Best OS for 1942 serving?

[Khyron320]

What is the best OS to use for BF1942 server.... and dont say linux because im not installing linux =)

is there a benifit to say using win2k server over just plane old win2k... will it serv my bf1942 better?

this is for lan parties

 

[KH85]

Linux (sorry had to be done)

Anyway. The 'SERVER' os's usually have less overheads and therefore are more responsive. But not many of them like games just stick it on a 2k box and see how it runs. I doubt you will even notice a difference

Hope i helped

KHGamez

 

[Khyron320]

yes but this is gonna be dedicated so would it like win2k server more?

 

[KH85]

i very much doubt that there would be a noticable difference

 

[goossedump]

Windows 95 will do the job

 

[Khyron320]

Originally posted by: goossedump
Windows 95 will do the job

no doubt a linux fanboy

 

[goossedump]

 

[Spyro]

I don't think that the OS matters much at all.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Spyro
I don't think that the OS matters much at all.

Actually, when you consider the amount of work left up to the OS it matters a lot.

My vote goes to Linux.

 

[SpeedFreak03]

Is it worth the extra $$$ for a server OS? I doubt it.

 

[civad]

Linux (sorry had to be done)

 

[Khyron320]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: Spyro
I don't think that the OS matters much at all.

Actually, when you consider the amount of work left up to the OS it matters a lot.

My vote goes to Linux.

I said no linux. There is no bfservermanager 2.0 (the best bf1942 server manger in exsistance) for linux therefor linux + BF1942 = a gaint cup of NO!

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: Spyro
I don't think that the OS matters much at all.

Actually, when you consider the amount of work left up to the OS it matters a lot.

My vote goes to Linux.

Since Khyron320 will not be running Linux, this is a moot point, but what makes you say that? This is only going to be used as a gaming server, right? I have a hard time seeing that a server for a game could have noticable performance changes based on its OS when running on modern ( > 500mhz ) hardware.

 

[asb002]

Actually there is a BFserverManager for Linux, so your main reason for not using it died. http://www.battlefield1942.nu/index.php?newsid=1134

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Linux/BSD is the best.

The rest just go into another pool marked "the rest"

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: Spyro
I don't think that the OS matters much at all.

Actually, when you consider the amount of work left up to the OS it matters a lot.

My vote goes to Linux.

Since Khyron320 will not be running Linux, this is a moot point, but what makes you say that? This is only going to be used as a gaming server, right? I have a hard time seeing that a server for a game could have noticable performance changes based on its OS when running on modern ( > 500mhz ) hardware.

since when was 500 and below the limit on modern?
i feel like the stuff is almost ancient on my moms 1.3ghz tbird system.

anyway, i dont see that either os (if its just wink2 or win2k server) should make enough of a difference to justify getting server over regular. still vote linux, just because i think windows is evil...

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: xSauronx
since when was 500 and below the limit on modern?
i feel like the stuff is almost ancient on my moms 1.3ghz tbird system.

Heh, will then send that mothballed piece of junk this way. It would probably make a handy replacement for my 700mhz duron


BTW, It's 500mhz and above, you spoiled brat

 

[josedawg]

Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
Is it worth the extra $$$ for a server OS? I doubt it.

Seeing as he's debating Win2k and Win2k Advanced Server, its a good assumption to say he doesn't have a legal copy of either.

The OS for a server DOES matter, and anyone who has run a server will tell you so. Linux/BSD is the way to go. Much less overhead, much less CPU cycles wasted on things not needed for the actual running of the server, much less memory usage, so you can run many more servers, or a server with more players, or just more efficient serving. Shall I continue?

Your only reason for not using Linux is out the window like asb002 pointed out. Did you really think there wouldn't be such a useful feature available on the Linux environment? Linux is a much more suited candidate for serving, ESPECIALLY dedicated serving, which you said this was for.

Another vote for Linux/BSD. There is no substitute. Don't get me wrong, I'm a primary Windows(2k/2k3/XP) user, but when it comes to serving, you won't go wrong with Linux/BSD (YAY DEBIAN! ).

 

[dnuggett]

Since Khyron320 will not be running Linux, this is a moot point, but what makes you say that? This is only going to be used as a gaming server, right? I have a hard time seeing that a server for a game could have noticable performance changes based on its OS when running on modern ( > 500mhz ) hardware.

Since were talking BF1942 yours is a moot point as far as starting with 500 mhz. You need to start much higher than that unless you want to stare at the server box instead of playing the game.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Spyro
Since Khyron320 will not be running Linux, this is a moot point

Someone else answered this for me.

but what makes you say that? This is only going to be used as a gaming server, right? I have a hard time seeing that a server for a game could have noticable performance changes based on its OS when running on modern ( > 500mhz ) hardware.

