures...)
-
well currently im running flhook 1.4.2 on the server for testing purposes
it will take some time with more players online to see real results -
ok
-
ok the flhook1.4.2 really seems to work better
i started and unloaded it again several times without that there was a big change to the serverload
-
ok, i check the sources of 1.4.2
-
thx - ill try to work a bit on the server meanwhile
maybe i can reduce the cpu load a bit -
-
True. The server runs very well with 1.4.2.
-
I dont want to be the bad side of the new but will that mean that bounty command wont be able anymore?
I know I look greed (as merc hehe) but it was a great feature...anyway i will sacrifice it for server stability and no lag...just asking