Search Results

Search found 14841 results on 594 pages for 'performance monitoring'.

Page 118/594 | < Previous Page | 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125  | Next Page >

• HP Proliant DL380 G4 - Can this server still perform in 2011?

  - by BSchriver

  Can the HP Proliant DL380 G4 series server still perform at high a quality in the 2011 IT world? This may sound like a weird question but we are a very small company whose primary business is NOT IT related. So my IT dollars have to stretch a long way. I am in need of a good web and database server. The load and demand for a while will be fairly low so I am not looking nor do I have the money to buy a brand new HP Dl380 G7 series box for $6K. While searching around today I found a company in ATL that buys servers off business leases and then stripes them down to parts. They clean, check and test each part and then custom "rebuild" the server based on whatever specs you request. The interesting thing is they also provide a 3-year warranty on all their servers they sell. I am contemplating buying two of the following: HP Proliant DL380 G4 Dual (2) Intel Xeon 3.6 GHz 800Mhz 1MB Cache processors 8GB PC3200R ECC Memory 6 x 73GB U320 15K rpm SCSI drives Smart Array 6i Card Dual Power Supplies Plus the usual cdrom, dual nic, etc... All this for $750 each or $1500 for two pretty nicely equipped servers. The price then jumps up on the next model up which is the G5 series. It goes from $750 to like $2000 for a comparable server. I just do not have $4000 to buy two servers right now. So back to my original question, if I load Windows 2008 R2 Server and IIS 7 on one of the machines and Windows 2008 R2 server and MS SQL 2008 R2 Server on another machine, what kind of performance might I expect to see from these machines? The facts is this series is now 3 versions behind the G7's and this series of server was built when Windows 200 Server was the dominant OS and Windows 2003 Server was just coming out. If you are running Windows 2008 R2 Server on a G4 with similar or less specs I would love to hear what your performance is like.

  Read the article

• Caching all files in varnish

  - by csgwro

  I want my varnish servers to cache all files. At backend there is lighttpd hosting only static files, and there is an md5 in the url in case of file change, ex. /gfx/Bird.b6e0bc2d6cbb7dfe1a52bc45dd2b05c4.swf). However my hit ratio is very poorly (about 0.18) My config: sub vcl_recv { set req.backend=default; ### passing health to backend if (req.url ~ "^/health.html$") { return (pass); } remove req.http.If-None-Match; remove req.http.cookie; remove req.http.authenticate; if (req.request == "GET") { return (lookup); } } sub vcl_fetch { ### do not cache wrong codes if (beresp.status == 404 || beresp.status >= 500) { set beresp.ttl = 0s; } remove beresp.http.Etag; remove beresp.http.Last-Modified; } sub vcl_deliver { set resp.http.expires = "Thu, 31 Dec 2037 23:55:55 GMT"; } I have made an performance tuning: DAEMON_OPTS="${DAEMON_OPTS} -p thread_pool_min=200 -p thread_pool_max=4000 -p thread_pool_add_delay=2 -p session_linger=100" The main url which is missed is... /health.html. Is that forward to backend correctly configured? Disabling health checking hit ratio increases to 0.45. Now mostly "/crossdomain.xml" is missed (from many domains, as it is wildcard). How can I avoid that? Should I carry on other headers like User-Agent or Accept-Encoding? I thing that default hashing mechanism is using url + host/IP. Compression is used at the backend. What else can improve performance?

