🚀 go-pugleaf

"ShawNews" <WhoaBaby@MySecretPlace.org> wrote in message 
news:KlUXm.4800$2A7.3327@newsfe07.iad...
> Greetings!
>  Been a while since I haunted the usenet / AGUT...
>  Recently took an interest in ut99 again, got the game running easily
> enough under Slackware 12.2 on a Core i7 system with nVidia. Upgraded to
> v451, latest UTPure, and everything runs kewl except for connecting to
> redirect servers.
>  I've got a 451 dedicated Linux sniper server running on a recently
> acquired 6-watt computer on my LAN (behind a router), I can connect to it
> with my Linux box, but when I attempt to test the redirection it fails on
> the client side (according to my logs). It will still acquire files 
> through
> the server, but (as you know) it's painfully slow. Connecting to the 
> server
> from a WinXP install, on my LAN, hooks into the redirect site.
>  I get the same failure when I try to connect to online servers with my
> Linux client - the best I can muster is a download directly from the 
> server
> (if they've enabled it) - if it's been disabled, the download fails.
>  Been Googling for a while, can't really seem to dig up anything. I'm sure
> I had ut99 fully functional under earlier versions of Linux, but for the
> life of me, I cannot recall this quirk. Anyone got suggestions?
>  To clarify, I know for certain it is not an issue on the server side, nor
> an issue with the router. The WinXP box grabbed the redirected download
> properly from the net. It is some aspect of the client side.
>  Here's the server if you'd like to test it :
> unreal://70.74.167.33:7777
>  Appreciate any feedback / insight,
>       Danno.


It's probably an issue with context. Windows can deal with (for example):
UDamage.u.uz/udamage.u.uz/UDAMAGE.U.uz
but Linux gets hung on it. There are a LOT of case non-specific files 
associated with UT, even in the default stuff. That's probably whats going 
on. 

goPostal wrote:
> 
> It's probably an issue with context. Windows can deal with (for example):
> UDamage.u.uz/udamage.u.uz/UDAMAGE.U.uz
> but Linux gets hung on it. There are a LOT of case non-specific files
> associated with UT, even in the default stuff. That's probably whats going
> on.

  That could very well be. I had messed with case on the files on the
redirect site, but it never occurred to me that the client is after
something case-specific. I know when I fire up the linux server, I see it
doing a case-INspecific search for some files on custom maps that it is
struggling with. I wonder if that attribute can be integrated with the
client?
  Thanks for the reply.

Danno wrote:

> goPostal wrote:
>> 
>> It's probably an issue with context.

  Well darn it, tested it against a linux webserver on my LAN this morning,
and according to the access_log, it is requesting the case-correct file.
Tried changing the file permissions on the file in the webserver, also
didn't work. I notice that the game indicates a "refused to send" error
almost immediately, am wondering if the client is just too impatient in
waiting for an acknowledgment from the webserver that the file is indeed
coming? Do you know which variable in the .ini would address that?
  Am taking off for Christmas, so likely won't do anything computerish for a
few days.

Danno wrote:

> Danno wrote:
> 
>> goPostal wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's probably an issue with context.
> 
>   Well darn it, tested it against a linux webserver on my LAN this
>   morning,
> and according to the access_log, it is requesting the case-correct file.
> Tried changing the file permissions on the file in the webserver, also
> didn't work. I notice that the game indicates a "refused to send" error
> almost immediately, am wondering if the client is just too impatient in
> waiting for an acknowledgment from the webserver that the file is indeed
> coming? Do you know which variable in the .ini would address that?
>   Am taking off for Christmas, so likely won't do anything computerish for
>   a
> few days.


  Still no joy. I get a 200 response from my Linux Apache webserver, to
indicate the file is being sent properly, but it somehow fails. I noticed
when I tested the Apache server against a WinXP client, that the file was
downloaded in four "stages", so I am suspecting that the Linux client is
grabbing the first piece of the file successfully, but then is unable to
resolve the remaining pieces - the HTTPdownload code in the 451 client is
perhaps not doing the right thing. See here :
http://www.unrealadmin.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4961
for what I'm talking about. Don'tknow that this is something I can do
anything about. Perhaps the UTPG crew will release an update some day...

