Search Results

Search found 13403 results on 537 pages for 'epm performance tuning'.

Page 104/537 | < Previous Page | 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111  | Next Page >

• Disk IO slow on ESXi, even slower on a VM (freeNAS + iSCSI)

  - by varesa

  I have a server with ESXi 5 and iSCSI attached network storage(4x1Tb Raid-Z on freenas 8.0.4). Those two machines are connected to each other with Gigabit ethernet. The raid-z volume is divided into three parts: two zvols, shared with iscsi, and one directly on top of zfs, shared with nfs and similar. I ssh'd into the freeNAS box, and did some testing on the disks. I used ddto test the third part of the disks (straight on top of ZFS). I copied a 4GB (2x the amount of RAM) block from /dev/zero to the disk, and the speed was 80MB/s. Other of the iSCSI shared zvols is a datastore for the ESXi. I did similar test with time dd .. there. Since the dd there did not give the speed, I divided the amount of data transfered by the time show by time. The result was around 30-40 MB/s. Thats about half of the speed from the freeNAS host! Then I tested the IO on a VM running on the same ESXi host. The VM was a light CentOS 6.0 machine, which was not really doing anything else at that time. There were no other VMs running on the server at the time, and the other two "parts" of the disk array were not used. A similar dd test gave me result of about 15-20 MB/s. That is again about half of the result on a lower level! Of course the is some overhead in raid-z - zfs - zvolume - iSCSI - VMFS - VM, but I don't expect it to be that big. I belive there must be something wrong in my system. I have heard about bad performance of freeNAS's iSCSI, is that it? I have not managed to get any other "big" SAN OS to run on the box (NexentaSTOR, openfiler). Can you see any obvious problems with my setup?

  Read the article

• Does AMD Cool n Quiet Slow Down Your System?

  - by Software Monkey

  I discovered today that having AMD Cool n Quiet enabled in my BIOS appears to be slowing down my Windows XP SP2 system by about 29% on memory & CPU intensive workloads. I was wondering if (a) anyone else had encountered this, (b) anyone can offer an explanation, (c) there are any negatives I need to be aware of if I keep AMD CnQ disabled. With some superficial testing so far, I don't immediately notice any difference with CnQ off (other than the performance being what I expected from this new hardware). It seems to ramp up the CPU fan a little bit as my program maxes out 1 core, but that's the same as with CnQ on. And when I let the system idle the CPU fan slows down and the systems as quiet as a mouse (after years of 6 small fans churning like they want to go into orbit it's nice to again have a system where I can hear the HDDs seeking). Bonus question: Does CnQ cause issues with system stability? I ask because the reason I disabled it was because I have had a few freezes and 1 spontaneous reboot with my new hardware.

  Read the article

• What do you upgrade to make games load faster? [on hold]

  - by Superbest

  Let's say you have a relatively modern game like Shogun 2. The loading screens take several minutes. This bothers you and you'd like to improve it. What is actually going on when loading screens are up? I'm guessing assets are being loaded into memory from disk, and possibly being decompressed first. However, what is actually causing the slow down? The memory? Mainboard? CPU? HDD? If you had $100 to spend on upgrades and your only goal is to speed up loading screens without reducing other performance, what component of the computer does it make sense to upgrade for maximum benefit? If your answer is "it depends on the existing setup", what sort of benchmarks would you run to determine what is causing the bottleneck? What if you had $500 instead? I give the two budgets for context. I am not asking for actual recommendations about which component to buy (nor are the numbers supposed to be rigid limits), but what features are important when shopping for components with small and large budgets (a large budget could allow buying multiple components which are not so good on their own, but work particularly well together). I mention Shogun 2 as an example, but I'm asking about reducing overall loading times, across all games, not just one game. Therefore, "put it on a solid state disk" probably won't be good solution, because putting every game on your SDD will quickly fill it up.

