Search Results

Search found 12988 results on 520 pages for 'performance'.

Page 115/520 | < Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >

  • Which is faster for read access on EC2; local drive or EBS?

    - by Phillip Oldham
    Which is faster for read access on an EC2 instance; the "local" drive or an attached EBS volume? I have some data that needs to be persisted so have placed this on an EBS volume. I'm using OpenSolaris, so this volume has been attached as a ZFS pool. However, I have a large chunk of EC2 disk space that's going to go unused, so I'm considering re-purposing this as a ZFS cache volume but I don't want to do this if the disk access is going to be slower than that of the EBS volume as it would potentially have a detrimental effect.

    Read the article

  • Bad idea to keep htop running?

    - by Michael T. Smith
    I'm now monitoring multiple servers (3) and in the coming weeks that'll increase (towards 5 or 6). I've been keeping three terminal windows open running htop via SSH and I'm now wondering if there are any downsides to having a connection constantly open to production servers?

    Read the article

  • NFS robustness or weaknesses

    - by Thomas
    I have 2 web servers with a load balancer in front of them. They both have mounted a nfs share, so that they can share some common files, like images uploaded from the cms and some run time generated files. Is nfs robust? Are there any specific weaknesses I should now about? I know it does not support file locking but that does not matter to me. I use memcache to emulate file locking for the runtime generated files. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Website has become slower on a VPS, was much fast on a shared host. What's wrong?

    - by Arpit Tambi
    My shared host suspended my website stating system overload, so I moved my website to a VPS which has 4GB RAM. But for some reason the website has become very slow. This is the vmstat output - procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- -----cpu------ r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 1 0 0 3050500 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 Here's the Apache Benchmark output for a STATIC html page I ran on the server itself - Benchmarking www.ask-oracle.com (be patient)...apr_poll: The timeout specified has expired (70007) Total of 20 requests completed Update: Server Config: List item Centos 5.6 4 cores cpu 4 GB RAM LAMP stack with APC Wordpress Only one website It takes almost double time to load now, same website was much fast on shared hosting. I know I need to tweak some settings but have no clue where to start from? I have already tried to optimize apache, mysql etc. Update 2: CPU usage is low, see uptime output: 11:09:02 up 7 days, 21:26, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.11, 0.09 Update 3: When I load any webpage, browser shows "Waiting" for a long time and then page loads quickly. So I suspect server can accept only limited connections and holds extra connections in a waiting state. How to check this? Update 4: Following is the output on executing netperf TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 16384 16384 10.00 9615.40 [root@ip-118-139-177-244 j3ngn5ri6r01t3]# Here are the Apache MPM settings from httpd.conf, do they look okay? <IfModule worker.c> StartServers 5 MaxClients 100 MinSpareThreads 50 MaxSpareThreads 250 ThreadsPerChild 125 MaxRequestsPerChild 10000 ServerLimit 100 </IfModule>

    Read the article

  • IIS 7.0 - responses throttled to 500ms blocks?

    - by Julia Hayward
    Scenario: ASP.NET MVC wep app sitting on my local machine (Vista Ultimate, IIS 7.0), nothing going on except one user (me) logged in and viewing an index page. The page includes 9 dynamic images drawn from the underlying DB and returned from a controller action. I have got the actual processing time for these images down to 15ms each. Turn on Firebug and watch the page load. What I see is 9 requests for images firing off together – no surprise – but four come back to me almost immediately; two more after 0.5s; another after 1s; then at 1.5s and 2s. Logging on the server side suggests the individual responses are still only taking 15ms. So it appears IIS is queueing things up into 500ms chunks. (Repeating the experiment produces different results, but each time the images return in similar blocks – you might get three in the first group, then three at 0.5s, two at 1s etc, for example – and it’s always at 500ms intervals, not anything else.) It’s also repeatable cross-browser, and it’s not repeatable with other forms of content. I haven't found any particular mention of this problem out there, so I'm sort of assuming it's not an IIS bug, so is it: i) IIS on desktop OSs deliberately does it, to make you use server OSs in production? ii) There is some magical setting that has eluded me for as long as I’ve known IIS? iii) Something peculiar to MVC or SQL Server 2008? or something else?

    Read the article

  • Ultra-lightweight web browser?