ShawNews wrote:

> Greetings!
>   Been a while since I haunted the usenet / AGUT...


  Moved my inquiries to The Unreal Admin Page.
http://www.unrealadmin.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=104

ShawNews skrev 2009-12-22 01:24:
> Greetings!
>    Been a while since I haunted the usenet / AGUT...
>    Recently took an interest in ut99 again, got the game running easily
> enough under Slackware 12.2 on a Core i7 system with nVidia. Upgraded to
> v451, latest UTPure, and everything runs kewl except for connecting to
> redirect servers.
<snip>
>    Appreciate any feedback / insight,
>         Danno.

Hi
I can't give any useful feedback on your problem but am a bit interested 
in your servers hardware.
I recently got a new internet connection (100/10MB fibre) and now I am 
thinking about setting up a UT99 server. The thing is, I don't know what 
hardware to use. All I know is that I want something small, quiet and 
cheap. :)
Since the game is 10 years old, almost any current computer should be 
able to run a smooth ut99 server, right?
Anyone have a suggestion?

/MB

MB wrote:
<snip>
> Hi
> I can't give any useful feedback on your problem but am a bit interested
> in your servers hardware.
> I recently got a new internet connection (100/10MB fibre) and now I am
> thinking about setting up a UT99 server. The thing is, I don't know what
> hardware to use. All I know is that I want something small, quiet and
> cheap. :)
> Since the game is 10 years old, almost any current computer should be
> able to run a smooth ut99 server, right?
> Anyone have a suggestion?
> 
> /MB

  Awesome network connection. I've gotten a lot os useful help at Unreal
admin, I think we've basically hit a wall, determined that the client isn't
using the call to the c library properly to accept redirected files. 436
linux clients work well enough, though. Dunno of the UTPG crew are going to
issue anotherupdate some day or not...
  You're right about modern hardware, almost anything new can easily run a
server. If there is an x86-based handheld, I'd bet it could run the server.
Way back when, I ran a 1vs1 on an AMD 4x86dx4-100 72M RAM for a few months.
The ISA NIC kept it from being really good, but the CPU seemed to be able
to handle 2 players on a small map (ran it under Win95 IIRC). I also ran a
CTF sever on a 733MHz VIA C3, but as I recall, it wasn't very good, my
memory is of some issue lacking CMOV in the C3's instruction set. Anything
post-Pentium AMD or Intel I've ever used has worked fine, Celerons,
Semprons, etc.
  The system I'm experimenting with now is powered by a 1GHz Vortex86 CPU
(rebranded Xcore86), basically a 586-compatible CPU without the MMX
instruction set, 16+16k L1 & 256k L2 caches. It has 256M integrated RAM,
onchip video/audio/NIC, ATM booting from a Toshiba 1.8" iPod PATA drive
through 2.5-to-1.8 adapter. I run the server from the Linux command line -
with just me and 5 bots in a DM-Zeitkind variant, shows about 30% CPU
usage, uses 5 - 6 watts from a CF card, 8-9 watts with a hard drive. Don't
know how many players I could run on it, am using the integrated r6040 NIC
which I suspect is pretty low end stuff (and, in Linux, is only supported
in newer kernels). It's responsive enough on the LAN for just me, but I
haven't tested it with a full load of players. I'd bet it is the bottleneck
for smooth play.
The system is a Norhtec Microclient JR dx
http://www.norhtec.com/products/index.html
which is identical to the DMP eBox3300
http://www.fit-pc.com/web/
  If I was building up another server from older/used hardware and wanted
something a little more intense / better quality, I'd stick with a single
core machine biased towards clockspeed (ut99 does not support threading,
TMK), minimum 256M RAM, and a reasonably high-end PCI NIC (Intel or 3COM).
Some of the stock P4s went up to 3.4GHz, but probably anything AMD/Intel
from that era is able to run any type of ut99 server. I bought a refurb SFF
IBM Thinkcentre w/P4@3.2Ghz for $100 locally, it has more than enough power
to perform any ut99 server duty. I can hear the fan, probably draws a good
50 or 60 watts (never measured it), but was cheap up front and readily
available.
 My current server is on a Norhtec Microclient JR dx
http://www.norhtec.com/products/index.html
which is identical to the DMP eBox-3300
http://www.compactpc.com.tw/ebox-3300.htm
  As I recall, importing it last year from Thailand cost me about $250CAN to
my door. Norhtec has their new Xcore86 computer module making its way into
their product line, if you wanted to go with Norhtec, I would make sure
that you get the new DOC; the old one (mine) has issues with IDE access,
and lacks the MMX instruction set, new CPU is slightly more energy
efficient (1.2 watts versus 2.0 watts), has more integrated RAM. They've
announced a $99US computer-in-a-keyboard (looks like an Amiga 500) product
coming out soon, with all their new hardware fitted into it, would probably
meet all your needs except size

