Srcds on Quadcore - Garry's Mod

Is it possible to make Scrds work on more then 1 core? I have all ready tried using task manager (set affinity) and doesn't work at all. Help?

No.

why doesn't it work on more than 1 core?

Because it doesn't support it?

This question is answered all of FP. It doesn't support it

[QUOTE=leader1337;16363547]This question is answered all of FP. It doesn't support it[/QUOTE] Is there much of a point even?

Nop.

there's got to be a way to then how the hell do they have 64 servers with 50 ping and like barely any lag? LOL do they have like a 5ghz CPU single core?

[QUOTE=GA phoenix;16363949]there's got to be a way to then how the hell do they have 64 servers with 50 ping and like barely any lag? LOL do they have like a 5ghz CPU single core?[/QUOTE] Usually those are the servers with very good coders. They know how to optimize the code. And, they likely have some of the best servers backing them. [editline]09:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=leader1337;16363644]Nop.[/QUOTE] Leader, why reply if you have nothing constructive to add?. You clearly dont know much about multithreading. There are reasons to have multithreaded servers and some of those reasons are more then just "for more slots / less lag". If SRCDS could multithread then it could load balance over all four cores, reducing load times. It would likely also increase stability. Stability would be the main reason to go multithreaded, other then just "less lag".

[QUOTE=darksoul69;16364883]Usually those are the servers with very good coders. They know how to optimize the code. And, they likely have some of the best servers backing them. [editline]09:54PM[/editline] Leader, why reply if you have nothing constructive to add?. You clearly dont know much about multithreading. There are reasons to have multithreaded servers and some of those reasons are more then just "for more slots / less lag". If SRCDS could multithread then it could load balance over all four cores, reducing load times. It would likely also increase stability. Stability would be the main reason to go multithreaded, other then just "less lag".[/QUOTE] Yeah I guess there is a point. Maybe valve will come out with a multithreaded one eventually.

SRCDS is multithreaded however GMod is not due to Lua in GMod not being threaded.. so it is disabled for GMod however can be forced but causes issues. You can specify what core the servers startup on that is how you host lots of servers without them affecting each other.

[QUOTE=Killers2;16378650]SRCDS is multithreaded however GMod is not due to Lua in GMod not being threaded.. so it is disabled for GMod however can be forced but causes issues. You can specify what core the servers startup on that is how you host lots of servers without them affecting each other.[/QUOTE] Only Beta multithreading is available, they are not officially multithreaded yet.

[QUOTE=Killers2;16378650]SRCDS is multithreaded however GMod is not due to Lua in GMod not being threaded.. so it is disabled for GMod however can be forced but causes issues. You can specify what core the servers startup on that is how you host lots of servers without them affecting each other.[/QUOTE] .... SRCDS is not multithreaded. [editline]05:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Teddi Orange;16380239]Only Beta multithreading is available, they are not officially multithreaded yet.[/QUOTE] Can you please link me?.

[QUOTE=Killers2;16378650]SRCDS is multithreaded however GMod is not due to Lua in GMod not being threaded.. so it is disabled for GMod however can be forced but causes issues. You can specify what core the servers startup on that is how you host lots of servers without them affecting each other.[/QUOTE] That's not what I am talking about, I am talking about having srcds.exe run on more cores then 1. Not having 5 srcds.exe on 1 core. there completely different. Yes please a link to the beta would be nice, but I think it private only so I will have to hack in to steam servers and steal it! =)

[QUOTE=darksoul69;16381999]Can you please link me?.[/QUOTE] [url=http://google.com/]Okay.[/url]

[QUOTE=compwhizii;16385540][url=http://google.com/]Okay.[/url][/QUOTE] Unfortunently, that is a link to google. I can only assume your full of crap if you wont provide a link to your source.