    - by zildjohn01
    Are there any good super-lightweight graphical web browsers out there? I'd like to be able to browse the web on an old PC, but the mainstream crop of browsers is just too heavy, and I don't want to resort to something like Lynx. There must be something decent out there that'll fit in 16 or 32MB of RAM comfortably. 100% standards compliance isn't necessary, but I'd like something that supports the most widely used parts of CSS and JavaScript. The goal is to get 98% of sites usable in a nice, graphical format.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Hangs on Responses Intermittently

    - by Ryan Cook
    I want to preface this with the fact that I am a developer and I am not even close to a DBA, plus I am new to Oracle. OK, here it goes: I have a Java application which uses spring and hibernate. Its a simple CRUD app and I will leave the details out as I don't think they are the issue. I have noticed that my app runs fine when I use MySql, but when I use an Oracle 10.2 server every 7th-10th hangs for 5-10 seconds. My Oracle installation was done by me using all defaults, same as the mysql install. I don't even know where to start looking. Any ideas? Thanks in advance and sorry that I lack the details that are most likely required for help.

    Read the article

  • Simple queries occasionally running very slowly

    - by Johan
    I have some very simple queries that occasionally run very slowly. The table viewed_sites has about 10 - 20 rows. Running EXPLAIN ANALYZE always gives a runtime of less than 3 milliseconds. When the query is run automatically (every 10 seconds) it occasionally takes over a second to run. The query: INSERT INTO ga.viewed_sites (site_id) VALUES ('gop2') The table: CREATE TABLE viewed_sites ( site_id character varying(4) NOT NULL, last_viewed timestamp with time zone DEFAULT now() NOT NULL ); The (occasional) log result: 2010-05-24 15:47:55 UTC LOG: duration: 1044.632 ms statement: INSERT INTO ga.viewed_sites (site_id) VALUES ('gop2') It's a horribly vague question, but what could be causing this? I suppose it comes down to CPU, RAM, HDD or some combination of the above. Postgresql 8.3, Ubuntu 8.04 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz 2 GiB RAM

    Read the article

  • Free memory on linux [closed]

    - by Julia Roberts
    Possible Duplicate: Meaning of the buffers/cache line in the output of free What would be a good setting to free memory on linux? I have 8GB but gets used up so fast. current settings: kernel.sched_min_granularity_ns = 10000000 kernel.sched_wakeup_granularity_ns = 15000000 vm.dirty_ratio = 40 kernel.pid_max = 4096 vm.bdflush = 100 1200 128 512 15 5000 500 1884 2 What settings would I need so linux frees old ram faster?

    Read the article

  • Is my large Windows folder slowing down my machine?

    - by Moses
    I have a problem with my Windows installation running very slow and my Windows folder being too large. I thought that the problems are related. My Windows folder is 17.4 GB I have 1807 folders totalling 2.4 GB that are prefaced with a $. My System32 folder is 1.55 GB My Microsoft.NET folder is 654 MB – I don't know what if any programs I have that are using it. My Service Pack folder is 568 MB. The Software Distribution folder is 536 MB The ie8updates folder is 380 MB. How can I reduce the size of these folders and could their size be why I am running do slow?

    Read the article

  • Reccomendation for tuning 100's of Sql Databases

    - by wayne
    Hi, I'm running several sql servers, each running a few hundred multi gig databases for customers. They are all setup homogeneously as far as the schemas are concerned, however customer usages of the data differ quite alot from database to database. What would be the best way to auto-index / profile / tune this large amount of databases? As there are atleast 600 or more catalogs i cant have someone manually profile, and index as required by each databases usage patterns. I'm currently running SQL 2005 but will be moving to 2008, so solutions that work with either are fine!

