Search Results

Search found 48586 results on 1944 pages for 'page performance'.

Page 129/1944 | < Previous Page | 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136  | Next Page >

• In Windows 7, why can't I use perfmon against a remote server?

  - by SomeGuy

  I am on Windows 7 and trying to run perfmon against Windows 2003 and Windows 2008 servers. I am running into the same issue with all remote machines. When creating a data collector set, I specify a domain account that is in the administrators group on the remote machines (and "Performance Log Users" and "Performance Monitor Users" to be safe). On the "Available Counters" screen, When I type in a remote computer name, PerfMon locks up for a good 2-3 minutes before I can add any counters. I can then save the collector set. However, when I save it, the go/stop buttons are disabled if I click the set in the left panel, and missing if I click the Data collector set itself in the right panel. See the screens below. I can run data collector sets against my local machine with no problem. I am opening perfmon with my local account in both scenarios. I also have Remote Registry Service started on each remote machine. What is going on?

  Read the article

• Is basing storage requirements based on IOPS sufficient?

  - by Boden

  The current system in question is running SBS 2003, and is going to be migrated on new hardware to SBS 2008. Currently I'm seeing on average 200-300 disk transfers per second total across all the arrays in the system. The array seeing the bulk of activity is a 6 disk 7200RPM RAID 6 and it struggles to keep up during high traffic times (idle time often only 10-20%; response times peaking 20-50+ ms). Based on some rough calculations this makes sense (avg ~245 IOPS on this array at 70/30 read to write ratio). I'm considering using a much simpler disk configuration using a single RAID 10 array of 10K disks. Using the same parameters for my calculations above, I'm getting 583 average random IOPS / sec. Granted SBS 2008 is not the same beast as 2003, but I'd like to make the assumption that it'll be similar in terms of disk performance, if not better (Exchange 2007 is easier on the disk and there's no ISA server). Am I correct in believing that the proposed system will be sufficient in terms of performance, or am I missing something? I've read so much about recommended disk configurations for various products like Exchange, and they often mention things like dedicating spindles to logs, etc. I understand the reasoning behind this, but if I've got more than enough random I/O overhead, does it really matter? I've always at the very least had separate spindles for the OS, but I could really reduce cost and complexity if I just had a single, good performing array. So as not to make you guys do my job for me, the generic version of this question is: if I have a projected IOPS figure for a new system, is it sufficient to use this value alone to spec the storage, ignoring "best practice" configurations? (given similar technology, not going from DAS to SAN or anything)

  Read the article

• Determining a realistic measure of requests per second for a web server

  - by Don

  I'm setting up a nginx stack and optimizing the configuration before going live. Running ab to stress test the machine, I was disappointed to see things topping out at 150 requests per second with a significant number of requests taking 1 second to return. Oddly, the machine itself wasn't even breathing hard. I finally thought to ping the box and saw ping times around 100-125 ms. (The machine, to my surprise, is across the country). So, it seems like network latency is dominating my testing. Running the same tests from a machine on the same network as the server (ping times < 1ms) and I see 5000 requests per second, which is more in-line with what I expected from the machine. But this got me thinking: How do I determine and report a "realistic" measure of requests per second for a web server? You always see claims about performance, but shouldn't network latency be taken into consideration? Sure I can serve 5000 request per second to a machine next to the server, but not to a machine across the country. If I have a lot of slow connections, they will eventually impact my server's performance, right? Or am I thinking about this all wrong? Forgive me if this is network engineering 101 stuff. I'm a developer by trade. Update: Edited for clarity.

  Read the article

• Different network response for indentical co-located machines

  - by Santosh

  We have a situation as follows: We have a two different virtual machines (VMs) on some remote server farm. The machines are identical in terms of hardware/software(OS) configurations. We have a J2EE application running on JBoss on each of those two machines. These two applications are of different version sav V1 on VM1 and V2 on VM2. We observed some degraded response time for application V2 when accessed via public URL. When we accessed the application through a secured VPN, there is hardly any difference. The bandwidth test (upload/download speed, ping etc) shows that VM1 is responding better when accessed via secured VPN. We concluded that the application does not seem to have performance issue. Because, it that's the case the performance degradation should also be there when access via VPN. So we concluded its the network problem. But since those two identical VMs are on same network we are looking for the reasons for different responses. My question is, given the above situation, what could be reasons for such a behavior ?