  Read the article

• Server slowdown

  - by Clinton Bosch

  I have a GWT application running on Tomcat on a cloud linux(Ubuntu) server, recently I released a new version of the application and suddenly my server response times have gone from 500ms average to 15s average. I have run every monitoring tool I know. iostat says my disks are 0.03% utilised mysqltuner.pl says I am OK other see below top says my processor is 99% idle and load average: 0.20, 0.31, 0.33 memory usage is 50% (-/+ buffers/cache: 3997 3974) mysqltuner output [OK] Logged in using credentials from debian maintenance account. -------- General Statistics -------------------------------------------------- [--] Skipped version check for MySQLTuner script [OK] Currently running supported MySQL version 5.1.63-0ubuntu0.10.04.1-log [OK] Operating on 64-bit architecture -------- Storage Engine Statistics ------------------------------------------- [--] Status: +Archive -BDB -Federated +InnoDB -ISAM -NDBCluster [--] Data in MyISAM tables: 370M (Tables: 52) [--] Data in InnoDB tables: 697M (Tables: 1749) [!!] Total fragmented tables: 1754 -------- Security Recommendations ------------------------------------------- [OK] All database users have passwords assigned -------- Performance Metrics ------------------------------------------------- [--] Up for: 19h 25m 41s (1M q [28.122 qps], 1K conn, TX: 2B, RX: 1B) [--] Reads / Writes: 98% / 2% [--] Total buffers: 1.0G global + 2.7M per thread (500 max threads) [OK] Maximum possible memory usage: 2.4G (30% of installed RAM) [OK] Slow queries: 0% (1/1M) [OK] Highest usage of available connections: 34% (173/500) [OK] Key buffer size / total MyISAM indexes: 16.0M/279.0K [OK] Key buffer hit rate: 99.9% (50K cached / 40 reads) [OK] Query cache efficiency: 61.4% (844K cached / 1M selects) [!!] Query cache prunes per day: 553779 [OK] Sorts requiring temporary tables: 0% (0 temp sorts / 34K sorts) [OK] Temporary tables created on disk: 4% (4K on disk / 102K total) [OK] Thread cache hit rate: 84% (185 created / 1K connections) [!!] Table cache hit rate: 0% (256 open / 27K opened) [OK] Open file limit used: 0% (20/2K) [OK] Table locks acquired immediately: 100% (692K immediate / 692K locks) [OK] InnoDB data size / buffer pool: 697.2M/1.0G -------- Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------- General recommendations: Run OPTIMIZE TABLE to defragment tables for better performance MySQL started within last 24 hours - recommendations may be inaccurate Enable the slow query log to troubleshoot bad queries Increase table_cache gradually to avoid file descriptor limits Variables to adjust: query_cache_size (> 16M) table_cache (> 256)

  Read the article

• Why database partitioning didn't work? Extract from thedailywtf.com

  - by questzen

  Original link. http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Certified-DBA.aspx. Article summary: The DBA suggests an approach involving rigorous partitioning, 10 partitions per disk (3 actual disks and 3 raid). The stats show that the performance is non-optimal. Then the DBA suggests an alternative of 1 partition per disk (with more added disks). This also fails. The sys-admin then sets up a single disk, single partition and saves the day. The size of disks was not mentioned but given today,s typical disk sizes (of the order of 100 GB), the partitions ; would be huge, it surprises me that a single disk with all partitions outperformed. Initially I suspect that the data was segregated and hence faster reads. But how come the performance didn't degrade as time went by with all the inserts and updates happening? Saw this on reddit, but the explanation was by far spindle/platter centered. There was no mention in the article about this. Is there any other reason? I can only guess that the tables were using a incorrect hash distribution causing non-uniform allocation across disks (wrong partitioning); this would increase fetch times. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Is there an objective way to measure slowness of PC/WINDOWS?

  - by ekms

  We've a lot of users that usually complain about that his PC is "slow". (we use win XP). We usually check startup programs, virus, fragmentation, disk health and common problems that causes slowness (Symantec AV drops disk to 1mb/s , or a seagate HD firmware error in certain models), but in those cases the slowness is pretty evident. In other hand, the most common is the user complaining about his pc but for us looks OK, even in 6 years old desktops. People sometimes even complains about his new quad core desktops speed!!! So, we are asking if there's a way to OBJECTIVELY check that a computer didn't dropped its performance, compared with similar ones o previous measures, specially for work use (I don't think that 3dmark benchmark o similar may help). The only thing that I found that was useful is HDTune, but it only check hard disk performance. Basically, what we want is something that enable us to say to our users "see? your PC is as slow as was three years ago! stop complaining! Is all in your head!"

  Read the article

• Disk fragmentation when dealing with many small files

  - by Zorlack

  On a daily basis we generate about 3.4 Million small jpeg files. We also delete about 3.4 Million 90 day old images. To date, we've dealt with this content by storing the images in a hierarchical manner. The heriarchy is something like this: /Year/Month/Day/Source/ This heirarchy allows us to effectively delete days worth of content across all sources. The files are stored on a Windows 2003 server connected to a 14 disk SATA RAID6. We've started having significant performance issues when writing-to and reading-from the disks. This may be due to the performance of the hardware, but I suspect that disk fragmentation may be a culprit at well. Some people have recommended storing the data in a database, but I've been hesitant to do this. An other thought was to use some sort of container file, like a VHD or something. Does anyone have any advice for mitigating this kind of fragmentation? Additional Info: The average file size is 8-14KB Format information from fsutil: NTFS Volume Serial Number : 0x2ae2ea00e2e9d05d Version : 3.1 Number Sectors : 0x00000001e847ffff Total Clusters : 0x000000003d08ffff Free Clusters : 0x000000001c1a4df0 Total Reserved : 0x0000000000000000 Bytes Per Sector : 512 Bytes Per Cluster : 4096 Bytes Per FileRecord Segment : 1024 Clusters Per FileRecord Segment : 0 Mft Valid Data Length : 0x000000208f020000 Mft Start Lcn : 0x00000000000c0000 Mft2 Start Lcn : 0x000000001e847fff Mft Zone Start : 0x0000000002163b20 Mft Zone End : 0x0000000007ad2000