  Read the article

• Win 2008 R2 - copying TO disk is very slow, copying FROM is more or less okay

  - by avs099

  I have Windows 2008 R2 SP1 with 4 identical SATA disks (Seagate Barracude 7200) in RAID 5 array. It has 4Gb of memory; all recent updates are installed. Problem: when I copy large file from one folder to another, I get about 10MB/s average speed. When I read this file from network share via 1Gbps connection - I get about 25-30 MB/s. Both numbers seems to be low for me - but specifically I'm very frustrated with low write speed. there is no antivirus, no hyper-v, it's just a fileserver - i when i do my tests nobody else reads/write from it (we have only 4 people in a team, so I'm sure). Not sure if that matters, but there is only 1 logic disk "C" with all available space (1400 GB). I'm not an admin at all, so I have no idea where to look and what other information to provide. I did run performance monitor with "% idle time", "avg bytes read", "avg byte write" - here is the screenshot: I'm not sure why there are such obvious spikes. Any idea? Please let me know if you need me to provide more information - what counters should I check, etc. I'm very eager to get this solved. Thank you. UPDATE: we have another Windows 2008 R2 SP1 server with 2 RAID1 arrays - one is disk C (where windows is installed, another one is disk E). It is running Hyper-V and does not have antivirus. I noticed the following behavior when I copy large file (few GBs): C - C: about 50MB/sec C - E: about 55MB/sec E - E: 8MB/sec!!! E - C: 8MB/sec!!! what could cause this?? E drive is RAID1 array from same Seagate Barracuda 1TB drives..

  Read the article

• virtual disk image - file or partition

  - by tylerl

  I'm looking at the differences between using a file versus a partition to store a virtual disk image in VM use. The common knowledge is that partition-based images are faster than file-based images because of a decreased overhead. It makes sense, but I've never seen any actual numbers. My own testing bears out a different result. When I benchmark a direct-to-partition virtual disk, then format that same partition with ext4, create a virtual disk image stored on that ext4 filesystem, and then benchmark that, I see no speedup at all for the direct-to-partition virtual disk. Instead on some systems the file-based image is even faster (possibly due to host OS caching or something like that). This test was repeated many times on many systems, with fairly consistent results. So perhaps throwing out the performance justification, is it still considered better to use a partition rather than a virtual disk image? Is there some other reason why direct partition access is better than image files? Or perhaps is there some reason to go the other way around? Perhaps an advantage in one of the virtual disk file formats that you don't get with raw partition images?

  Read the article

• Server nearly unusable when doing disk writes

  - by Wikser

  My question closely relates to my last question here on serverfault. I was copying about 5GB from a 10 year old desktop computer to the server. The copy was done in Windows Explorer. In this situation I would assume the server to be bored by the dataflow. But as usual with this server, it really slowed down. At least I could work with the remote session, even there was some serious latency. The copy took its time (20min?). In this time I went to a colleague and he tried to log in in the same server via remote desktop (for some other reason). It took about a minute to get to the login screen, a minute to open the control panel, a minute to open the performance monitor, ... Icons were loading maybe one per second. We saw the following (from memory): CPU: 2% Avg. Queue Length: 50 Pages/sec: 115 (?) There was no other considerable activity on the server. The server seldom serves some ASP.NET pages, which became also very slow in this time. The relevant configuration is as follows: Windows 2003 SEAGATE ST3500631NS (7200 rpm, 500 GB) LSI MegaRAID based RAID 5 4 disks, 1 hot spare Write Through No read-ahead Direct Cache Mode Harddisk-Cache-Mode: off Is this normal behaviour for such a configuration? What measurements could give further clues? Is it reasonable to reduce the priority of such copy I/O and favour other processes like the remote desktop? How would you do that? Many thanks!