    Read the article

  • Slow filesystem access

    - by danneh3826
    I'm trying to diagnose a slow filesystem issue on a server I look after. It's been ongoing for quite some time, and I've run out of ideas as to what I can try. Here's the thick of it. The server itself is a Dell Poweredge T310. It has 4 SAS hard drives in it, configured at RAID5, and is running Citrix XenServer 5.6. The VM is a (relatively) old Debian 5.0.6 installation. It's given 4 cores, and 4Gb's of RAM. It has 3 volumes. A 10Gb volume (ext3) for the system, 980Gb volume (xfs) for data (~94% full), and another 200Gb volume (xfs) for data (~13% full). Now here's the weird thing. Read/write access to the 980Gb volume is really slow. I might get 5Mb/s out of it if I'm lucky. At first I figured it was actually disk access in the system, or at a hypervisor level, but ruled that out entirely as other VMs on the same host are running perfectly fine (a good couple hundred Mb/s disk r/w access). So then I started to target this particular VM. I started thinking it was XFS, but to prove it I wasn't going to attempt to change the filesystem on the 980Gb drive, with years and years of billions of files on there. So I provisioned the 200Gb drive, and did the same read/write test (basically dd), and got a good couple hundred Mb/s r/w access to it. So that ruled out the VM, the hardware, and the filesystem type. There's also a lot of these in /var/log/kern.log; (sorry, this is quite long) Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564689] httpd: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x4020 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564693] Pid: 7318, comm: httpd Not tainted 2.6.32-4-686-bigmem #1 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564696] Call Trace: Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564705] [<c1092a4d>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x476/0x4e0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564711] [<c1092ac3>] ? __get_free_pages+0xc/0x17 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564716] [<c10b632e>] ? __kmalloc+0x30/0x128 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564722] [<c11dd774>] ? pskb_expand_head+0x4f/0x157 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564727] [<c11ddbbf>] ? __pskb_pull_tail+0x41/0x1fb Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564732] [<c11e4882>] ? dev_queue_xmit+0xe4/0x38e Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564738] [<c1205902>] ? ip_finish_output+0x0/0x5c Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564742] [<c12058c7>] ? ip_finish_output2+0x187/0x1c2 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564747] [<c1204dc8>] ? ip_local_out+0x15/0x17 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564751] [<c12055a9>] ? ip_queue_xmit+0x31e/0x379 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564758] [<c1279a90>] ? _spin_lock_bh+0x8/0x1e Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564767] [<eda15a8d>] ? __nf_ct_refresh_acct+0x66/0xa4 [nf_conntrack] Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564773] [<c103bf42>] ? _local_bh_enable_ip+0x16/0x6e Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564779] [<c1214593>] ? tcp_transmit_skb+0x595/0x5cc Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564785] [<c1005c4f>] ? xen_restore_fl_direct_end+0x0/0x1 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564791] [<c12165ea>] ? tcp_write_xmit+0x7a3/0x874 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564796] [<c121203a>] ? tcp_ack+0x1611/0x1802 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564801] [<c10055ec>] ? xen_force_evtchn_callback+0xc/0x10 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564806] [<c121392f>] ? tcp_established_options+0x1d/0x8b Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564811] [<c1213be4>] ? tcp_current_mss+0x38/0x53 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564816] [<c1216701>] ? __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x1e/0x50 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564821] [<c1212246>] ? tcp_data_snd_check+0x1b/0xd2 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564825] [<c1212de3>] ? tcp_rcv_established+0x5d0/0x626 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564831] [<c121902c>] ? tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x15f/0x2cf Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564835] [<c1219561>] ? tcp_v4_rcv+0x3c5/0x5c0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564841] [<c120197e>] ? ip_local_deliver_finish+0x10c/0x18c Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564846] [<c12015a4>] ? ip_rcv_finish+0x2c4/0x2d8 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564852] [<c11e3b71>] ? netif_receive_skb+0x3bb/0x3d6 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564864] [<ed823efc>] ? xennet_poll+0x9b8/0xafc [xen_netfront] Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564869] [<c11e40ee>] ? net_rx_action+0x96/0x194 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564874] [<c103bd4c>] ? __do_softirq+0xaa/0x151 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564878] [<c103be24>] ? do_softirq+0x31/0x3c Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564883] [<c103befa>] ? irq_exit+0x26/0x58 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564890] [<c118ff9f>] ? xen_evtchn_do_upcall+0x12c/0x13e Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564896] [<c1008c3f>] ? xen_do_upcall+0x7/0xc Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564899] Mem-Info: Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564902] DMA per-cpu: Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564905] CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564908] CPU 