FreeBSD is a go!

[CannonFodder1.0]

Just a heads up, the Linux server install runs fine under FreeBSD 6.x!

No fiddling required, here is the idle utilization:

PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND
61150 usef 1 96 0 229M 200M select 0:40 2.69% etqwded.x86
61163 usef 1 8 0 229M 200M nanslp 0:02 0.00% etqwded.x86
61158 usef 1 8 0 229M 200M nanslp 0:00 0.00% etqwded.x86
61187 usef 1 20 0 229M 200M pause 0:00 0.00% etqwded.x86
61152 usef 1 96 0 229M 200M select 0:00 0.00% etqwded.x86
61153 usef 1 20 0 229M 200M pause 0:00 0.00% etqwded.x86

The top one ( 61150 ) would be the master process. The memory is reported as a group, so all the workers are using a total of 200MB of memory.

Here is some minor kernel whining though:

Warning: pid 61150 used static ldt allocation.
See the i386_set_ldt man page for more info
linux: pid 61150 (etqwded.x86): ioctl fd=15, cmd=0x8910 ('\M^I',16) is not implemented

Mind telling us what the threading/worker model is in the Linux server? Just curious...

I have also adapted a ET "supervisor" script for ET:QW. It checks the server every 5 seconds, and restarts it if dead. Is there a console command to shutdown the server? This way the owner could just restart the server through rcon after making config changes via FTP.

Greate job SD!

[sponge]

I have also adapted a ET "supervisor" script for ET:QW. It checks the server every 5 seconds, and restarts it if dead. Is there a console command to shutdown the server? This way the owner could just restart the server through rcon after making config changes via FTP.

Greate job SD!

rcon quit will quit the server, obivously, but it shouldn't be necessary for most changes. exec server.cfg resets the settings, for example.

[Yogi]

Nice. Most people don't realize that FreeBSD is a superior server environment. Their linux binary emulation is top notch, little to no performance loss.

[kmfdm]

Cannon, I saw you online last night with USEF tags on but forgot to ask. Is OffDutyPirate playing QW?

[CannonFodder1.0]

ODP? Not sure yet...

OK, getting a sporadic crash:

signal caught: 'Segmentation fault', si_code 12
callstack:
0x29e8b2c0
[0x082cbcc1]
[0x082bbfff]
[0x286785f8]
[0xbfbfffdb]
[0x0825261f]
[0x0825042a]
[0x08250571]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x082505f3]
[0x0825089c]
[0x08254612]
[0x29fb4397]
[0x2a3eaba8]
[0x2a3e9288]
[0x2a4071bf]
[0x2a3d93e3]
[0x2a3d0d3a]

[CannonFodder1.0]

Oh my... here is a question. What linux kernel do I need to run the lite server?

I have 2.4.2. Do I need a 2.6.x one?

[escapedturkey]

Nice. Most people don't realize that FreeBSD is a superior server environment. Their linux binary emulation is top notch, little to no performance loss.

I used to use FreeBSD. I see no performance difference between it and Linux once you end up having to post install everything to get it running properly. Security is another issue however.

As to running a script every 5 seconds to check for a server being alive, not a good idea, especially A) if the server crashes and gets restarted constantly and B) running any script every 5 seconds is taxing on a system.

[CannonFodder1.0]

Nice. Most people don't realize that FreeBSD is a superior server environment. Their linux binary emulation is top notch, little to no performance loss.

It's not emulation. It's a Linux compatibility layer, that merely maps Linux kernel calls to FreeeBSD ones. The programs run natively - hence the same speed.

[CannonFodder1.0]

As to running a script every 5 seconds to check for a server being alive, not a good idea, especially A) if the server crashes and gets restarted constantly and B) running any script every 5 seconds is taxing on a system.

A) It is limited in it's restart rate. And wouldn't one make sure it *doesn't* constantly crash before running it without supervision?

B) ?!?!? Are you serious? WOW - what OS/Shell are you used to? A simple sh script like that running 10 times a second wouldn't even register as any CPU usage.