  Read the article

• Fast distributed filesystem for a large amounts of data with metadata in database

  - by undefined hero

  My project uses several processing machines and one storage machine. Currently storage organized with a MSSQL filetable shared folder. Every file in storage have some metadata in database. Processing machines executes tasks for which they needed files from storage and their metadata. After completing task, processing machine puts resulting data back in storage. From there its taken by another processing machine, which also generates some file and put it back in storage. And etc. Everything was fine, but as number of processing machines increases, I found myself bottlenecked myself with storage machines hard drive performance. So I want processing machines to put files in distributed FS. to lift load from storage machines, from which they can take data from each other, not only storage machine. Can You suggest a particular distributed FS which meets my needs? Or there is another way to solve this problem, without it? Amounts of data in FS in one time are like several terabytes. (storage can handle this, but processors cannot). Data consistence is critical. Read write policy is: once file is written - its constant and may be only removed, but not modified. My current platform is Windows, but I'm ready to switch it, if there is a substantially more convenient solution on another one.

  Read the article

• My processor is running slower than usually it has to run

  - by Soham

  I've Core2Duo E7400 2.80GHz processor on my Intel D945gcnl mobo. From CPU-Z, I've get to know that my processor speed is 1596MHz with X6 multiplier and 266MHz Bus Speed on each core. Why my processor is being operated at 1596 MHz rather than 2.80GHz...!!???? From my side I've tried to disable SpeedStep from my bios by setting EIST to 'Disable' and also tried to change Power Option to 'High Performance' in Windows 7. And also done like suggested in this question:http://superuser.com/questions/119176/processor-not-running-at-max-speed But it gains me nothing. I've also tried to run few massive applications together to check whether it was increasing at that time or not, but it remains same. Should I have to increase my multiplier or overclock to gain that lost speed...??? Should I have to check my power supply for any problem..??? or anything else...??? Please help me on this.... And yeah I've desktop computer so no problem causing by battery. Here's my CPU-Z Screenshot: http://i56.tinypic.com/2lk4mqc.jpg

  Read the article

• Should I partition a 1TB Hard Disk whose primary use is media storage?

  - by Senthil

  I am going to get a 1TB hard disk. I will be storing 1080p or 720p movies, high-bitrate music and pictures in it. I use my PC 90% of the time only to play/listen/see those. I am running out of space in my current HD so I am getting another one. My specs are 2.7GHz Dual Core, 512MB GeForce 9400GT, 2GB DDR2 RAM and all the proper matroska codecs/players. I guess that is enough to play 1080p movies withough a glitch, given an ideal hard disk. I've read about proper partitioning giving performance improvement etc.. I don't want my hard disk to be the bottleneck. Can someone tell me whether I should partition my 1TB hard disk into many drives? If I should, what is the ideal size of each partition? Smooth playing of movies is very important to me. Once I start filling up the disk, there is no turning back. So I want to get it right before I start. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Can a pool of memcache daemons be used to share sessions more efficiently?

  - by Tom

  We are moving from a 1 webserver setup to a two webserver setup and I need to start sharing PHP sessions between the two load balanced machines. We already have memcached installed (and started) and so I was pleasantly surprized that I could accomplish sharing sessions between the new servers by changing only 3 lines in the php.ini file (the session.save_handler and session.save_path): I replaced: session.save_handler = files with: session.save_handler = memcache Then on the master webserver I set the session.save_path to point to localhost: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211" and on the slave webserver I set the session.save_path to point to the master: session.save_path="tcp://192.168.0.1:11211" Job done, I tested it and it works. But... Obviously using memcache means the sessions are in RAM and will be lost if a machine is rebooted or the memcache daemon crashes - I'm a little concerned by this but I am a bit more worried about the network traffic between the two webservers (especially as we scale up) because whenever someone is load balanced to the slave webserver their sessions will be fetched across the network from the master webserver. I was wondering if I could define two save_paths so the machines look in their own session storage before using the network. For example: Master: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211, tcp://192.168.0.2:11211" Slave: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211, tcp://192.168.0.1:11211" Would this successfully share sessions across the servers AND help performance? i.e save network traffic 50% of the time. Or is this technique only for failovers (e.g. when one memcache daemon is unreachable)? Note: I'm not really asking specifically about memcache replication - more about whether the PHP memcache client can peak inside each memcache daemon in a pool, return a session if it finds one and only create a new session if it doesn't find one in all the stores. As I'm writing this I'm thinking I'm asking a bit much from PHP, lol... Assume: no sticky-sessions, round-robin load balancing, LAMP servers.