1: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564911] CPU 2: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564914] CPU 3: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564916] Normal per-cpu: Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564919] CPU 0: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 175 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564922] CPU 1: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 165 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564925] CPU 2: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 30 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564928] CPU 3: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 140 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564931] HighMem per-cpu: Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564933] CPU 0: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 159 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564936] CPU 1: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 22 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564939] CPU 2: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 24 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564942] CPU 3: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 13 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564947] active_anon:485974 inactive_anon:121138 isolated_anon:0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564948] active_file:75215 inactive_file:79510 isolated_file:0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564949] unevictable:0 dirty:516 writeback:15 unstable:0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564950] free:230770 slab_reclaimable:36661 slab_unreclaimable:21249 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564952] mapped:20016 shmem:29450 pagetables:5600 bounce:0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564958] DMA free:2884kB min:72kB low:88kB high:108kB active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB active_file:5692kB inactive_file:724kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15872kB mlocked:0kB dirty:8kB writeback:0kB mapped:0kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:5112kB slab_unreclaimable:156kB kernel_stack:56kB pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564964] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 698 4143 4143 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564977] Normal free:143468kB min:3344kB low:4180kB high:5016kB active_anon:56kB inactive_anon:2068kB active_file:131812kB inactive_file:131728kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:715256kB mlocked:0kB dirty:156kB writeback:0kB mapped:308kB shmem:4kB slab_reclaimable:141532kB slab_unreclaimable:84840kB kernel_stack:1928kB pagetables:22400kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564983] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 27559 27559 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.564995] HighMem free:776728kB min:512kB low:4636kB high:8760kB active_anon:1943840kB inactive_anon:482484kB active_file:163356kB inactive_file:185588kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:3527556kB mlocked:0kB dirty:1900kB writeback:60kB mapped:79756kB shmem:117796kB slab_reclaimable:0kB slab_unreclaimable:0kB kernel_stack:0kB pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565001] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565011] DMA: 385*4kB 16*8kB 3*16kB 9*32kB 6*64kB 2*128kB 1*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2900kB Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565032] Normal: 21505*4kB 6508*8kB 273*16kB 24*32kB 3*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 143412kB Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565054] HighMem: 949*4kB 8859*8kB 7063*16kB 6186*32kB 4631*64kB 727*128kB 6*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 776604kB Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565076] 198980 total pagecache pages Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565079] 14850 pages in swap cache Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565082] Swap cache stats: add 2556273, delete 2541423, find 82961339/83153719 Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565085] Free swap = 250592kB Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.565087] Total swap = 385520kB Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.575454] 1073152 pages RAM Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.575458] 888834 pages HighMem Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.575461] 11344 pages reserved Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.575463] 1090481 pages shared Sep 4 10:16:59 uriel kernel: [32571790.575465] 737188 pages non-shared Now, I've no idea what this means. There's plenty of free memory; total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4247232 3455904 791328 0 5348 736412 -/+ buffers/cache: 2714144 1533088 Swap: 385520 131004 254516 Though now I see the swap is relatively low in size, but would that matter? I've been starting to think about fragmentation, or inode usage on that large partition, but a recent fsck on it showed is as only like 0.5% fragmented. Which leaves me with inode usage, but how much of an effect really would a large inode table or filesystem TOC have? I've love to hear people's opinions on this. It's driving me potty! df -h output; Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/xvda1 9.5G 6.6G 2.4G 74% / tmpfs 2.1G 0 2.1G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 10M 520K 9.5M 6% /dev tmpfs 2.1G 0 2.1G 0% /dev/shm /dev/xvdb 980G 921G 59G 94% /data