  Read the article

• Some free cloud solution to enhance your business

  - by Saif Bechan

  I am co-owner of a small internet business. I am in charge of IT, and I try to get things done as low cost as possible. When investing in servers, resources and overall business costs your project can soon turn into a financial disaster. Cloud solutions can help you in solving some financial problems, they can help you in scalability problems, and overall performance problems of your server or web application. Recently I moved the whole internal/external communication(email,calendar,documents) of my business to the cloud. I did this by using the free version of Google Apps. This works great and is a big advantage on multiple levels. I do not have to fight spam anymore on my system, and there are less resources used on my system. Also switching servers will go a lot easier. Questions Can you name some cloud solution that you have used, or some you just recommend. They can fairy form financial benefits, organizational benefits, performance benefits. It doesn't matter as soon as it helps you spread the load of your business.

  Read the article

• Postfix spool on ext3 optimiziations in >=linux-2.6.34 days

  - by Luke404

  Given the very specific nature of the subject (we're not talking about mailboxes, just the spool; we're not talking about other filesystems, just ext3; and so on...) and the maturity of the softwares involved (linux kernel, ext3fs, postfix) I'd think there should be a more or less agreed on set of best practices to filesystem related tuning. I'm trying to get a roundup of them: data=journal became the default in recent kernels (somewhere around 2.6.30 IIRC) so we should be ok with that Wietse Venema says atime must be on, but Postfix documentation recommendsnoatime while talking about the Incoming Queue. Does that mean that postfix needs atime on just for some queue directories and will benefit from noatime on the others? can we use noatime if we just don't use ETRN? filesystem can be mounted nodev,noexec,nosuid - no* won't prevent you from setting attributes (postfix uses exec attr) they just won't have any effect (we don't run anything from the spool) the fsync() issue cited by Wietse and/or the chattr -S are probably linked to sync/async options of ext3fs but I do not understand them enough. Mouting the filesystem with async option is equivalent to chattr -R -S the whole fs? Seems like it will increase performance, but will that pose a risk of "loss of mail after a system crash" or is it really "safe on /var/spool/postfix" ? would you tune anything else on postfix-2.6.x to work better on ext3 or do you leave defaults everywhere? is there a "best" linux I/O scheduler for this kind of workload (namely CFQ or deadline?) or that's something that will vary too much based on hardware configuration? would you tune anything else in the filesystem or in the kernel? anything else? References: Postfix Performance here on SF Postfix documentation about the Incoming Queue Wietse Venema in Best file system on [email protected] here Postfix and ext3 on [email protected] here and there

  Read the article

• What is the best VM for developing WPF apps from within OS X?

  - by MarqueIV

  All of my machines are Macs (Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac Mini (and Apple TV 2.0 too! :) ) but for my day-job, I develop .NET/WPF applications. Normally I just boot into Boot Camp and develop that way, which of course works great, but there are times when I need to simultaneously get to things on my Mac-side of the equation, so I've bought both VMware 3.1 and Parallels 6. Both work, however, even on my Mac Pro where I paid to upgrade to the better video cards (the NVidia 8600s I think vs. the stock ATI cards) the WPF performance bites!! Now this confuses me since both boast that they support not only hardware-accelerated OpenGL 2.1, but also hardware-accelerated DirectX 9 (VMware even allegedly supports DirectX 10!) via their respective virtual drivers and both can run 3D games just fine, even in a window. But even the simple act of resizing a WPF window that has a tiled background results in some HIDEOUS repainting and resizing behaviors. It's damn near closer to what you'd expect over RDP let alone a software-only renderer (forget accelerated hardware completely!) So... can anyone please tell me WTF WPF is doing differently? More importantly, how can I speed up the WPF performance? Should I switch to VirtualBox that also has support for DirectX? Or am I just gonna have to 'byte' the bullet (sorry... had to. So I like puns! Thank Jon Stewart!) and continue using Boot Camp?

  Read the article

• Real benefits of tcp TIME-WAIT and implications in production environment

  - by user64204

  SOME THEORY I've been doing some reading on tcp TIME-WAIT (here and there) and what I read is that it's a value set to 2 x MSL (maximum segment life) which keeps a connection in the "connection table" for a while to guarantee that, "before your allowed to create a connection with the same tuple, all the packets belonging to previous incarnations of that tuple will be dead". Since segments received (apart from SYN under specific circumstances) while a connection is either in TIME-WAIT or no longer existing would be discarded, why not close the connection right away? Q1: Is it because there is less processing involved in dealing with segments from old connections and less processing to create a new connection on the same tuple when in TIME-WAIT (i.e. are there performance benefits)? If the above explanation doesn't stand, the only reason I see the TIME-WAIT being useful would be if a client sends a SYN for a connection before it sends remaining segments for an old connection on the same tuple in which case the receiver would re-open the connection but then get bad segments and and would have to terminate it. Q2: Is this analysis correct? Q3: Are there other benefits to using TIME-WAIT? SOME PRACTICE I've been looking at the munin graphs on a production server that I administrate. Here is one: As you can see there are more connections in TIME-WAIT than ESTABLISHED, around twice as many most of the time, on some occasions four times as many. Q4: Does this have an impact on performance? Q5: If so, is it wise/recommended to reduce the TIME-WAIT value (and what to)? Q6: Is this ratio of TIME-WAIT / ESTABLISHED connections normal? Could this be related to malicious connection attempts?