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/19/
norhtec-gecko-surfboard-is-neither-gecko-nor-surfboard/

I may even get a couple at that price.
  Compulab is coming out with their new FitPC2i, which will have the new
Atom Pinetrail and dual GigaLAN. Small, quiet, eficient (claim 8.5 watts
max), and powerful (1.6GHz IIRC), probably capable of running two or three
ut servers simultaneously, but probably kinda pricey too. Price and
availability should be made at CES on the 7th.
http://www.fit-pc.com/web/
I haven't tested the server on the new VIA C7 / Esther /Eden line of of
CPUs, couldn't say if they fare better than their C3 predecessors, there
are a number of mini/micro/pico-ITX kits and computers out there, based
around that hardware.
  Liliputing might be able to set you in the direction you want to go
http://www.liliputing.com/
  I'd bet you could run a half-decent server on a used netbook or something.

Danno skrev 2010-01-02 19:36:
> MB wrote:
> <snip>
>> Hi
>> I can't give any useful feedback on your problem but am a bit interested
>> in your servers hardware.
>> I recently got a new internet connection (100/10MB fibre) and now I am
>> thinking about setting up a UT99 server. The thing is, I don't know what
>> hardware to use. All I know is that I want something small, quiet and
>> cheap. :)
>> Since the game is 10 years old, almost any current computer should be
>> able to run a smooth ut99 server, right?
>> Anyone have a suggestion?
>>
>> /MB
>
>    Awesome network connection. I've gotten a lot os useful help at Unreal
> admin, I think we've basically hit a wall, determined that the client isn't
> using the call to the c library properly to accept redirected files. 436
> linux clients work well enough, though. Dunno of the UTPG crew are going to
> issue anotherupdate some day or not...
>    You're right about modern hardware, almost anything new can easily run a
> server. If there is an x86-based handheld, I'd bet it could run the server.
> Way back when, I ran a 1vs1 on an AMD 4x86dx4-100 72M RAM for a few months.
> The ISA NIC kept it from being really good, but the CPU seemed to be able
> to handle 2 players on a small map (ran it under Win95 IIRC). I also ran a
> CTF sever on a 733MHz VIA C3, but as I recall, it wasn't very good, my
> memory is of some issue lacking CMOV in the C3's instruction set. Anything
> post-Pentium AMD or Intel I've ever used has worked fine, Celerons,
> Semprons, etc.
>    The system I'm experimenting with now is powered by a 1GHz Vortex86 CPU
> (rebranded Xcore86), basically a 586-compatible CPU without the MMX
> instruction set, 16+16k L1&  256k L2 caches. It has 256M integrated RAM,
> onchip video/audio/NIC, ATM booting from a Toshiba 1.8" iPod PATA drive
> through 2.5-to-1.8 adapter. I run the server from the Linux command line -
> with just me and 5 bots in a DM-Zeitkind variant, shows about 30% CPU
> usage, uses 5 - 6 watts from a CF card, 8-9 watts with a hard drive. Don't
> know how many players I could run on it, am using the integrated r6040 NIC
> which I suspect is pretty low end stuff (and, in Linux, is only supported
> in newer kernels). It's responsive enough on the LAN for just me, but I
> haven't tested it with a full load of players. I'd bet it is the bottleneck
> for smooth play.
> The system is a Norhtec Microclient JR dx
> http://www.norhtec.com/products/index.html
> which is identical to the DMP eBox3300
> http://www.fit-pc.com/web/
>    If I was building up another server from older/used hardware and wanted
> something a little more intense / better quality, I'd stick with a single
> core machine biased towards clockspeed (ut99 does not support threading,
> TMK), minimum 256M RAM, and a reasonably high-end PCI NIC (Intel or 3COM).
> Some of the stock P4s went up to 3.4GHz, but probably anything AMD/Intel