  Read the article

• Windows XP to remote server 2008 R2 shares - awful response times

  - by nick3216

  I have a network infrastructure of Windows XP clients (a mix of XP and 64-bit XP), that are accessing a network share on a Windows 2008 R2 server. Whenever users type the address of a folder into the address bar of Windows Explorer it's as snappy at determining the contents of the current folder and presenting them to you in the address bar as if you're working on a local drive. But if you open one of the subfolders users get the animated red torch and 'Searching for items...' dialog, typically for 45 seconds. Similarly when using the open folder dialog to try and select a subfolder on this share it takes, on average, 45 seconds for the dialog to expand each node and show the subfolders of each node. Also, while the Explorer instance accsesing the network share is running slowly users notice that the performance of all other Explorer windows suffers. So while Explorer is searching for files on the network share they can't switch to another task and navigate around their local drive using Explorer because it's now as slow as a dead dog at accessing anything. Are there any settings we can change which will improve the performance accessing network shares?

  Read the article

• How to force two process to run on the same CPU?

  - by kovan

  Context: I'm programming a software system that consists of multiple processes. It is programmed in C++ under Linux. and they communicate among them using Linux shared memory. Usually, in software development, is in the final stage when the performance optimization is made. Here I came to a big problem. The software has high performance requirements, but in machines with 4 or 8 CPU cores (usually with more than one CPU), it was only able to use 3 cores, thus wasting 25% of the CPU power in the first ones, and more than 60% in the second ones. After many research, and having discarded mutex and lock contention, I found out that the time was being wasted on shmdt/shmat calls (detach and attach to shared memory segments). After some more research, I found out that these CPUs, which usually are AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon, use a memory system called NUMA, which basically means that each processor has its fast, "local memory", and accessing memory from other CPUs is expensive. After doing some tests, the problem seems to be that the software is designed so that, basically, any process can pass shared memory segments to any other process, and to any thread in them. This seems to kill performance, as process are constantly accessing memory from other processes. Question: Now, the question is, is there any way to force pairs of processes to execute in the same CPU?. I don't mean to force them to execute always in the same processor, as I don't care in which one they are executed, altough that would do the job. Ideally, there would be a way to tell the kernel: If you schedule this process in one processor, you must also schedule this "brother" process (which is the process with which it communicates through shared memory) in that same processor, so that performance is not penalized.

  Read the article

• Alternative or succesor to GDBM

  - by Anon Guy

  We a have a GDBM key-value database as the backend to a load-balanced web-facing application that is in implemented in C++. The data served by the application has grown very large, so our admins have moved the GDBM files from "local" storage (on the webservers, or very close by) to a large, shared, remote, NFS-mounted filesystem. This has affected performance. Our performance tests (in a test environment) show page load times jumping from hundreds of milliseconds (for local disk) to several seconds (over NFS, local network), and sometimes getting as high as 30 seconds. I believe a large part of the problem is that the application makes lots of random reads from the GDBM files, and that these are slow over NFS, and this will be even worse in production (where the front-end and back-end have even more network hardware between them) and as our database gets even bigger. While this is not a critical application, I would like to improve performance, and have some resources available, including the application developer time and Unix admins. My main constraint is time only have the resources for a few weeks. As I see it, my options are: Improve NFS performance by tuning parameters. My instinct is we wont get much out of this, but I have been wrong before, and I don't really know very much about NFS tuning. Move to a different key-value database, such as memcachedb or Tokyo Cabinet. Replace NFS with some other protocol (iSCSI has been mentioned, but i am not familiar with it). How should I approach this problem?

  Read the article

• Refactoring or Rewriting Monolithic PHP Spaghetti Codebase

  - by nategood

  I've inherited a really poorly designed PHP spaghetti code project. It's been gaining a good bit of traffic recently and is starting to have performance issues on top of the poor monolithic code base. Its maxing out performance on a chunky 16GB dedicated machine when it really shouldn't be. I'm planning on doing some performance tweaks right off the bat to help the performance issue, but this still won't really help the horrible code base. The team is small but expecting to grow very soon. I've read Joel's article on the troubles of doing a complete rewrite and see the concerns. But how bad does the code base have to be before you consider a rewrite? There is PHP handling logic interjected into what one would usually consider a "view". Even worse, in some places SQL statements are in these same files! The only real separation of presentation and logic are a few PHP scripts that serve as function libraries. These scripts do most of the ORM stuff... if you can even call it that. Trying to slowly refractor this seems like a nightmare. Open to your thoughts and opinions... however not interested in hearing, "Run away, Run away!".

