It's freaking faster! Cheers and questions

[ReflexLV]

I think the real problem is that the host I'm running on is a bit pressed for ressources. I'll look more into it when I'm the only one using it....

BTW: Wouldn't it be beneficial for end users to be able to set VIEWDISTANCE and GENERATEDISTANCE from the settings.ini? No need to recompile when tweaking the server setup

Good idea

[xoft]

It will be implemented, eventually, but now we have worse problems, such as crashes and not working stuff, so we need to sort that out first.

[xoft]

ViewDistance has a default settable in the settings.ini. I don't think GenerateDistance needs any setting right now, because with the newly acquire architecture (composable_generator) both the generation and lighting are lightning-fast and thread-isolated. I haven't seen any lags on the client whatsoever.

Tbar, can you perhaps try one of the newer revisions (502+) on your special hardware to see how it works? I'd like to hear about performance on something other than x86. I also wonder what will single-threaded CPUs do with our multi-threaded code. I was wondering if any thread prioritization (client socket connections - higher priority, generator thread - lower priority) might come in handy.

[tbar]

Tbar, can you perhaps try one of the newer revisions (502+) on your special hardware to see how it works? I'd like to hear about performance on something other than x86. I also wonder what will single-threaded CPUs do with our multi-threaded code. I was wondering if any thread prioritization (client socket connections - higher priority, generator thread - lower priority) might come in handy.

Sorry but I don't have special hw. It's just a virtual x86 machine...

But I've mentioned your changes here: http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewto...442#p79442

Hopefully someone will try it out....

[NiLSPACE]

eh i got windows 8 consumer preview 64 bit 4 GB memory and an dual core with 2.5 GHz and MC-Server uses 1,4% of my CPU and 189,1 MB of my memory
and i use R504

[tbar]

Rev 504 uses 183 MB RAM on my virtual x86 machine with 256 MB RAM with 1 player connected. Rev 466 uses 127 MB RAM. Any reason for this increase in memory usage?

[cb88]

Heh... I've got a Sun Sparcstation 10 running Netbsd I wonder if it would run on there it has about 244 Mb ram and 2x50Mhz or 1x60Mhz depending on how it set it up.

[xoft]

Tbar,
I don't have exact measurements on me, but there have been some changes which could justify the increase. Also your measuring method may be inaccurate

1, Rev 504 uses the new lighting, which eats up almost 8 MiB of RAM just being there. It needs that memory for the speed - it caches 3x3 chunks of data so that it can light an entire chunk really really fast.
2, Rev 504's generator uses a few buffers on its own. I don't have a number now, but I believe it could be a megabyte or two.
3, Chunk usage may be different for the versions - I'm not sure if 466 doesn't have a debugging mistake committed in where the viewdistance is set low by default. That would mean that each client sees less chunks and therefore uses less memory. Use the "/viewdistance <N>" command in the in-game chat to set the client's viewdistance.
4, MCServer doesn't unload chunks immediately. If you've used Rev 504 for a while, perhaps walked a bit, the number of loaded chunks (and therefore memory footprint) will be higher. You can issue "numchunks" command in the server console to see the number of chunks, and "save-all", then "unload" to minimize the number of chunks to only those visible to players. Those commands work for both revisions. Rev 504 also has a "chunkstats" command that you can use to see how many loaded chunks there are and how many of them are dirty (modified and unsaved).

cb88, I dont think MCServer could run reasonably in such an environment, tens of MHz just might not be enough. Dunno, I'd be glad if you proved me wrong, though
I'd say the 2x50 MHz setup would be better in this case, since the server is multithreaded and can balance its load somewhat. Although it depends on the OS's capability to run threads from a single process on two CPUs, I suppose it should be able to, but who knows...

[NiLSPACE]

eh r508 uses 92 MB of my memory and 1.1% of my CPU

[cb88]

Eh.. someday sooner or later I'll get 2x85Mhz and then we'll see I would imagine those could handle it... <pipe dream> maybe even a SparcServer 1000e with 8x85Mhz lol and 4gb ram</pipe dream>

I've got a sparcbook 3tx which is 170Mhz which should be coming sadly only 64Mb ram and really hard to upgrade beyond that to its theoretical 256Mb ram due to some hardware fandangling they did to get that to work at the factory.