> from that era is able to run any type of ut99 server. I bought a refurb SFF
> IBM Thinkcentre w/P4@3.2Ghz for $100 locally, it has more than enough power
> to perform any ut99 server duty. I can hear the fan, probably draws a good
> 50 or 60 watts (never measured it), but was cheap up front and readily
> available.
>   My current server is on a Norhtec Microclient JR dx
> http://www.norhtec.com/products/index.html
> which is identical to the DMP eBox-3300
> http://www.compactpc.com.tw/ebox-3300.htm
>    As I recall, importing it last year from Thailand cost me about $250CAN to
> my door. Norhtec has their new Xcore86 computer module making its way into
> their product line, if you wanted to go with Norhtec, I would make sure
> that you get the new DOC; the old one (mine) has issues with IDE access,
> and lacks the MMX instruction set, new CPU is slightly more energy
> efficient (1.2 watts versus 2.0 watts), has more integrated RAM. They've
> announced a $99US computer-in-a-keyboard (looks like an Amiga 500) product
> coming out soon, with all their new hardware fitted into it, would probably
> meet all your needs except size
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/19/
> norhtec-gecko-surfboard-is-neither-gecko-nor-surfboard/
>
> I may even get a couple at that price.
>    Compulab is coming out with their new FitPC2i, which will have the new
> Atom Pinetrail and dual GigaLAN. Small, quiet, eficient (claim 8.5 watts
> max), and powerful (1.6GHz IIRC), probably capable of running two or three
> ut servers simultaneously, but probably kinda pricey too. Price and
> availability should be made at CES on the 7th.
> http://www.fit-pc.com/web/
> I haven't tested the server on the new VIA C7 / Esther /Eden line of of
> CPUs, couldn't say if they fare better than their C3 predecessors, there
> are a number of mini/micro/pico-ITX kits and computers out there, based
> around that hardware.
>    Liliputing might be able to set you in the direction you want to go
> http://www.liliputing.com/
>    I'd bet you could run a half-decent server on a used netbook or something.
>
>
>
>

Hi again.
That's alot of useful information! :)
All of your suggestions sound really interesting. Small and quiet and 
not at all expensive.
That computer-in-a-keyboard could easily be hidden in the living room 
and hooked up to my TV. I also have my network connection and router in 
the same room which makes it very practical. The Amiga 500 look isn't 
bad either, if you like some retro feel to it. :)
Thanks!

"MB" <no@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:Ul20n.14219$U5.217340@newsb.telia.net...

> Hi again.
> That's alot of useful information! :)
> All of your suggestions sound really interesting. Small and quiet and not 
> at all expensive.
> That computer-in-a-keyboard could easily be hidden in the living room and 
> hooked up to my TV. I also have my network connection and router in the 
> same room which makes it very practical. The Amiga 500 look isn't bad 
> either, if you like some retro feel to it. :)
> Thanks!
>

Not trying to sound like a shill but a rented server like GameServers is 
really the way to go now. No maintenance, no fuss, and dirt cheap. There are 
so few fully dedicated players now that getting an IP change can kill a 
server dead if you run it from home. I think you can get a 10 slot server 
for less than 8 bucks a month from several spots, and that just can't be 
beaten. 

goPostal wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Not trying to sound like a shill but a rented server like GameServers is
> really the way to go now. No maintenance, no fuss, and dirt cheap. There
> are so few fully dedicated players now that getting an IP change can kill
> a server dead if you run it from home. I think you can get a 10 slot
> server for less than 8 bucks a month from several spots, and that just
> can't be beaten.