  Read the article

• Am I getting the right memory for my motherboard?

  - by Daniel Carvalho

  Hi technophiles; I have a Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS motherboard. Also, the memory that came with my computer was two Transcend aXe RAM 1066MHZ 1GB modules. The thing is, I noticed that my motherboard has "DDR2 1200" written on it. This concerns me, have I bought slower memory than my computer is supposed to have ideally? Now, I'm not super concerned at a granular level about the best optimal RAM with the best CAS latency etc... but I do hope at least that I've got the right speed. Now, as far as I know, there is no such thing as ram at 1200MHZ? Am I right? You see, because I'm thinking of getting more RAM now, before I can't find the same type or speed any-more and just want to make sure it's the right thing. Furthermore, if the memory is slower than what I should be getting for my motherboard, what RAM should I be getting, and will that new RAM play nice with my old RAM? If I get new RAM at a different speed, would it be better / more beneficial performance-wise to omit the old RAM because of how the whole DUAL channel RAM thing works? I'm not too clued up on this area. Thanks chiefs.

  Read the article

• Mysterious Windows 7 slowdown problem

  - by cletus

  I have a fairly beefy machine: Intel Q9450 8GB DDR2800 (4x2) Intel X25-M G2 80GB SSD Several other hard drives Windows 7 Ultimate 64 In the last month I've gotten a mysterious slowdown problem. When I start my IDE (IntelliJ IDEA) it usually takes about 20 seconds on the SSD. If my machine has been on for a day or two (as far as I can tell this is the only pattern) and I try to start the IDE, it brings my machine to a halt. CPU usage goes up to 25% per core (so it's basically 100% usage) and it takes up to 5 minutes to start. Other things I've noticed: iTunes will start to skip and stutter (my music is running off a second hard drive). The only persistent things I'm running are: AVG Anti-Virus Spybot (the slowdown predates this) Hamachi and Murmur (again the slowdown predates this) Apple Airport Base Agent HP OfficeJet 8500 driver/manager The browser I use is Chrome. I can't think why that'd be relevant but it's always on so I thought I'd mention it. When this happens I can't see a reason for it in the process list. No CPU hogs. No spikes in IO activity that I can see. Basically I'm at a loss to explain it and need to reboot, at which point everything returns to normal (for awhile). FWIW the Intel SSD is about 75-80% full. I know being too full can really degrade performance. I don't believe that's the issue here. Does anyone have any ideas on what I can do to fix this or at least help find what's going wrong? This same machine (sans SSD) could run Win XP and stay up fine for a month or two.

  Read the article

• mkfs Operation Takes Very Long on Linux Software Raid 5

  - by Elmar Weber

  I've set-up a Linux software raid level 5 consisting of 4 * 2 TB disks. The disk array was created with a 64k stripe size and no other configuration parameters. After the initial rebuild I tried to create a filesystem and this step takes very long (about half an hour or more). I tried to create an xfs and ext3 filesystem, both took a long time, with mkfs.ext3 I observed the following behaviour, which might be helpful: writing inode tables runs fast until it reaches 1053 (~ 1 second), then it writes about 50, waits for two seconds, then the next 50 are written (according to the console display) when I try to cancel the operation with Control+C it hangs for half a minute before it is really canceled The performance of the disks individually is very good, I've run bonnie++ on each one separately with write / read values of around 95 / 110MB/s. Even when I run bonnie++ on every drive in parallel the values are only reduced by about 10 MB. So I'm excluding hardware / I/O scheduling in general as a problem source. I tried different configuration parameters for stripe_cache_size and readahead size without success, but I don't think they are that relevant for the file system creation operation. The server details: Linux server 2.6.35-27-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux mdadm - v2.6.7.1 Does anyone has a suggestion on how to further debug this?