Google and Yahoo use FreeBSD... shouldn't you? - LOL

[robert]

It's great news that it works on fbsd as well. I will stuck to my good ol' linux though.

Please don't fight; everyone has his own preference :)

[escapedturkey]

Sorry, didn't mean to start an argument. You're correct it's about preference. I just wanted to reply against someone saying one is superior than the other, because they are simply different.

BSD has better security, but performance wise it's not necessarily better, especially in order to run Linux applications you need to post install a lot of libraries and software, and emulate Linux -- which is a bit silly, one might as well run Linux.

Running a script every 10 seconds uses up resources unnecessarily -- cpu/mem/io. It's better to make sure something runs stable than to run secondary scripts that have to constantly check an applications status.

:cool:

[CannonFodder1.0]

Agreed. They are equal but different... and it's not emulation <sigh>

Guess I'm from a different world ( network design for financial institutions ). We always run "supervisors" for servers, the fraction of a percent increase in load ( and we are talking hundredths of a percent, here ) is well paid off in restfull nights and no mad clients. It's just a tradeoff that makes sense to me ;)

Back OT - no one answered my question about the Linux kernel version. Is anyone running it successfully on 2.4? Do I need 2.6? Hmmmmmmmm?

[CannonFodder1.0]

A mighty *BUMP* from way back on page 7 - LOL

Well, I waited till the demo server to try again. And with the June snapshot of FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT and the "emulators/linux_base-fc6" port, everything runs GREAT! (server: qw.usef-et.org)

http://www.freebsd.org/snapshots/
http://www.freshports.org/emulators/linux_base-fc6

*follow the updating notes for the linux_base-fc6 port, else all will be for nuaght*

I will be slapping up a nice supervisor & rc.d script on the clan site this weekend (once I get all the bugs worked out)

So now SD can say Linux/BSD server files eh? ;)

[Mxyzptlk]

Agreed. They are equal but different... and it's not emulation <sigh>

Guess I'm from a different world ( network design for financial institutions ). We always run "supervisors" for servers, the fraction of a percent increase in load ( and we are talking hundredths of a percent, here ) is well paid off in restfull nights and no mad clients. It's just a tradeoff that makes sense to me ;)

Back OT - no one answered my question about the Linux kernel version. Is anyone running it successfully on 2.4? Do I need 2.6? Hmmmmmmmm?

Seriously, instead of begging for an answer to your question, why don't you simply take a look at the bundled README.txt which includes some very important details about the linux server?

[CannonFodder1.0]

Seriously, instead of begging for an answer to your question, why don't you simply take a look at the bundled README.txt which includes some very important details about the linux server?

Urrr - thanks.

I was just hoping it wasn't so (many READMEs these days are, shall we say, a bit conservative - devs don't want people bugging them over marginal setups)... but I finally got off my lazy @&! and upgraded the server, as you will note in my post above. :D

Totally OT - BTW, is there talk of a jaymod for ET:QW? (we are quietly working on a etadmin written in C for ET:QW)

[Celebrity maniac]

There are only about four distinct BSDs at the moment. Free, Net, Open and DragonFly.
Other BSDs mostly have the Debian->Ubuntu relationship to the four above.

NetBSD ships with older versions of software compared to the others, however, you have newer versions with pkgsrc.
They are all pretty similar despite them trumpeting their security records or SMP technology or number of architectures they run on.
I'd say you'd be best off with FreeBSD. Ports is huge, you can get binary packages for some software as well, and ships with a good deal of stuff on the installation media, and a friendly installer.
Celebrities Photos (http://www.mielofon.com)

[Basiley]

if you mean personal usage - try PCBSD fork of FreeBSD. NETBSD is somewhat superior on embeded/security related applications.
if server - latest FreeBSD (7.2). 8.0 is still hot.

btw "in general", L4 fork of Linus kernel now perform moreawesome{micro-kernel fork with seriously reduced, latency, exposed parts, and context switching overhead(about 5x time in server workload, to be exact)}.
thats why Debian team was dropped Mach tree development(which is main, btw, not Linux one), in favor to L4.