  Read the article

• SAN with iSCSI-Target Performance Horrendous

  - by Justin

  We have a poor man's SAN setup in a 1U Ubuntu server running iSCSI-Target with two 300GB drives in RAID-0. We then are using it for block level storage for virtual machines. The hypervisor is connected to the SAN via gigabit on a dedicated VLAN and interfaces. We only have a single virtual machine setup and doing some benchmarks. If we run hdparm -t /dev/sda1 from the virtual machine, we get 'ok' performance of 75MB/s from the virtual machine to the SAN. Then we basically compile a package with ./configure and make. Things start ok, but then all the sudden the load average on the SAN grows to 7+ and things slow down to a crawl. When we SSH into the SAN and run top, sure the load is 7+, but the CPU usage is basically nothing, also the server has 1.5GB of memory available. When we kill the compile on the virtual machine, slowly the LOAD on the SAN goes back to sub 1 figures. What in the world is causing this? How can we diagnosis this further? Here are two screenshot from the SAN during high load. 1> Output of iotop on the SAN: 2> Output of top on the SAN:

  Read the article

• X11 performance problem after upgrading from Centos3 to Centos5 with an ATI Rage XL

  - by Marcelo Santos

  After upgrading a computer from Centos3 to Centos5 an application that does a lot of scrolling took a very high performance hit. top tells me that X is using a lot of CPU and that was not happening before. The machine has an ATI Rage XL with 8MB and X is using the ati driver as there is no proprietary ATI driver for this board on linux. The xorg.conf: Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "ati" EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Videocard0" DefaultDepth 24 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 24 Modes "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480" EndSubSection EndSection Section "DRI" Group 0 Mode 0666 EndSection A similar machine that still has Centos3 installed is able to start DRI on the X server while this one is not, this is the Xorg.0.log for the Centos5 machine: drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: Open failed drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: Open failed [drm] failed to load kernel module "mach64" (II) ATI(0): [drm] drmOpen failed (EE) ATI(0): [dri] DRIScreenInit Failed (II) ATI(0): Largest offscreen areas (with overlaps): (II) ATI(0): 1024 x 1279 rectangle at 0,768 (II) ATI(0): 768 x 1280 rectangle at 0,768 (II) ATI(0): Using XFree86 Acceleration Architecture (XAA) Screen to screen bit blits Solid filled rectangles 8x8 mono pattern filled rectangles Indirect CPU to Screen color expansion Solid Lines Offscreen Pixmaps Setting up tile and stipple cache: 32 128x128 slots 10 256x256 slots (==) ATI(0): Backing store disabled (==) ATI(0): Silken mouse enabled (II) ATI(0): Direct rendering disabled (==) RandR enabled I also tried using EXA instead of XAA and setting: Option "AccelMethod" "XAA" Option "XAANoOffscreenPixmaps" "true" uname -a Linux sir5.erg.inpe.br 2.6.18-128.7.1.el5 #1 SMP Mon Aug 24 08:20:55 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux rpm -qa | grep xorg-x11-server xorg-x11-server-utils-7.1-4.fc6 xorg-x11-server-sdk-1.1.1-48.52.el5 xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.1.1-48.52.el5 xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.1.1-48.52.el5 xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.1.1-48.52.el5 The drmOpenDevice error continues when using the suggested Option "AIGLX" "true".

  Read the article

• Bad Performance when SQL Server hits 99% Memory Usage

  - by user15863

  I've got a server that reports 8 GB of ram used up at 99%. When restart Sql Server, it drops down to about 5% usage, but gradually builds back up to 99% over about 2 hours. When I look at the sqlserver process, its reported as only using 100k ram, and generally never goes up or below that number by very much. In fact, if I add up all the processes in my TaskManager, it's barely scratching the surface of my total available (yet TaskManager still shows 99% memory usage with "All processes shown"). It appears that Sql Server has a huge memory leak going on but it's not reporting it. The server has ran fine for nearly two years, with this only starting to manifest itself in the last 3-4 weeks. Anyone seen this or have any insight into the problem? EDIT When the server hits 99%, performance goes down hill. All queries to the server, apps, etc. come to a crawl. Restarting the service makes things zippy again, until 2 hours has passed and the server hits 99% once again.