1. 'Modern Hardware' would be > 2GHz at this point (over 2 years old), and we're reaching >2.5GHz being 'modern'.
2. I say that based on the fact that the OS handles all the memory management, thread management, file i/o, network i/o, and so forth. Linux simply performs better than Windows with servers because it is faster at almost all kinds of I/O, and has a lot better memory management. Do more with less, as it were. I've personally watched Win2K Server boxes running Unreal Tournament's server chug under the load of 20 people (Dual PII/733s), while an equally configured box on linux could do 32 no problem. That may be a fault with UT or something, I'm not 100% sure, but I've just noted that in my experience, it tends to run game servers a LOT better. I'm not going to turn this into a linux vs win2k flamewar, but you did ask for my reasoning. Trolls refer to my sig please.

Dnuggett also points out something very true -- you'll be lucky to be able to do a 1v1 on a 500MHz box for BF1942.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Since Khyron320 will not be running Linux, this is a moot point, but what makes you say that? This is only going to be used as a gaming server, right? I have a hard time seeing that a server for a game could have noticable performance changes based on its OS when running on modern ( > 500mhz ) hardware.

Since were talking BF1942 yours is a moot point as far as starting with 500 mhz. You need to start much higher than that unless you want to stare at the server box instead of playing the game.

So.... The server itself (no game running on the same system) actually requires that much processing power? Wow, I fell old. Is the server inefficient or is efficiency now a mott point. *sigh* Moores law....

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: Spyro
Since Khyron320 will not be running Linux, this is a moot point

Someone else answered this for me.

but what makes you say that? This is only going to be used as a gaming server, right? I have a hard time seeing that a server for a game could have noticable performance changes based on its OS when running on modern ( > 500mhz ) hardware.

1. 'Modern Hardware' would be > 2GHz at this point (over 2 years old), and we're reaching >2.5GHz being 'modern'.
2. I say that based on the fact that the OS handles all the memory management, thread management, file i/o, network i/o, and so forth. Linux simply performs better than Windows with servers because it is faster at almost all kinds of I/O, and has a lot better memory management. Do more with less, as it were. I've personally watched Win2K Server boxes running Unreal Tournament's server chug under the load of 20 people (Dual PII/733s), while an equally configured box on linux could do 32 no problem. That may be a fault with UT or something, I'm not 100% sure, but I've just noted that in my experience, it tends to run game servers a LOT better. I'm not going to turn this into a linux vs win2k flamewar, but you did ask for my reasoning. Trolls refer to my sig please.

Dnuggett also points out something very true -- you'll be lucky to be able to do a 1v1 on a 500MHz box for BF1942.

Thanks for an informative reply, and for making me feel downright miserable I'm still using a 700mhz duron, I need to upgrade!!!

*cries profusely*

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Spyro
Thanks for an informative reply, and for making me feel downright miserable I'm still using a 700mhz duron, I need to upgrade!!!

*cries profusely*

Now now, if I wanted to do that I could point out that I have a Duron/800 here sitting next to me running a Wolfenstein: ET server, and my IRC server.

 

[magomago]

i think you are in the enthusiat POV if you say 2 Ghz is modern - to the masses a 1 Ghz is modern....my dad was amazed when i begged him to toss away his 233Mhz hp and get a 1700+ (which he did when he found it wasn't expensive and i had fun making it ) just b4 i left to college because to him he considered 700mhz fast ( 7/10ths of a gigahert as he refers to it )

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: Spyro
Thanks for an informative reply, and for making me feel downright miserable I'm still using a 700mhz duron, I need to upgrade!!!

*cries profusely*

Now now, if I wanted to do that I could point out that I have a Duron/800 here sitting next to me running a Wolfenstein: ET server, and my IRC server.

....... :/

Originally posted by: magomago
i think you are in the enthusiat POV if you say 2 Ghz is modern - to the masses a 1 Ghz is modern....my dad was amazed when i begged him to toss away his 233Mhz hp and get a 1700+ (which he did when he found it wasn't expensive and i had fun making it ) just b4 i left to college because to him he considered 700mhz fast ( 7/10ths of a gigahert as he refers to it )

Ok, I feel better now, but I know what I'm getting myself for x-mas.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: magomago
i think you are in the enthusiat POV if you say 2 Ghz is modern - to the masses a 1 Ghz is modern....my dad was amazed when i begged him to toss away his 233Mhz hp and get a 1700+ (which he did when he found it wasn't expensive and i had fun making it ) just b4 i left to college because to him he considered 700mhz fast ( 7/10ths of a gigahert as he refers to it )

Not at all, I am looking at what the OEMs are selling, even in their low-end lines. Show me where Dell, IBM, or HP are offering a sub-2GHz desktop machine, and then I'll consider modern to be > 1GHz, but until then, I consider it > 2GHz based on what OEMs are selling. If you can't buy a cheapo dell box from their budget line that's clocked at < 2GHz, I think it's safe to call it and anything faster 'modern'.