  No kidding, that is cheap; that's almost the cost of electricity to run a
100watt system 24/7. Their website show $12.45US/mo for (min.) 10 player
public server. I'd never looked into it, always preferred to roll my own,
so to speak. May save myself the trouble if I ever get into UT3 (still
waiting on that Linux client <grin>). Oh hey, there's a 32 player limit.
How am I gonna run my 128-player CTF server w/redeemer arena & nuke death?
Muhoohahahahaaaaaa...

>    No kidding, that is cheap; that's almost the cost of electricity to run a
> 100watt system 24/7. Their website show $12.45US/mo for (min.) 10 player
> public server. I'd never looked into it, always preferred to roll my own,
> so to speak. May save myself the trouble if I ever get into UT3 (still
> waiting on that Linux client<grin>). Oh hey, there's a 32 player limit.
> How am I gonna run my 128-player CTF server w/redeemer arena&  nuke death?
> Muhoohahahahaaaaaa...

Can work out well. With ut99 being so low in resource requirements, the 
hoster can really pile 'em up on a single machine. I've certainly heard 
of over 20 ut99's on a single quad core xeon, and it wasn't breaking sweat.

Unless you already happen to have a machine hosted somewhere, or a 
virtual slot, definitely worth a look around as GP says and you have the 
benefit of not having to faff around too much /and/ you get somebody to 
shout at when it breaks.

F

"Flash" <NOSPAM@digdilem.org> wrote in message 
news:xOGdnXs6U420xNnWnZ2dnUVZ8i2dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>    No kidding, that is cheap; that's almost the cost of electricity to 
>> run a
>> 100watt system 24/7. Their website show $12.45US/mo for (min.) 10 player
>> public server. I'd never looked into it, always preferred to roll my own,
>> so to speak. May save myself the trouble if I ever get into UT3 (still
>> waiting on that Linux client<grin>). Oh hey, there's a 32 player limit.
>> How am I gonna run my 128-player CTF server w/redeemer arena&  nuke 
>> death?
>> Muhoohahahahaaaaaa...
>
> Can work out well. With ut99 being so low in resource requirements, the 
> hoster can really pile 'em up on a single machine. I've certainly heard of 
> over 20 ut99's on a single quad core xeon, and it wasn't breaking sweat.
>
> Unless you already happen to have a machine hosted somewhere, or a virtual 
> slot, definitely worth a look around as GP says and you have the benefit 
> of not having to faff around too much /and/ you get somebody to shout at 
> when it breaks.
>
> F


Funny you mention redeemer arena. I just got done playing a new deemer arena 
mod I coded:
http://gopostals.com/Extra/PirateDeemer1.zip
It's fully functional but I will be releasing a complete redeemer server 
package soon with many more options.

I rented a quad core server a bit back and ran 4 full-on 16 slot monsterhunt 
servers, one to each core. I never even noticed it tick once on system 
resource usage. 

Off Topic - srry

Nice to see your nym Flash.  -  I've been reminiscing a bit wondering what
happend to MeltDown, Flossie, Visene, Folk, etc etc etc.

I wonder how hard it would be to organise a fragfest with some of the old
names.

"§ď×darts" <sixdartsREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:x9KdnTx5UtfA58PWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Off Topic - srry
>
> Nice to see your nym Flash.  -  I've been reminiscing a bit wondering what
> happend to MeltDown, Flossie, Visene, Folk, etc etc etc.
>
> I wonder how hard it would be to organise a fragfest with some of the old
> names.

You find Tut and I'll set everything else up ;) 

On 26-Jan-2010, "goPostal" <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You find Tut and I'll set everything else up ;)


And Gunny.  What happened to gunny?

I logged in to clanbase and sent a message to an old email addy of Tut's.  -
 Mr K, Flossie, Margolis and a couple of others had clanbase accts if I
recall.

"§ď×darts" <sixdartsREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:5a2dnQocipp6N_3WnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>I logged in to clanbase and sent a message to an old email addy of 
>ut's.  -
> Mr K, Flossie, Margolis and a couple of others had clanbase accts if I
> recall.

I'll host an AGUT oldies only weeekend on one of my servers if you want :D 
Goddamn I'd love it!!