  Read the article

• Performance of Virtual machines on very low end machines

  - by TheLQ

  I am managing a few cheap servers as my user base isn't large enough to get much more powerful servers. I also don't have the money lying around to invest in a server to prepare for the larger user base. So I'm stuck with the old hardware I have. I am toying with the idea of virtualizing all the current OS's with most likely VMware vSphere Hypervisor (AKA ESXi) Xen (ESXi has too strict of an HCL, and my hardware is too old). Big reasons for doing so: Ability to upgrade and scale hardware rapidly - This is most likely what I'll be doing as I distribute services, get a bigger server, centralize (electricity bills are horrible), distribute, get a bigger server, etc... Manually doing this by reinstalling the entire OS would be a big pain Safety from me - I've made many rookie mistakes, like doing lots of risky work on a vital production server. With a VM I can just backup the state, work on my machine, test, and revert if necessary. No worries, and no OS reinstallation Safety from other factors - As I scale servers might go down, and a backup VM can instantly be started. Various other reasons. However the limiting factor here is hardware. And I mean very depressing hardware. The current server's run off of a Pentium 3 and 4, and have 512 MB and 768 MB RAM respectively (RAM can be upgraded soon however). Is the Virtualization layer small enough to run itself and a Linux OS effectively? Will performance be acceptable (50% CPU overhead for every operation isn't acceptable)? Does it leave enough RAM for the Linux OS? Is this even feasible?

  Read the article

• Hints on diagnosing performance issue in OpenBSD firewall

  - by Tom

  My OpenBSD 4.6 pf firewall has started having really bad performance in the past few weeks. I've isolated the firewall (as opposed to the WAN connection, switch, cable, etc.) as the problem, but need a hint on how to further diagnose or fix the problem. The facts: Normal setup is: DSL Modem - FW Ext. NIC - FW Int. NIC - Switch - Laptop Normal setup described above gives only 25 Kbps! Plugging the laptop straight from the DSL modem gives a 1 MBps connection (full speed, as advertised). Therefore, the DSL connection seems to be OK. Plugging the laptop directly into the firewall's internal NIC (bypassing the switch) also gives only 25 Kbps. Therefore, the switch does not seem to be a problem. I've replaced the ethernet cables, but it didn't help. Here's the weird thing. Reloading the ruleset (/sbin/pfctl -Fa -f /etc/pf.conf) causes the laptop's connection to go up to 1 Mbps (i.e. full speed) for a few minutes before it gradually degrades back down to 25Kbps again. Any ideas on what's wrong or how I could further diagnose the problem?

  Read the article

• Nginx + uWSGI + Django performance stuck on 100rq/s

  - by dancio

  I have configured Nginx with uWSGI and Django on CentOS 6 x64 (3.06GHz i3 540, 4GB), which should easily handle 2500 rq/s but when I run ab test ( ab -n 1000 -c 100 ) performance stops at 92 - 100 rq/s. Nginx: user nginx; worker_processes 2; events { worker_connections 2048; use epoll; } uWSGI: Emperor /usr/sbin/uwsgi --master --no-orphans --pythonpath /var/python --emperor /var/python/*/uwsgi.ini [uwsgi] socket = 127.0.0.2:3031 master = true processes = 5 env = DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE=x.settings env = HTTPS=on module = django.core.handlers.wsgi:WSGIHandler() disable-logging = true catch-exceptions = false post-buffering = 8192 harakiri = 30 harakiri-verbose = true vacuum = true listen = 500 optimize = 2 sysclt changes: # Increase TCP max buffer size setable using setsockopt() net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 8388608 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 87380 8388608 net.core.rmem_max = 8388608 net.core.wmem_max = 8388608 net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 5000 net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 5000 net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 1 net.core.somaxconn = 2048 # Avoid a smurf attack net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts = 1 # Optimization for port usefor LBs # Increase system file descriptor limit fs.file-max = 65535 I did sysctl -p to enable changes. Idle server info: top - 13:34:58 up 102 days, 18:35, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Tasks: 118 total, 1 running, 117 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 3983068k total, 2125088k used, 1857980k free, 262528k buffers Swap: 2104504k total, 0k used, 2104504k free, 606996k cached free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3889 2075 1814 0 256 592 -/+ buffers/cache: 1226 2663 Swap: 2055 0 2055 **During the test:** top - 13:45:21 up 102 days, 18:46, 1 user, load average: 3.73, 1.51, 0.58 Tasks: 122 total, 8 running, 114 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 93.5%us, 5.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.2%id, 0.0%wa, 0.1%hi, 1.1%si, 0.0%st Mem: 3983068k total, 2127564k used, 1855504k free, 262580k buffers Swap: 2104504k total, 0k used, 2104504k free, 608760k cached free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3889 2125 1763 0 256 595 -/+ buffers/cache: 1274 2615 Swap: 2055 0 2055 iotop 30141 be/4 nginx 0.00 B/s 7.78 K/s 0.00 % 0.00 % nginx: wo~er process Where is the bottleneck ? Or what am I doing wrong ?