  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

• ZFS with L2ARC (SSD) slower for random seeks than without L2ARC

  - by Florian Kruse

  I am currently testing ZFS (Opensolaris 2009.06) in an older fileserver to evaluate its use for our needs. Our current setup is as follows: Dual core (2,4 GHz) with 4 GB RAM 3x SATA controller with 11 HDDs (250 GB) and one SSD (OCZ Vertex 2 100 GB) We want to evaluate the use of a L2ARC, so the current ZPOOL is: $ zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM afstank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c11t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c13t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 cache c14t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 where c14t3d0 is the SSD (of course). We run IO tests with bonnie++ 1.03d, size is set to 200 GB (-s 200g) so that the test sample will never be completely in ARC/L2ARC. The results without SSD are (average values over several runs which show no differences) write_chr write_blk rewrite read_chr read_blk random seeks 101.998 kB/s 214.258 kB/s 96.673 kB/s 77.702 kB/s 254.695 kB/s 900 /s With SSD it becomes interesting. My assumption was that the results should be in worst case at least the same. While write/read/rewrite rates are not different, the random seek rate differs significantly between individual bonnie++ runs (between 188 /s and 1333 /s so far), average is 548 +- 200 /s, so below the value w/o SSD. So, my questions are mainly: Why do the random seek rates differ so much? If the seeks are really random, they should not differ much (my assumption). So, even if the SSD is impairing the performance it should be the same in each bonnie++ run. Why is the random seek performance worse in most of the bonnie++ runs? I would assume that some part of the bonnie++ data is in the L2ARC and random seeks on this data performs better while random seeks on other data just performs similarly like before.

  Read the article

• 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

• Trailing dots in url result in empty 404 page on IIS

  - by Peter Hahndorf

  I have an ASP.NET site on IIS8, but IIS7.5 behaves exactly the same. When I enter a URL like: mysite.com/foo/bar.. I get the following error with a '500 Internal Server Error' status code: even though I have custom error pages set up for 500 and 404 and I don't see anything wrong with my custom error page. In my web.config system.web node I have the following: <customErrors mode="On"> <error statusCode="404" redirect="/404.aspx" /> </customErrors> If I remove that section, I get a 404.0 response back but the page itself is blank. In web.config system.webServer I have: <httpErrors errorMode="DetailedLocalOnly"> <remove statusCode="404" subStatusCode="-1" /> <error statusCode="404" prefixLanguageFilePath="" path="404.html" responseMode="File" /> </httpErrors> But whether that is there or not, I get the same blank 404.0 page rather than my expected custom error page, or at least an internal IIS message. So first of all why is the asp.net handler picking up a request for '..' (also works with one or more trailing dots) If I remove the following handler from applicacationHost.config: <add name="ExtensionlessUrlHandler-Integrated-4.0" path="*." verb="GET,HEAD,POST,DEBUG" type="System.Web.Handlers.TransferRequestHandler" preCondition="integratedMode,runtimeVersionv4.0" responseBufferLimit="0" /> I get my expected custom 404 page, but of course removing that handler breaks routing in asp.net among other things. Looking at the failure trace I see: Windows Authentication is disabled for the site, so why is that module even in the request pipeline? For now my fix is to use the URL Rewrite module with the following rule: <rewrite> <rules> <rule name="Trailing Dots" stopProcessing="true"> <match url="\.+$" /> <action type="Rewrite" url="/404.html" appendQueryString="false" /> </rule> </rules> </rewrite> This works okay, but I wonder why IIS/ASP.NET behaves this way?

  Read the article

• IE and Google Chrome timeout on an IIS6 hosted SSL page that Firefox handles well

