Search Results

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

Page 124/594 | < Previous Page | 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131  | Next Page >

  • eSata plugged into Sata socket via adaptor cable very slow

    - by Jon
    Why would an external eSata Drive (xSonic with 500Gb notebook Hard Drive) run ok on a Silicon Image based PCI-E to eSata adaptor at about 35MB/s, But then run really slow when plugged into NForce4 Sata socket via cable? I have another version of the problem with Really slow 1MB/s!!! performance on a ASUS P5K Pro Motherboard with E8400 CPU. This time the same card is plugged into a PCI-E socket. The same eSata drive is plugged into the Esata port on the card. All this is running on Windows XP Pro 32bit. Any suggestions on how to diagnose the problems??

    Read the article

  • Do Seagate Momentus XT SSD Hybrid drives perform better than a good hard drive + flash on ReadyBoost

    - by Chris W. Rea
    Seagate has released a product called the Momentus XT Solid State Hybrid Drive. At a glance, this looks exactly like what Windows ReadyBoost attempts to do with software at the OS level: Pairing the benefits of a large hard drive together with the performance of solid-state flash memory. Does the Momentus XT out-perform a similar ad-hoc pairing of a decent hard drive with similar flash memory storage under Windows ReadyBoost? Other than the obvious "a hardware implementation ought to be faster than a software implementation", why would ReadyBoost not be able to perform as well as such a hybrid device?

    Read the article

  • Full Screen Flash is choppy (nVidia GeForce 8200M)

    - by Joel Martinez
    I have a new compaq presario laptop (I asked SU for advice before I bought it :-) ). It has a nVidia GeForce 8200M video card. When I try to play a flash video full screen, it plays really choppy. This is a brand new computer and is well more powerful than my previous computer so I know it's not a matter of the full screen being too processor intensive to play, or a bandwidth problem. Even playing HD hulu videos full screen was fine on my previous laptop. Any advice on how to get better performance here? edit: World Of Warcraft is able to play at a great framerate, so this machine should definitely be able to handle a simple little flash video ;-)

    Read the article

  • Different block sizes for partition and underlying logical disk on HP Raid Controller (Linux)

    - by Wawrzek
    Following links collected in this thread I started to check blockdev and found the following output indicating different sizes for partition c0d9p1 and the underlying device (c0d9): [root@machine ~]# blockdev --report /dev/cciss/c0d9 RO RA SSZ BSZ StartSec Size Device rw 256 512 4096 0 3906963632 /dev/cciss/c0d9 [root@machine ~]# blockdev --report /dev/cciss/c0d9p1 RO RA SSZ BSZ StartSec Size Device rw 256 512 2048 1 3906959039 /dev/cciss/c0d9p1 We have a lot of small files, so yes the block size is smaller than normal. The device is a logical driver on an HP P410 raid controller, simple disk without any raid - RAID 0 on one disk to be precise. (Please note that above configuration is a feature not a bug). Therefore, I have the following questions. Can the above discrepancy in the block size affect disk performance? Can I control the block size using hpacucli?

    Read the article

  • 4096 and 8192 block size read slower than write? by using lsi 9361-8i RAID10

    - by Min Hong Tan
    is it possible that 1024 and 2048 block size read speed is faster than 4096 and 8192 block? I'm using lsi 9361-8i with RAID 10 , with 8 x Kingston E50 250G. result: 1024 = Write: 2,251 MB/s Read: 2,625 MB/s 2048 = Write: 2,141 MB/s Read: 3,672 MB/s 4096 = Write: 2,147 MB/s Read: 231 MB/s 8192 = Write: 2,147 MB/s Read: 442 MB/s is there any possible? and below is the reading when i simply want to test out the RAID 10 function and disaster test by taking out one of the 250G harddisk. the result is different like below: Result: 1024 = Write: 825 MB/s Read: 1,139 MB/s 2048 = Write: 797 MB/s Read: 1,312 MB/s 4096 = Write: 911 MB/s Read: 1,342 MB/s 8192 = Write: 786 MB/s Read: 1,204 MB/s and the result for 4096 and 8192block are different? can any one explain to me is it normal? or I need to do some tuning/configuration? will it affect my host linux performance?

    Read the article

  • High CPU usage on Linux machine

    - by user305210
    I have a piece of java code running on two different machines, but on one of the linux machines, the code uses alot of CPU (close to 100% cpu usage). On the other machine the same code uses less cpu (under 3 to 4%). The machine where cpu usage is high, is a more powerful machine, more CPU and and more memory. This has started happening recently and performance on the machine with high cpu usage has degraded significantly. I am wondering if anyone has any ideas why something like this could happen, possible causes behind this etc. any guesses? No recent changes in hardware were made, no recent code updates... Thank you.

    Read the article

  • virtual machines: optimal host os to run Windows XP guest os?

    - by user61132
    My department doesn't have the budget to upgrade my ailing Dell D620 laptop. However, I do have the option to buy my own personal computer, then use my company-issued ISO image to run Windows XP as my guest os using virtualbox or vmware. Therefore, last month, I bought an Acer AX3910-U3012 desktop that had Windows 7 as the host os (and 8G RAM). In short, I was disappointed with the performance while trying to run WinXP as the guest os. (It didn't perform much better than my laptop.) Just wondering what the optimal host os would be for running Windows XP as the guest os? (No, I can't use my company-issued ISO image to build the os for my personal computer.) FWIW, I'm willing to spend up to $2k if it's REALLY worth it, but would prefer to spend no more than $1k. Also, in an effort to cut costs, I'd prefer buy a desktop instead of a laptop. Thanks for any/all feedback.

    Read the article

  • Database Server Hardware components (order of importance), CPU speed VS CPU cache vs RAM vs DISK

    - by nulltorpedo
    I am new to database world and would like to know what are crucial hardware specs when it comes to database performance. I have searched the internet and found this so far (In order of decreasing importance): 1) Hard Disk: Get an SSD basically (much more IOPS than spinners) 2) Memory: Get as much as you can afford 3) CPU: For the same $ spent, prefer larger cache size over speed. Are these findings sensible? EDIT: I would like to focus on CPU speed VS CPU cache size. EDIT2: The database is used to store some combination of ints and int arrays with few text fields. There are a lot of Select queries looking for existing entries. If entry is not found, then insert it. I would say most of processing would be trying to find a match across a table with 200 columns and 20k rows. The insert statements are very few. EDIT3: Also, we have a lot of views (basically select queries).

    Read the article

  • Freebsd or Linux? as BGP router over 100mbps

    - by Yucong Sun
    I am building a server to act as a BGP border router for my 100mbps uplink in ISP. I needs these feature: 1) Dual stack BGP peering/routing (at least 100Mbps, maybe more). 2) Potential full internet BGP feed. 3) Some basic ACL functionality. The hardware is L3426/8G ram. NIC will be on-board dual port Broadcom 5716. I've worked with Linux extensively before and it seems to be able to handle 100mbps, but I heard FreeBSD is faster on networking stuff. Which one should I use? And do we have some performance benchmark numbers out there? Cheers.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Instancing: Should I use multiple instances or databases?

    - by Spence
    I have a reasonable server connected to a SAN which will be running SQL servers for multiples of the same application. There are no security issues with one application being able to read anothers database. We are unfortunately in 32 bit windows as well. I'm of the opinion that it would be better to use one instance on the server, enable AWE so that the server instance can use almost all of the ram we have and then run each of the databases in the one instance. However I've been overruled by the gods of the IT department on this one, so I'm really curious to hear your thoughts on this. From a performance point of view, am I incorrect that one instance of SQL is better than two? I know that we could do some failover stuff, but doing that on one blade only seems like overkill to me..

    Read the article

  • Running game server and webserver on EC2

    - by mazzzzz
    Hey guys, I have a webhost, and an EC2 server (to run a game server on). The problem is that I want to access/modify the EC2's files with php admin programs. I looked into a lot of options to just have the webhost communicate with the EC2 server (ssh, etc), but none of them panned out. My question is if I were to install a lightweight webserver (think lighttpd) on my EC2 server, how badly would it hurt the game server's performance? I was leaning away from this solution, even though the webserver (on the EC2 server) wouldn't get many hits (less than a 100 a day). Thanks for your thoughts, Max

    Read the article

  • Simultaneous read/write to RAID array slows server to a crawl

    - by Jeff Leyser
    Fairly beefy NFS/SMB server (32GB RAM, 2 Xeon quad cores) with LSI MegaRAID 8888ELP controlling 12 drives configured into 3 different arrays. 5 2TB drives are grouped into a RAID 6 array. As expected, write performance to the array is slow. However, sustained, simultaneous read/write to the array (wether through NFS or done locally) seems to practically block any other access to anything else on the controller. For example, if I do: cp /home/joe/BigFile /home/joe/BigFileCopy where BigFile is 20G, then even a simple ls /home/jane will take many 10s of seconds to complete. In addition, an ls /backup will also take many tens of seconds, even though /backup is a different array on the same controller. As soon as the cp is done, everything is back to normal. cp /home/joe/BigFile /backup/BigFile does not exhibit this behavior. It's only when doing read/write to the same array.

    Read the article

  • need for tcp fine-tuning on heavily used proxy server

    - by Vijay Gharge
    Hi all, I am using squid like Internet proxy server on RHEL 4 update 6 & 8 with quite heavy load i.e. 8k established connections during peak hour. Without depending much on application provider's expertise I want to achieve maximum o/p from linux. W.r.t. that I have certain questions as following: How to find out if there is scope for further tcp fine-tuning (without exhausting available resources) as the benchmark values given by vendor looks poor! Is there any parameter value that is available from OS / network stack that will show me the results. If at all there is scope, how shall I identify & configure OS tcp stack parameters i.e. using sysctl or any specific parameter Post tuning how shall I clearly measure performance enhancement / degradation ?

    Read the article

  • Troubleshooting a high SQL Server Compilation/Batch-Ratio

    - by Sleepless
    I have a SQL Server (quad core x86, 4GB RAM) that constantly has almost the same values for "SQLServer:SQL Statistics: SQL compilations/sec" and "SQLServer:SQL Statistics: SQL batches/sec". This could be interpreted as a server running 100% ad hoc queries, each one of which has to be recompiled, but this is not the case here. The sys.dm_exec_query_stats DMV lists hundreds of query plans with an execution_count much larger than 1. Does anybody have any idea how to interpret / troubleshoot this phenomenon? BTW, the server's general performance counters (CPU,I/O,RAM) all show very modest utilization.

    Read the article

  • Why does restarting the modem fix latency?

    - by Giovanni Galbo
    In the last few days I've noticed poor internet performance. Today I ran a speed test and the results were abysmal... 10mb down and 0.18mb up (which really hurt, because I was trying to RDC from another location). I pay for 30mb down and 5mb up. Latency was at 128ms. Before calling my ISP to give them a verbal lashing, I unplugged the modem and plugged it back in. I pretty much got top speed after doing that (with a latency of 7ms). I'm the type of guy that likes to know what goes on under the hood. So what's the deal? What mysterious powers does restarting give to my modem?

    Read the article

  • Intel cpu hyperthreading on or off for ibm db2?

    - by rtorti19
    Has anyone ever done any database performance comparisons with hyper-threading enabled vs disabled? We are running ibm db2 and I'm curious if anyone has an recommendations for enabling hyper-threading or not. With hyper-threading enabled it makes it quite difficult to do capacity planning for cpu usage. For example. "With 8 physical cores represented as 16 "threads" on the OS and a cpu-bound workload, does that mean when your cpu usage hit's 50% you are actually running at 100%." What real benefits do I gain with leaving hyper-threading enabled on an intel server running DB2? Does hyper-threading help if you're workload is truly disk IO bound? If so, up to what percentage? These are the types of questions I'm trying to answer. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Do SSD hybrid drives perform better than HDD + ReadyBoost flash?

    - by Chris W. Rea
    Seagate has released a product called the Momentus XT Solid State Hybrid Drive. This looks exactly like what Windows ReadyBoost attempts to do with software at the OS level: Pairing the benefits of a large hard drive together with the performance of solid-state flash memory. Does the Momentus XT out-perform a similar ad-hoc pairing of a decent hard drive with similar flash memory storage under Windows ReadyBoost? Other than the obvious "a hardware implementation ought to be faster than a software implementation", why would ReadyBoost not be able to perform as well as such a hybrid device?

    Read the article

  • Tuning (and understanding) table_cache in mySQL

    - by jotango
    Hello, I ran the excellent MySQL performance tuning script and started to work through the suggestions. One I ran into was TABLE CACHE Current table_cache value = 4096 tables You have a total of 1073 tables. You have 3900 open tables. Current table_cache hit rate is 2%, while 95% of your table cache is in use. You should probably increase your table_cache I started to read up on the table_cache but found the MySQL documentation quite lacking. They do say to increase the table_cache, "if you have the memory". Unfortunately the table_cache variable is defined as "The number of open tables for all threads." How will the memory used by MySQL change, if I increase this variable? What is a good value, to set it to?

    Read the article

  • Do you run anti-virus software?

    - by Paolo Bergantino
    Do you find the crippling effect that most anti virus software has on a computer's performance worth the "security" they provide? I've never been able to really tell myself its worth it, and have used my computer without "protection" for years without any problems. Jeff Atwood wrote about this a while back, taking a similar stance. So I'm looking for some discussion on the merits and downfalls of antivirus software, and whether you personally think its worth the hassle. One point I do think is valid is that I am probably okay with not running it because I know if something goes wrong I have the ability to make it right (most of the time) but I can't really recommend the same for family as they may not be able to...

    Read the article

  • Apache on Win32: Slow Transfers of single, static files in HTTP, fast in HTTPS

    - by Michael Lackner
    I have a weird problem with Apache 2.2.15 on Windows 2000 Server SP4. Basically, I am trying to serve larger static files, images, videos etc. The download seems to be capped at around 550kB/s even over 100Mbit LAN. I tried other protocols (FTP/FTPS/FTP+ES/SCP/SMB), and they are all in the multi-megabyte range. The strangest thing is that, when using Apache with HTTPS instead of HTTP, it serves very fast, around 2.7MByte/s! I also tried the AnalogX SimpleWWW server just to test the plain HTTP speed of it, and it gave me a healthy 3.3Mbyte/s. I am at a total loss here. I searched the web, and tried to change the following Apache configuration directives in httpd.conf, one at a time, mostly to no avail at all: SendBufferSize 1048576 #(tried multiples of that too, up to 100Mbytes) EnableSendfile Off #(minor performance boost) EnableMMAP Off Win32DisableAcceptEx HostnameLookups Off #(default) I also tried to tune the following registry parameters, setting their values to 4194304 in decimal (they are REG_DWORD), and rebooting afterwards: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AFD\Parameters\DefaultReceiveWindow HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AFD\Parameters\DefaultSendWindow Additionally, I tried to install mod_bw, which sets the event timer precision to 1ms, and allows for bandwidth throttling. According to some people it boosts static file serving performance when set to unlimited bandwidth for everybody. Unfortunately, it did nothing for me. So: AnalogX HTTP: 3300kB/s Gene6 FTPD, plain: 3500kB/s Gene6 FTPD, Implicit and Explicit SSL, AES256 Cipher: 1800-2000kB/s freeSSHD: 1100kB/s SMB shared folder: about 3000kB/s Apache HTTP, plain: 550kB/s Apache HTTPS: 2700kB/s Clients that were used in the bandwidth testing: Internet Explorer 8 (HTTP, HTTPS) Firefox 8 (HTTP, HTTPS) Chrome 13 (HTTP, HTTPS) Opera 11.60 (HTTP, HTTPS) wget under CygWin (HTTP, HTTPS) FileZilla (FTP, FTPS, FTP+ES, SFTP) Windows Explorer (SMB) Generally, transfer speeds are not too high, but that's because the server machine is an old quad Pentium Pro 200MHz machine with 2GB RAM. However, I would like Apache to serve at at least 2Mbyte/s instead of 550kB/s, and that already works with HTTPS easily, so I fail to see why plain HTTP is so crippled. I am using a Kerio Winroute Firewall, but no Throttling and no special filters peeking into HTTP traffic, just the plain Firewall functionality for blocking/allowing connections. The Apache error.log (Loglevel info) shows no warnings, no errors. Also nothing strange to be seen in access.log. I have already stripped down my httpd.conf to the bare minimum just to make sure nothing is interfering, but that didn't help either. If you have any idea, help would be greatly appreciated, since I am totally out of ideas! Thanks! Edit: I have now tried a newer Apache 2.2.21 to see if it makes any difference. However, the behaviour is exactly the same. Edit 2: KM01 has requested a sniff on the HTTP headers, so here comes the LiveHTTPHeaders output (an extension to Firefox). The Output is generated on downloading a single file called "elephantsdream_source.264", which is an H.264/AVC elementary video stream under an Open Source license. I have taken the freedom to edit the URL, removing folders and changing the actual servers domain name to www.mydomain.com. Here it is: LiveHTTPHeaders, Plain HTTP: http://www.mydomain.com/elephantsdream_source.264 GET /elephantsdream_source.264 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.mydomain.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:55:16 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8r PHP/5.2.17 Last-Modified: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:20:09 GMT Etag: "c000000013fa5-29cf10e9-493b311889d3c" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 701436137 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain LiveHTTPHeaders, HTTPS: https://www.mydomain.com/elephantsdream_source.264 GET /elephantsdream_source.264 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.mydomain.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:56:57 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8r PHP/5.2.17 Last-Modified: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:20:09 GMT Etag: "c000000013fa5-29cf10e9-493b311889d3c" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 701436137 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain

    Read the article

  • Is a larger hard drive with the same cache, rpm, and bus type faster?

    - by Joel Coehoorn
    I recently heard that, all else being equal, larger hard are faster than smaller. It has to do with more bits passing under the read head as the drive spins - since a large drive packs the bits more tightly, the same amount of spin/time presents more data to the read head. I had not heard this before, and was inclined to believe the the read heads expected bits at a specific rate and would instead stagger data, so that the two drives would be the same speed. I now find myself looking at purchasing one of two computer models for the school where I work. One model has an 80GB drive, the other a 400GB (for ~$13 more). The size of the drive is immaterial, since users will keep their files on a file server where they can be backed up. But if the 400GB drive will really deliver a performance boost to the hard drive, the extra money is probably worth it. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • What are the quality metrics for RAM?

    - by Hi-Tech KitKat Android
    I have searched RAM and i found there are given some specification for the same capacity RAM, What are the difference and performance comparison between these? Like RAM1 General Brand Transcend Memory Type 2 GB (8 x 128 MB) DDR2 DIMM Memory Standard DDR2-800/PC-6400 Compatible Device PC Pins 240-pin Burst Length 4, 8 Buffered/Unbuffered Unbuffered Memory Memory Clock 400 MHz Technology DDR2 SDRAM Memory CAS Latency 4, 5, 6 RAM 2 General Brand Transcend Memory Type 2 GB (8 x 128 MB) DDR2 DIMM Memory Standard DDR2-667/PC2-5300 Compatible Device PC Pins 240-pin Burst Length 4, 8 Buffered/Unbuffered Unbuffered Memory Memory Clock 333 MHz Technology DDR2 SDRAM Memory CAS Latency 3, 4, 5 RAM3 General Brand Kingston Memory Type 2 GB (64 x 256 MB) 800 MHz DDR2 DIMM Compatible Device PC Pins 240-pin Error Check Non-ECC Buffered/Unbuffered Unbuffered Memory Memory Clock 200 MHz Technology DDR2 SDRAM Memory CAS Latency 6 What are the affect of the following Memory Type(given as 8 x 128 MB) Memory Clock (given in MHz) CAS Latency (given as 4,5,6) my Requirement is 2 GB DDR2 Type Desktop Please help

    Read the article

  • Does anyone still use Iometer?

    - by Brian T Hannan
    "Iometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. It is used as a benchmark and troubleshooting tool and is easily configured to replicate the behaviour of many popular applications." link text Does anyone still use this tool? It seems helpful, but I'm not sure if it's for the thing I am trying to work on. I am trying create a benchmark computer performance test that can be run before and after a Windows Optimization program does its stuff (ex: PC Optimizer Pro or CCleaner). I want to be able to make a quick statement like CCleaner makes the computer run 50% faster or something along those lines. Are there any newer tools like this one?

    Read the article

  • Interpreting Munin graphs showing available entropy and MySQL slow queries in sync

    - by user64204
    We're experiencing performance issues on our website, and after reviewing our munin graphs, the only metrics we've found in sync are Available entropy and MySQL slow queries, with the latter influenced by our number of logged in users: Based on the wikipedia entropy page, my understanding is that entropy is the amount of randomness (here measured in bytes) that the system can use for various tasks, mainly cryptography and functions that require random input. Since the peaks in available entropy and MySQL slow queries are occurring in sync and at regular interval, that the number of MySQL slow queries is proportional to our number of Drupal users whereas the peaks in available entropy seem to be much more constant and less proportional to these 2 metrics, we're thinking available entropy is the reflect of a root cause which, combined with the traffic to our website, is causing those slow queries (and not the opposite, slow queries influencing the entropy). Accordingly: Q: What underlying problem do you think could cause regular peaks in available entropy that could have an influence on MySQL's ability to process queries?

    Read the article

  • How complex of a daemon should be run through inetd?

    - by amphetamachine
    What is the general rule for which daemons should be started up through inetd? Currently, on my server, sshd, apache and sendmail are set up to run all the time, where simple *NIX services are set up to be started by inetd. I'm the only one who uses ssh on my computer, and break-in attempts aren't a problem because I have it running on a non-standard port, and my HTTP server gets maybe 5 hits a day that aren't GoogleBot. My question is, what are the benefits vs. the performance hits associated with running a complex daemon like sshd or apache through superserver, and what, if any successes or failures have you had running your own daemons in this manner?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131  | Next Page >