  Read the article

• X11 performance problem after upgrading from Centos3 to Centos5 with an ATI Rage XL

  - by Marcelo Santos

  After upgrading a computer from Centos3 to Centos5 an application that does a lot of scrolling took a very high performance hit. top tells me that X is using a lot of CPU and that was not happening before. The machine has an ATI Rage XL with 8MB and X is using the ati driver as there is no proprietary ATI driver for this board on linux. The xorg.conf: Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "ati" EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Videocard0" DefaultDepth 24 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 24 Modes "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480" EndSubSection EndSection Section "DRI" Group 0 Mode 0666 EndSection A similar machine that still has Centos3 installed is able to start DRI on the X server while this one is not, this is the Xorg.0.log for the Centos5 machine: drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: Open failed drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address) drmOpenDevice: Open failed [drm] failed to load kernel module "mach64" (II) ATI(0): [drm] drmOpen failed (EE) ATI(0): [dri] DRIScreenInit Failed (II) ATI(0): Largest offscreen areas (with overlaps): (II) ATI(0): 1024 x 1279 rectangle at 0,768 (II) ATI(0): 768 x 1280 rectangle at 0,768 (II) ATI(0): Using XFree86 Acceleration Architecture (XAA) Screen to screen bit blits Solid filled rectangles 8x8 mono pattern filled rectangles Indirect CPU to Screen color expansion Solid Lines Offscreen Pixmaps Setting up tile and stipple cache: 32 128x128 slots 10 256x256 slots (==) ATI(0): Backing store disabled (==) ATI(0): Silken mouse enabled (II) ATI(0): Direct rendering disabled (==) RandR enabled I also tried using EXA instead of XAA and setting: Option "AccelMethod" "XAA" Option "XAANoOffscreenPixmaps" "true" uname -a Linux sir5.erg.inpe.br 2.6.18-128.7.1.el5 #1 SMP Mon Aug 24 08:20:55 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux rpm -qa | grep xorg-x11-server xorg-x11-server-utils-7.1-4.fc6 xorg-x11-server-sdk-1.1.1-48.52.el5 xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.1.1-48.52.el5 xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.1.1-48.52.el5 xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.1.1-48.52.el5 The drmOpenDevice error continues when using the suggested Option "AIGLX" "true".

  Read the article

• apache performance timing out

  - by Mike

  Im running a webserver where I'm hosting about 6-7 websites. Most of these websites get their content from MySQL which is hosted on the same server. Traffic average per day is about 500-600 unique visitors, about 150K hits per week. But for some reason sometimes websites send a timeout, OR sometimes websites dont load all images. I know that I should perhaps separate static content from dynamic content, but for now I think that's not a possibility. I would appreciate any suggestions on how could I improve the performance of apache, so it doesn't keep timing out. Server is running on Sempron LE 1300; 2.3GHz,512K Cache 2GB RAM 10Mbps/1Mbps Services: MySQL, ProFTPD, Apache. Private + Shared = RAM used Program ---------------------------------------------------- 1.2 MiB + 54.0 KiB = 1.2 MiB proftpd 4.1 MiB + 23.0 KiB = 4.1 MiB munin-node 20.8 MiB + 120.5 KiB = 20.9 MiB mysqld 47.3 MiB + 9.9 MiB = 57.3 MiB apache2 (22) top: Mem: 2075356k total, 1826196k used, 249160k free, Timeout 35 KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 300 KeepAliveTimeout 5 <IfModule mpm_prefork_module> StartServers 10 MinSpareServers 20 MaxSpareServers 20 MaxClients 60 MaxRequestsPerChild 1000 </IfModule> <IfModule mpm_worker_module> StartServers 2 MaxClients 150 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 75 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 </IfModule>

  Read the article

• VMWare converter performance

  - by bellocarico

  Hello, I have a question about my test lab. It's more to understand the concept more than apply this into production: I have an ESXi with few VMs linux/windows configured and I'd like to use VMWare converter to create backups. To speedup the process I decided to create a Windows VM on the same ESXi host where I've installed Windows 7 and VMWare Converter. The Host has a gigabit card but it's currently connected to a 100Mb FD port. Windows 7 sees a 1gb card connected. When I do the backup using VMWare converter I specify the host IP as source and destination, so I thought the copy could be faster then use my laptop across the network. Well, to cut a long sotry short: I get dreadful performance (4Mb/sec). I'm a buit confused on this because despite the fact that the host is running 100Mb communication between VMs and hosts shouldn't (correct me if I'm wrong) have any limitation instead. I did tweak windows 7 to optimise network performane but I got just a little improvement. i still need 4 hours to back up a 50Gb (thin) VM. Additionally I wanted to ask: Would jumbo frame help in this? I know that jumbo frame have to be supported end to end, and the network switch where the host is currently connected doesn't support this, but I was wondering: 1) Does ESXi host support jumbo frames at all? 2) Can I enable it somehow? 3) If I do so, I guess bulk transfert between VMs and host would improve, but would this affect the communication going through the real switch as this doesn't do jumbo? Thanks for reading