  Read the article

• How important is dual-gigabit lan for a super user's home NAS?

  - by Andrew

  Long story short: I'm building my own home server based on Ubuntu with 4 drives in RAID 10. Its primary purpose will be NAS and backup. Would I be making a terrible mistake by building a NAS Server with a single Gigabit NIC? Long story long: I know the absolute max I can get out of a single Gigabit port is 125MB/s, and I want this NAS to be able to handle up to 6 computers accessing files simultaneously, with up to two of them streaming video. With Ubuntu NIC-bonding and the performance of RAID 10, I can theoretically double my throughput and achieve 250MB/s (ok, not really, but it would be faster). The drives have an average read throughput of 83.87MB/s according to Tom's Hardware. The unit itself will be based on the Chenbro ES34069-BK-180 case. With my current hardware choices, it'll have this motherboard with a Core i3 CPU and 8GB of RAM. Overkill, I know, but this server will be doing other things as well (like transcoding video). Unfortunately, the only Mini-ITX boards I can find with dual-gigabit and 6 SATA ports are Intel Atom-based, and I need more processing power than an Atom has to offer. I would love to find a board with 6 SATA ports and two Gigabit LAN ports that supports a Core i3 CPU. So far, my search has come up empty. Thus, my dilemma. Should I hold out for such a board, go with an Atom-based solution, or stick with my current single-gigabit configuration? I know there are consumer NAS units with just one gigabit interface (probably most of them), but I think I will demand a lot more from my server than the average home user. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Should I partition my main table with 2 millions rows?

  - by domribaut

  Hi, I am a developer and would need some DBA-advices. We are starting to get performance problem with a MSSQL2005 database. The visible effects of the incidents is mainly CPU-hog on the server but operations reported that it was also draining resources from the SAN (not always). the main source of issues is for sure in some application but I am wondering if we should partition some of the main tables anyway in order to relax the I/O pressure. The base is about 60GB in one file. The main table (order) has 2.1 Million rows with a 215 colones (but none is huge). We have an integer as PK so it should be OK to define a partition function. Will we win something with partitioning? will partition indexes buy us something? Here are some more facts about the DB and the table database_name database_size unallocated space My_base 57173.06 MB 79.74 MB reserved data index_size unused 29 444 808 KB 26 577 320 KB 2 845 232 KB 22 256 KB name rows reserved data index_size unused Order 2 097 626 4 403 832 KB 2 756 064 KB 1 646 080 KB 1688 KB Thanks for any advice Dom

  Read the article

• How to find out what is causing a slow down of the application on this server?

  - by Jan P.

  This is not the typical serverfault question, but I'm out of ideas and don't know where else to go. If there are better places to ask this, just point me there in the comments. Thanks. Situation We have this web application that uses Zend Framework, so runs in PHP on an Apache web server. We use MySQL for data storage and memcached for object caching. The application has a very unique usage and load pattern. It is a mobile web application where every full hour a cronjob looks through the database for users that have some information waiting or action to do and sends this information to a (external) notification server, that pushes these notifications to them. After the users get these notifications, the go to the app and use it, mostly for a very short time. An hour later, same thing happens. Problem In the last few weeks usage of the application really started to grow. In the last few days we encountered very high load and doubling of application response times during and after the sending of these notifications (so basically every hour). The server doesn't crash or stop responding to requests, it just gets slower and slower and often takes 20 minutes to recover - until the same thing starts again at the full hour. We have extensive monitoring in place (New Relic, collectd) but I can't figure out what's wrong; I can't find the bottlekneck. That's where you come in: Can you help me figure out what's wrong and maybe how to fix it? Additional information The server is a 16 core Intel Xeon (8 cores with hyperthreading, I think) and 12GB RAM running Ubuntu 10.04 (Linux 3.2.4-20120307 x86_64). Apache is 2.2.x and PHP is Version 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.11. If any configuration information would help analyze the problem, just comment and I will add it. Graphs info phpinfo() apc status memcache status collectd Processes CPU Apache Load MySQL Vmem Disk New Relic Application performance Server overview Processes Network Disks (Sorry the graphs are gifs and not the same time period, but I think the most important info is in there)

  Read the article

• Windows is very slow with my new SSD

  - by Maksym H.

