Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Nobin Mathew]

I am trying to move my Game server from windows to Linux.

Is this a good idea?
How much better performance i will get?

Can i fine tune the 2.6.20 kernel to get better performance?
What all areas i can do this fine tuning?

what other things i can do to get better performance?

Re: Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:42:50 +0530
"Nobin Mathew" <nobin.mathew@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am trying to move my Game server from windows to Linux.
> 
> Is this a good idea?
> How much better performance i will get?

How long is a piece of string. Given you don't give any hardware info,
any info on the applications run or on the network and capacity expected
its a bit hard to guess really.

Re: Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Renato S. Yamane]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:42:50 +0530
>> How much better performance i will get?
> 
> How long is a piece of string. Given you don't give any hardware info,
> any info on the applications run or on the network and capacity expected
> its a bit hard to guess really.

Detail: I think that is a good idea if hard-users (as kernel developers) 
had a local to host yours .config file, specifying hadware.

E.g. I have a laptop Toshiba M45-S355 (with ReiserFS) and don't have 
experience to choose what I can remove from kernel (or compile as 
module/built-in).

So, is a great idea use pre-config file to compile a new kernel with 
best options.

My .config file (2.6.21.1) and lspci is attached.

Best regards,
Renato S. Yamane

[-- Attachment #2: lspci.txt --]
[-- Type: plain/text, Size: 2122 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: config_2.6.21.1.txt --]
[-- Type: plain/text, Size: 59927 bytes --]

Re: Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Renato S. Yamane]

Mihai Donțu wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 17:35, you wrote:
>> E.g. I have a laptop Toshiba M45-S355 (with ReiserFS) and don't have 
>> experience to choose what I can remove from kernel (or compile as 
>> module/built-in).
> 
>   Well, here are some steps:
>   1. boot an Ubuntu livecd
>   2. lspci && lsmod and see what it has detected/loaded
>   3. cd /usr/src/linux && make menuconfig
>   4. read the help for each "set" option and see what it does (like many
> people did in the early days). If you don't find it useful, press N.

One more detail: Is better put this modules listed in lsmod as "built-in"?

One doubt, in my lsmod I see sd_mod, cdrom, intel_agp, sg, pcmci_core, 
agppart, snd_page_alloc, and some others, but they didn't listed in 
.config file

E.g.
#cat config_2.6.21.1.txt | grep -i sd_mod
Result is empty!

Best regards,
Renato

Re: Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Jun 15 2007 12:47, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
>> 
>>   Well, here are some steps:
>>   1. boot an Ubuntu livecd
>>   2. lspci && lsmod and see what it has detected/loaded
>>   3. cd /usr/src/linux && make menuconfig
>>   4. read the help for each "set" option and see what it does (like many
>> people did in the early days). If you don't find it useful, press N.
>
> One more detail: Is better put this modules listed in lsmod as "built-in"?

It hardly makes a difference.


	Jan
-- 

Re: Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 11:35:22AM -0300, Renato S. Yamane wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:42:50 +0530
>>> How much better performance i will get?
>> How long is a piece of string. Given you don't give any hardware info,
>> any info on the applications run or on the network and capacity expected
>> its a bit hard to guess really.
>
> Detail: I think that is a good idea if hard-users (as kernel developers) 
> had a local to host yours .config file, specifying hadware.
>
> E.g. I have a laptop Toshiba M45-S355 (with ReiserFS) and don't have 
> experience to choose what I can remove from kernel (or compile as 
> module/built-in).
>
> So, is a great idea use pre-config file to compile a new kernel with best 
> options.
>
> My .config file (2.6.21.1) and lspci is attached.

CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=n (as set in your .config) should be the one setting 
that is important for performance - enabling it offers debug options, 
and some of them can significantly influence the performance.

Other options might influence the size and very slightly the speed of 
the kernel, but not in any noticable way (except when you disable a 
driver required for your hardware).

E.g. it even wouldn't matter if your kernel would be smaller by 1 MB and 
faster by 1%.

The best solution for users like you is to use a distribution kernel and 
the distribution autodetecting all hardware and automatically loading 
all drivers you might need.

> Best regards,
> Renato S. Yamane

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Jun 15 2007 19:42, Nobin Mathew wrote:
>
> I am trying to move my Game server from windows to Linux.
>
> Is this a good idea?
> How much better performance i will get?

Well, since you don't necessarily need to run an X server, there's some more
ram available.

>
> Can i fine tune the 2.6.20 kernel to get better performance?
> What all areas i can do this fine tuning?
>
> what other things i can do to get better performance?


	Jan
-- 

Re: Linux Servers comparison with Windows 2003 servers for Gaming

[Willy Tarreau]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 07:42:50PM +0530, Nobin Mathew wrote:
> I am trying to move my Game server from windows to Linux.
> 
> Is this a good idea?
> How much better performance i will get?
> 
> Can i fine tune the 2.6.20 kernel to get better performance?
> What all areas i can do this fine tuning?
> 
> what other things i can do to get better performance?

All this depends a lot on your workload. If you're CPU-bound, maybe it
will not change anything. If you're doing a lot of disk accesses, the
choice of the filesystem will be far more important than any config
option you might change. If you're doing a lot of network traffic, you
might consider not loading every unneeded network subsystem (ipv6,
netfilter, bridging, ...) to save CPU cycles, though it does not seem
to be your problem given your other mail indicating a 100 Mbps NIC.

If you don't know what limits your application, it is possible that
you will first run it with "standard" parameters (defaults from your
distro), and later reinstall it differently once you have measured
it usage.

Willy