  Read the article

• Setting up MongoDB in High Performance Computing LSF linux cluster

  - by Dnaiel

  I am trying to run mongo in a LSF cluster computing environment where I have no admin control. Our sysadmin installed mongodb, but it is not running. Any ideas on what should I ask the server admin to do for it to run? Or if I could run it locally? [node1382]allelix> mongod --dbpath /users/dnaiel/ma/mongodb/ Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] MongoDB starting : pid=22436 port=27017 dbpath=/seq/epigenome01/allelix/ma/mongodb/ 64-bit host=node1382 Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] ** WARNING: You are running on a NUMA machine. Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] ** We suggest launching mongod like this to avoid performance problems: Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] ** numactl --interleave=all mongod [other options] Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] db version v2.2.0, pdfile version 4.5 Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] git version: f5e83eae9cfbec7fb7a071321928f00d1b0c5207 Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] build info: Linux ip-10-2-29-40 2.6.21.7-2.ec2.v1.2.fc8xen #1 SMP Fri Nov 20 17:48:28 EST 2009 x86_64 BOOST_LIB_VERSION=1_49 Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] options: { dbpath: "/users/dnaiel/ma/mongodb/" } Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] journal dir=users/dnaiel/ma/mongodb/journal Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] recover begin Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] info no lsn file in journal/ directory Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] recover lsn: 0 Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] recover /seq/epigenome01/allelix/ma/mongodb/journal/j._0 Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] recover cleaning up Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] removeJournalFiles Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] recover done Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [websvr] admin web console waiting for connections on port 28017 Tue Oct 2 21:33:48 [initandlisten] waiting for connections on port 27017 It basically waits forever and cannot start mongodb. These servers are not webservers but they do have network access, it's a cloud computing LSF environment system. Any advice would be welcome, thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• iSCSI performance questions

  - by RyanLambert

  Hi everyone, apologies for the long-winded post in advance... Attempting to troubleshoot some iSCSI sluggishness on a brand new vSphere deployment (still in test). Layout is as such: 3 VSphere hosts, each with 2x 10GB NICs plugged into a pair of Nexus 5020s with a 10gig back-to-back between them. NICs are port-channeled in an active/active redundant fashion (using vPC-mac pinning for those of you familiar with N1KV) Both NICs carry service console, vmotion, iSCSI, and guest traffic. iSCSI is on a single subnet/single VLAN that is not routed through our IP network (strictly layer2) Had this been a 1gig deployment, we probably would have split the iSCSI traffic off onto separate NICs, but the price/port gets rather ridiculous when you start throwing 4+ NICs to a server in a 10gigabit infrastructure, and I'm not really convinced it's necessary. Open to dialogue/tech facts re: this, though. At this point even a single VM guest will boot slowly to iSCSI storage (EMC CX4 on the same Nexus 5020 10gig switches), and restores of VMs from iSCSI take about twice as long as we'd expect them to. Our server folks mentioned that if we split the iSCSI off onto its own NIC, performance seems significantly better. From a network perspective, I've run through the variables I can think of (port configuration errors, MTU problems, congestion etc.) and I'm coming up dry. There really is no other traffic on these hosts other than the very specific test being performed at the time. Important thing to note is that guest traffic works just fine... it seems storage is the only thing affected by whatever gremlin exists. Concluding that we're not 'overutilizing' the network infrastructure since we're doing hardly anything, I'm just looking for some helpful tips/ideas we can use to resolve this... preferably without hurling extra 10gig NICs that are going to sit around 10% utilization while we've got 70+% left on our others.