  I have a laptop HP probook 4520s with Core i5 M480 @ 2.67Ghz, 4Gb RAM, 640 GB HDD Radeon HD 6370m 1GB video card. It would seem like a good stack for work, right? But My HDD has crashed after everyday walking with laptop about 1 year. After buying my new SSD (Patriot memory - Torqx II 128 Gb SATA II) and installing new Windows 8 from scratch - it was amazing fast. But I had only install windows updates, and I feel that the speed become the same as my old HDD, after install other software for my work, it becomes so slow, so when I use my PC with old lower configuration and it really works better than my awesome laptop... I checked that TRIM and AHCI mode are turned on. So why's that? I asked for help in Patriot Memory support, they suggested to send them ATTO test results, done, sent. Here is the response: "Thank you very much for the attached results. Looking at the results, I can see that your SSD speed is a lot lower than it should be. Can you tell me your system specs?" Until they checked my email, I re-installed Windows 8 to Windows 7 and it was again perfect, but the story repeats it becomes slower and slower after every installing new software. Check out some screenshots.. (sorry for the screenshot with russian TaskManager, I hope you will recognize those parameters accordingly with your english or other lang TaskManager) So the main issue that something everytime loads the disc on 100% and the response time is jumping around 1000-3000 ms. Why am I asking about Windows? Because I tried to install Linux Mint (x86) and It just flies. So great performance independent on how many programs I have installed. Only Windows (any 7 or 8) has this problem. So guys, I appreciate any ideas about how to fix that and may be answers of main question - "why is it so.?" Thanks!

  Read the article

• mkfs Operation Takes Very Long on Linux Software Raid 5

  - by Elmar Weber

  I've set-up a Linux software raid level 5 consisting of 4 * 2 TB disks. The disk array was created with a 64k stripe size and no other configuration parameters. After the initial rebuild I tried to create a filesystem and this step takes very long (about half an hour or more). I tried to create an xfs and ext3 filesystem, both took a long time, with mkfs.ext3 I observed the following behaviour, which might be helpful: writing inode tables runs fast until it reaches 1053 (~ 1 second), then it writes about 50, waits for two seconds, then the next 50 are written (according to the console display) when I try to cancel the operation with Control+C it hangs for half a minute before it is really canceled The performance of the disks individually is very good, I've run bonnie++ on each one separately with write / read values of around 95 / 110MB/s. Even when I run bonnie++ on every drive in parallel the values are only reduced by about 10 MB. So I'm excluding hardware / I/O scheduling in general as a problem source. I tried different configuration parameters for stripe_cache_size and readahead size without success, but I don't think they are that relevant for the file system creation operation. The server details: Linux server 2.6.35-27-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux mdadm - v2.6.7.1 Does anyone has a suggestion on how to further debug this?

  Read the article

• Windows 8 x64 with VMWare Workstation or inside ESXi

  - by Dommer

  I need to run several virtual machines on a core i7-920 box with 12GB or RAM and a 256GB SSD to host the VMs. It also has a Highpoint RocketRaid 2720SGL RAID controller with a 12TB RAID 5 array. I want one of my VMs to run Windows 8 x64, to have access to the RAID array as a native disk (not as networked drives and it needs to run at full speed) and to be able to send files quickly across the network. Initially I thought I'd try to do this using ESXi 5, but I have been unable to find any working RAID drivers for the RR2720SGL and it is not on the HCL for ESXi 5. In light of this, I have installed Windows 8 x64 on the hardware and am thinking of installing VMWare Workstation and running my VMs inside there. I guess my questions are these: How does VMWare Workstation 9 perform compared to ESXi 5? In the real world I mean? Presumably installing Win 8 as the host OS will give me way better performance for that Win 8 machine than Win 8 running under ESXi? I should stick with Windows 8 x64 as the host OS, right? If I install a domain controller VM inside my Win 8 box and join the Win 8 machine to that domain, am I insane (I would guess the Win 8 machine wouldn't see the domain controller until it finished starting everything up, but I don't think that matters)?! is it feasible to give metrics like this and if so, what is the likely value of x? 25%? 50%? 75%? Win 8 under ESXi runs x% as fast as Win 8 installed bare metal.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 starts getting sluggish over a few days

  - by munrobasher

  Myself and the other developer are running Windows 7 Enterprise 64 bit with 8GB RAM on different Gigabyte motherboards with Quad core Intel CPUs. Most of the time, it runs like a dream. We use VMware workstation a lot (hence the 8GB) and that works well. Except... now and then, after the PCs have been on for a few days, the whole system starts getting really sluggish doing certain tasks. The other's developer's system is far worse than mine with it taking up to a minute to launch IE. Today, mine has gone sluggish but nowhere near as bad. For example, normally when I click on a new tab in IE, it's instant. Today, there's an obvious delay. Right-clicking in this window to trigger iSpell is normally instant, right now it takes about five seconds. I've got resource monitor open on my second monitor and when I did that right-click, there was no obvious peak in CPU, disk or memory. A reboot does fix it so it does sound like a resource issue but haven't a clue what might be to blame. The two computers have similarities (same spec) but also differences (like motherboard, RAM & CPU models). So I guess the question is, any pointers on diagnosing why a PC is sluggish? What could cause such a right-click slow down in IE for example? It sounds like such a simple operation. NOTE: whilst typing this message alone, it was fine performance wise. I can click around the page no problem but right-click still is noticeable slow. Will reboot over lunch... Cheers, Rob.

  Read the article

• Best SSD tweaks for Windows 7

  - by Nick Berardi

  I have seen many articles about tweaking an SSD, but many of them seem outdated, or too broad (read all Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 general tweaks). And I know that Windows 7 has been specifically tweaked for SSD by the Windows team, so I don't want to do something that was written for Windows XP in mind and end up circumventing something the Windows team has specifically designed in to Windows 7. So my question is what are the best SSD tweaks for Windows 7 that you have found to get the performance out of your drive? I hope to make a comprehensive list in the answers below so there won't be so much disinformation in the forums about what to do and what not to do. Here are a few that I see posted up on the forums alot, and some questions to get the discussion started: Disabling Superfetch. Yes or No Disabling Page File or limiting it to a really small size such as 500 MB. Disabling Indexing. Yes or No Disabling Defragmenting. Yes or No What are your thoughts do you have any that have worked for you? When providing an answer please do your best to back it up with a reason and possibly some documentation from MSDN, TechNet, or another credible source.

  Read the article

• Measure Upload Speed between a client and our server

  - by tresstylez

  We host a SAAS application specially customized for multiple clients. For one customer in particular -- they are reporting sporadic performance issues from various locations on their network, in particular UPLOADING documents through a form on our website. The client claims they have "bandwidth to spare" and that utilization of their "pipe" is so low that it MUST be our application, but our application has MANY clients and all features are working fine for all other clients. Interestingly enough -- DOWNLOADS (ie. just accessing the website, or downloading documents) is working fine. Speed test shows that they should get 1.2Mbps UP. So, a 3MB file should take 20 secs to upload. It takes 60+ seconds on their network. Sometimes even small files take OVER 10 minutes to upload or they timeout. Pings and Traceroutes don't show any abnormally long hops or response times. They claim other SAAS applications they use allow them to upload just fine. Both IT teams are working together to resolve this issue. What kind of data can I request from the clients to begin ruling things out. Seems like we need to somehow measure LATENCY of the networks involved or even at the switch level, we need to understand if packets are getting dropped somewhere and why. Where should I start? Any help is appreciated. I'll provide more info upon requests