    Read the article

  • How do I fix a super slow MacBook?

    - by MakingScienceFictionFact
    I'm running a black MacBook 4.1. Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB hard disk drive, bus speed is 800 MHz. It's about three years old in excellent shape externally. I treat this thing like a baby. It used to run awesome, but now it's super slow at everything. I get the spinning pizza of death constantly. It takes a long time to boot up or load any program, even Safari and iTunes. iPhoto is terribly slow. The Internet doesn't work properly and it reminds me of a buggy PC. I've formatted it and re-installed Mac OS X 10.6 (with all updates), and I've done the disk repairs process. As an iOS developer this is driving me crazy, but luckily I have an iMac to work on in the day which is fast. I'm ready to format it again, but that didn't work last time. After the last format, I copied back files from an external drive so maybe the offending files were hidden in there somewhere. Here are the hard disk drive and RAM specifications. It is upgrade-able to 4 GB of RAM. Hard disk drive: The Fujitsu Mobile MHY2250BH is a 250 GB, standard hard disk drive. Its burst transfer rate is 150 Mbyte/s. This is a 5400 RPM drive and comes with an 8 MB buffer. RAM: two sticks of 1 GB DDR2 SDRAM, speed: 667 MHz.

    Read the article

  • Slow Write Speed on ESXi host

    - by Gregg Leventhal
    I have an ESXi 5.0 free host with an internal datastore of 7.2K 5 disk RAID 5 using a PERC 710 mini RAID controller in a Dell Poweredge R620 Server with 32GB Ram and a 12 Core Xeon. I seem to get slow write speeds in the guests so I checked out ESXTOP and I see 15MB/s write speed there on this host, which is comprable to the guests. What could be causing such horrible write speeds? Is RAID 5 really this slow to write??

    Read the article

  • Speeding up ROW_NUMBER in SQL Server

    - by BlueRaja
    We have a number of machines which record data into a database at sporadic intervals. For each record, I'd like to obtain the time period between this recording and the previous recording. I can do this using ROW_NUMBER as follows: WITH TempTable AS ( SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY Machine_ID ORDER BY Date_Time) AS Ordering FROM dbo.DataTable ) SELECT [Current].*, Previous.Date_Time AS PreviousDateTime FROM TempTable AS [Current] INNER JOIN TempTable AS Previous ON [Current].Machine_ID = Previous.Machine_ID AND Previous.Ordering = [Current].Ordering + 1 The problem is, it goes really slow (several minutes on a table with about 10k entries) - I tried creating separate indicies on Machine_ID and Date_Time, and a single joined-index, but nothing helps. Is there anyway to rewrite this query to go faster?

    Read the article

  • Can I change a MySQL table back and forth between InnoDB and MyISAM without any problems?

    - by Daniel Magliola
    I have a site with a decently big database, 3Gb in size, a couple of tables with a dozen million records. It's currently 100% on MyISAM, and I have the feeling that the server is going slower than it should because of too much locking, so I'd like to try going to InnoDB and see if that makes things better. However, I need to do that directly in production, because obviously without load this doesn't make any difference. However, I'm a bit worried about this, because InnoDB actually has potential to be slower, so the question is: If I convert all tables to InnoDB and it turns out i'm worse off than before, can I go back to MyISAM without losing anything? Can you think of any problems I might encounter? (For example, I know that InnoDB stores all data in ONE big file that only gets bigger, can this be a problem?) Thank you very much Daniel

    Read the article

  • NFS I/O monitoring

    - by Gordon
    I have a NFS mounted directory, and I'd like to monitor the I/O usage on it (MB/s reads and writes). What's the recommended way to do that ? This is the NFS client, I don't have access to the NFS server. I'm not interested in general I/O usage (otherwise I would use vmstat/iostat). It also has multiple NFS mounts, I'm interested in monitoring just one specific mount (or I might have used ethereal). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • My KDE very slow in certain operations

    - by Pietro
    I have a problem with my Linux installation. It seems that the KDE code that deals with directory windows is extremely slow (on both Dolphin and Konqueror). This happens both when I click on a directory icon and when I want to open/save a file from many KDE applications. The time the window takes to open can be one minute or more. The same happens when I right click on an icon. Looking at the CPU usage, this is very low (less than 10%). Am I the only one with this problem, or is it well known and maybe already fixed? Consider that I cannot update to a more recent version of OpenSuse. Thank you, Pietro Configuration: Linux version: OpenSuse 11.4 KDE 4.6.0 System: DELL Precision T3500 - Intel Xeon Home directory mounted on a remote drive. <-- could this be the reason?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to have the operating system on a solid state drive?

    - by Kenji Kina
    There is something I don't quite understand. I know a SSD helps with OS load times, but I'm not sure if all this boost is only noticeable/interesting when booting, or gives an all around considerably better experience thereafter. I am interested in having a quick and responsive environment after booting, which leads me to think that it'd be better to spend the SSD capacity in my most used apps (and the page file? Another inside question) and not the OS itself. This, of course, means that I don't know just how much the OS reads/writes its files during normal usage. So, how good an idea is it to dump the whole 20GB+ of Windows 7 OS into the SSD (considering the hefty price per GB of SSD capacity) if I can put up with the usual hard disk boot times? Would I be missing on a lot if I didn't?

    Read the article

  • Why can't get more speed on iperf on windows xp

    - by SledgehammerPL
    I test my bandwith and throughput using iperf (jperf) on desktop PC with WinXP. I can't get more than 3Mbit/s outside until I change TCP Window size - about 84Kb is ok. but I can't force XP to use this value by default.. I try very many magic spells on Registry, use many TCP Optimisers - but nothing works. I will accept that that everything is ok, when I reboot the PC, run iperf and will see 18.1Mbit - like my Linux box standing very near my Windows XP Box. Is it possible?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >