strange performance

[drazah]

i currently own

E6750
3GB DDR2

Q6600
4GB DDR2

some reason i can put pretty much the same amount of servers on my first dedi without problems, but on my quad i cant host that many on the same core / all together :S
is it because of the fsb or just the structure of the quad core

also will multicore srcds be better ?

[Muppet]

E6750 - 2 x 2.66ghz
Q6600 - 4 x 2.4ghz

So how many servers can you run on each? Yes, the quad core should be able to handle more, maybe just slight less per core average - however looking at some reviews, the E6700 seems to almost match the performance of a Q6700.

When you run these servers, are you setting their affinity to a core? Quad core cpu's can have difficulty talking to each pair of cores as it has to go through the front-side bus (which is slower in the Quad cores compared to E6750).

As a rough guide, i've been able to get 12 servers between 10-20 slots 100 tick quite comfortably on a Q6600 (when 75% servers are full).

When srcds has been optimized for multicore, yes, it should be much better for people running dual/quad core but its been in the making for quite some time now. It will be released... eventually.

[drazah]

atm i can run 7 on my E6750 all 100 tick ;p
on my quad im running 8 servers 2 per core

i assign all of the processes that arent gameservers to the last core and put them to low priority

im running windows 2003 server

[Muppet]

I run linux, Ubuntu server edition with a 1000hz preempt and tickless recompile - i've no knowledge of quad core usage with windows 2003, so can't really comment much on that.

But, i just seem to be able to put 4 to a core without any problem (granted most of these are 11 slot match servers). It could be down to the way you have some servers prioritised. I tend to stick the more popular ones to seperate cores so the load is spread evenly. I also have an E6300 (o/c to 2.8ghz - linux again) from when they were first launched and those can handle 3 to a core with room to spare on each core. So having 7 on your E6750 seems right.

On your quad, what size of servers is it you are running and how often are they full?

On a side note, Intel have just released their first proper quad core CPU (not 2 dual-cores strapped together) so the performance on newer quad cores *should* be slightly improved (more servers hopefully). Sadly they've only been released as Xeons so far with a hefty price tag.

[drazah]

11,12,11,11,11,11,11
they arent that full very often, the most they have been used is 3/4 servers at one time

2 to a core with defualt priority

[Muppet]

drazah Wrote:11,12,11,11,11,11,11
they arent that full very often, the most they have been used is 3/4 servers at one time

Weird. On average, a full 11 slot takes up around 20-30% of a core on my quad. Should definately be able to fit at 3 to a core.

What exactly is the cpu usage per server when they are full for you? I assume hyperthreading and intel speedstep and all that guff are turned off in the bios?

If you wanted to take the time, you could compare server 2003 against XP for performance (heard other people having problems with server 2003 - albeit, FPS related problems).

[drazah]

yeah mine take up the same - from 20-28%
and i dont know if they are turned off in the bios i will find out for you

EDIT - intel speedstep is turned off

[Drocona]

the core 2 duo and core 2 quad processors can take hell of a lot load (I have E6600) and it ran 80% total with 6 servers running. (1 CSSDM, 1 Gungame, 1 CSS, 1 Surf, 2 Hidden Source) all at 100 tick and maximum slots