  Read the article

• (Win7) Gets stuck with ~1% CPU. Especially with multithreading

  - by meow

  Windows 7 32 bit, up to date, Intel i7 860. (For some reason the company runs 32bit Windows everywhere.) I tried to update all motherboard drivers etc. as far as possible. I have a performance issue with a machine which appears in connection with multithreading (or so I think). As an example (and where I most often see it, but it appears on other programs as well): ProteoWizard is a file conversion tool for mass spectrometry files. I can add a list of files and it will attempt to process up to 8 files in parallel (quadcore x 2 threads/core). If I choose 1 to 6 files, I start the process and it goes straight through. If I have =7 files in the queue, conversion goes to ~20%, then gets stuck for 15 seconds, then continues again, always in "chunks" of a few % before getting stuck again. During the time the process is stuck, CPU is at 1%. RAM is not limiting, it is maybe at 70% or so and not going up. I don't get the same problem on other, even slower machines. The computer gets also stuck at 1% CPU doing nothing on other occasions, but for multithreading it is most frequent. Where should I look for the problem?

  Read the article

• TortoiseSVN client slows Explorer to a crawl in Windows XP running in Parallels

  - by Cory Larson

  I thought I'd make my first SuperUser question relatively simple, though it's the kind of question that may not get many responses as I'm not directly involved with the issue. A colleague does his development in Windows XP running in Parallels on his Mac. We've just migrated our VSS repository to SVN, and we've gone with TortoiseSVN as our client of choice with the Ankhsvn plugin for Visual Studio. On his XP instance, after installing TortoiseSVN, browsing through folders using Explorer is extremely slow; about 15 - 30 seconds before the contents of the next folder displays. It's the slowest when opening My Computer. Once he reaches a folder that contains the working content of an SVN project, Explorer behaves quickly again as expected. It seems that TortoiseSVN may be spending a bunch of time searching subfolders for stuff so it can do its icon-overlay thing, but that's just a guess. I've used TortoiseSVN for years on both XP and Vista on far less powerful machines without any issues with Explorer, so I'm attributing the slowness to it being run in a VM, though that may not be the actual issue. So has anyone encountered similar performance issues, and/or know of a fix? Keep in mind that any requests to make changes to his configuration will need to be communicated and thus my response time might be slow. Thanks everyone!

  Read the article

• What may the reason of slowness be (see details in message body)?

  - by Ivan

  I've got a really weird situation I'm beating to solve. A performance problem which looks really like an empty waiting sequence set in code (while it probably isn't so). I've got a pretty powerful dedicated server (10 GB RAM, eight Xeon cores, etc) running Ubuntu 10.04 with all the functionality services (except OpenVPN server used to provide secure access to clients) deployed in separate VirtualBox (vboxheadless) machines (one for the company e-mail server, one for web server and one for accounting/crm server (Firebird + proprietary app server working with Delphi-made clients)). CPU load (as "top" says) is almost always near zero. Host system RAM is close to 100% usage but not overloaded (as very little swapping gets used, and freed (by stopping one of VMs) memory doesn't get reused any quickly). Approximately 50% of guests RAM is used. iostat usually shows near zero %util. Network bandwidth seems to be underused. But the accounting/crm client (a Win32 Delphi application run on WinXP machines) software works hell-slow with this server (and works much better using an inside-LAN Windows server). I just can't imagine what can make it be slow if there are so plenty of CPU, RAM, HDD and bandwidth resources available on clients and on the server even in their hardest moments. Saying bandwidth is underused I not only know that clients and the server are connected to the Internet with a bigger channels than really used (which leaves the a chance they may have a bottleneck of a sort on the route between them), I've tested bandwidth between clients and the server by copying files among them.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111  | Next Page >