  Read the article

• Bad Mumble control channel performance in KVM guest

  - by aef

  I'm running a Mumble server (Murmur) on a Debian Wheezy Beta 4 KVM guest which runs on a Debian Wheezy Beta 4 KVM hypervisor. The guest machines are attached to a bridge device on the hypervisor system through Virtio network interfaces. The Hypervisor is attached to a 100Mbit/s uplink and does IP-routing between the guest machines and the remaining Internet. In this setup we're experiencing a clearly recognizable lag between double-clicking a channel in the client and the channel joining action happening. This happens with a lot of different clients between 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 on Linux and Windows systems. Voice quality and latency seems to be completely unaffected by this. Most of the times the client's information dialog states a 16ms latency for both the voice and control channel. The deviation for the control channels mostly is a lot higher than the one of the voice channels. In some situations the control channel is displayed with a 100ms ping and about 1000 deviation. It seems the TCP performance is a problem here. We had no problems on an earlier setup which was in principle quite like the new one. We used Debian Lenny based Xen hypervisor and a soft-virtualised guest machine instead and an earlier version of the Mumble 1.2.3 series. The current murmurd --version says: 1.2.3-349-g315b5f5-2.1

  Read the article

• Improving performance by using an additional static file server

  - by Max

  Hello there, I´m planning for a large website that includes many static assets (js, css, images and thumbnails) in the generated pages. That website will use TYPO3 as CMS (is is a customer requirement). I guess I could seriously improve performance / page load times by using a two server setup. One server where the main application (PHP) runs and another one where the static files sit being served by a trimmed down version of apache or something like lighthttpd. Including e. g. js or css files from the file server is of course no big deal. Just use an absolute url http://static.example.com/js/main.js and be done with it. But: that website will have pages with MANY thumbnails of e. g. product images on it. So I see two problems when the main application tries to create a thumbnail of some image: the original image like products/some.jpg is uploaded on the static file server and therefore not on the same server as the PHP application which tries to create the thumbnail. TYPO3 writes created thumbnails to a temp directory which is expected to be on the same server. Therefore, hundreds of thumbnails will be written and served from that temp directory which is on the same server as the main application - the static file server is in that case basically useless, all thumbnails will be requested from the server of the main application. So, my question is: how to overcome this shortcomings? Is it possible to "symlink" some directories to another server? So, for example, if PHP tries to open the original products image for thumbnail creation with imagecreate("products/some.jpg") the products folder actually "points" to the products folder on the static image server? I know something like this can be done with .htaccess but is it possible on file system level?

  Read the article

• Poor write performance on Debian server running NFS with 22TB exported JFS filesystem

  - by user143546

  I am currently running a debian server that is exporting a large JFS filesystem (22TB) over NFS (nfs-kernel-server.) When attempting to write to the NFS share, the performance is very poor. The 22TB disk is sitting on a NAS mounted using iSCSI. It will bust for a moment near expected line speed, and then sit idle for several seconds. Very little traffic measured in the low kb/sec. The wait peeks on write. When reading from the NFS mount, the system operates at expected speeds (11MB/sec). The issue does not occur when using SFTP, rsync, or local coping (non-nfs). The issue persists between stable and testing releases. On the same machine I have a 14TB ext4 filesystem using the exact same export configuration that does not share the issue. This share is not in regular use and thus not consuming resources. NFS Server: cat /etc/exports /data2 10.1.20.86(rw,no_subtree_check,async,all_squash) cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler noop [deadline] cfq cat /etc/default/nfs-kernel-server RPCNFSDCOUNT=8 RPCNFSDPRIORITY=0 RPCMOUNTDOPTS=--manage-gids NEED_SVCGSSD= RPCSVCGSSDOPTS= NFS Client: cat /etc/fstab 10.1.20.100:/data2 /root/incoming nfs rw,noatime,soft,intr,noacl 0 2 cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler noop [deadline] cfq cat /proc/mounts 10.1.20.100:/data2/ /root/incoming nfs4 rw,noatime,vers=4,rsize=262144,wsize=262144,namlen=255,soft,proto=tcp,port=0,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.1.20.86,minorversion=0,addr=10.1.20.100 0 0 This problem has me pretty stumped. Any help would be greatly welcomed. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Incredble low disk performance on HP DL385 G7

  - by 3molo

  Hi, As a test of the Opteron processor family, I bought a HP DL385 G7 6128 with HP Smart Array P410i Controller - no memory. The machine has 20GB ram 2x146GB 15k rpm SAS + 2x250GB SATA2, both in Raid 1 configurations. I run Vmware ESXi 4.1. Problem: Even with one virtual machine only, tried Linux 2.6/Windows server 2008/Windows 7, the VMs' feel really sluggish. With windows 7, the vmware converter installation even timed out. Tried both SATA and SAS disks and SATA disks are nearly unsusable, while SAS disks feels extremely slow.I can't see a lot of disk activity in the infrastructure client, but I haven't been looking for causes or even tried diagnostics because I have a feeling that it's either because of the cheap raid controller - or simply because of the lack of memory for it. Despite the problems, I continued and installed a virtual machine that serves a key function, so it's not easy to take it down and run diagnostics. Would very much like to know what you guys have to say of it, is it more likely to be a problem with the controller/disks or is it low performance because of budget components? Thanks in advance,

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125  | Next Page >