  - by Thomas

  Ok, here's the scenario: Up until a few weeks ago, none of us noticed anything wrong with the corporate website. People were using it without complaint. Then, a client complained that a specific page on the site was timing out for him, and only when he committed a POST action on a form filled with data. I checked it out, and it timed out for me, too. But, it only timed out in Google Chrome and IE, not in Firefox. Additionally, the same page, on the same server, but served from a different domain name (one not under the protection of SSL, either) does not time out under any browser. To clarify: https://www.mysite.com/changes.php times out on POST, but the same with http works fine. That distinction (SSL vs. Non-SSL) seems to be important, as nothing else has changed. Our certificate is valid, and Firefox detects no errors thrown by the page. I've looked at the Request and Response headers from the page, and they all follow the correct formats. Then, after wandering through the site, I noticed a few other things. Both IE and Chrome will frequently time out on any page that is PHP-based. They never time out on static images or html files. I've looked at the site from a variety of different servers, my home and work workstations, and my netbook. Because of that, I've discounted a viral infection, as I highly doubt a virus is going to hit every one of the machines to which I have access in exactly the same manner. My setup is: Server: Win2k3, II6, PHP 5.2.9-1. Clients: IE7, IE8, Chrome (regular and dev channel): Frequent timeouts on PHP pages. Firefox 2, Firefox 3: No timeouts. Firebug shows no errors or even lengthy periods serving the pages. I've spent 2 days searching for any tech knowledge that I can find, and my search parameters are all too general. Everyone has problems loading SSL pages in IE and Chrome for a wide variety of reasons. The infrequent nature of the timeouts and the fact that there are no errors being reported anywhere is starting to drive me insane. Does anyone have any insight on a problem like this?

  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

• Tab Content Does Not Refresh After First Click of Like Button

  - by Adam

  I've implemented a very simple "like guard" for a facebook tab, and am running into an issue with my test users. Multiple testers are reporting that when they open a tab and click the "like" button, they do not always get a page refresh (so the like guard does not disappear until they do a manual reload). This is using facebook's like button at the top of the page, not one I've coded up myself. As a sanity check, I enabled some simple logging on my server and have been able to recreate the issue - I hit "like" or "unlike" but there seems to be no request made to my index.php page, so definitely no refresh happening. I'm aware of this old bug https://developers.facebook.com/bugs/228778937218386 but this one seems different. For starters, after the first click of the "like" button, if I just continue clicking unlike/like/.... then the refresh happens automatically, as expected. What's especially weird is that if I reload the page after the first failed refresh, the refreshes start working again as expected, ie the first update to my like status triggers a page refresh. Some possibly (?) relevant info: My Tab is part of a test page, and is unpublished I am only using http hosting for the tab content, since my https isn't set up yet So far I've just tested with other admins - so maybe user role affects this? Curious to see if anyone has run into this issue before.

  Read the article

• How can a single disk in a hardware SATA RAID-10 array bring the entire array to a screeching halt?

  - by Stu Thompson

  Prelude: I'm a code-monkey that's increasingly taken on SysAdmin duties for my small company. My code is our product, and increasingly we provide the same app as SaaS. About 18 months ago I moved our servers from a premium hosting centric vendor to a barebones rack pusher in a tier IV data center. (Literally across the street.) This ment doing much more ourselves--things like networking, storage and monitoring. As part the big move, to replace our leased direct attached storage from the hosting company, I built a 9TB two-node NAS based on SuperMicro chassises, 3ware RAID cards, Ubuntu 10.04, two dozen SATA disks, DRBD and . It's all lovingly documented in three blog posts: Building up & testing a new 9TB SATA RAID10 NFSv4 NAS: Part I, Part II and Part III. We also setup a Cacit monitoring system. Recently we've been adding more and more data points, like SMART values. I could not have done all this without the awesome boffins at ServerFault. It's been a fun and educational experience. My boss is happy (we saved bucket loads of $$$), our customers are happy (storage costs are down), I'm happy (fun, fun, fun). Until yesterday. Outage & Recovery: Some time after lunch we started getting reports of sluggish performance from our application, an on-demand streaming media CMS. About the same time our Cacti monitoring system sent a blizzard of emails. One of the more telling alerts was a graph of iostat await. Performance became so degraded that Pingdom began sending "server down" notifications. The overall load was moderate, there was not traffic spike. After logging onto the application servers, NFS clients of the NAS, I confirmed that just about everything was experiencing highly intermittent and insanely long IO wait times. And once I hopped onto the primary NAS node itself, the same delays were evident when trying to navigate the problem array's file system. Time to fail over, that went well. Within 20 minuts everything was confirmed to be back up and running perfectly. Post-Mortem: After any and all system failures I perform a post-mortem to determine the cause of the failure. First thing I did was ssh back into the box and start reviewing logs. It was offline, completely. Time for a trip to the data center. Hardware reset, backup an and running. In /var/syslog I found this scary looking entry: Nov 15 06:49:44 umbilo smartd[2827]: Device: /dev/twa0 [3ware_disk_00], 6 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Nov 15 06:49:44 umbilo smartd[2827]: Device: /dev/twa0 [3ware_disk_07], SMART Prefailure Attribute: 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate changed from 171 to 170 Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: Device: /dev/twa0 [3ware_disk_10], 16 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: Device: /dev/twa0 [3ware_disk_10], 4 Offline uncorrectable sectors Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: # 1 Short offline Completed: read failure 90% 6576 3421766910 Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: # 2 Short offline Completed: read failure 90% 6087 3421766910 Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: # 3 Short offline Completed: read failure 10% 5901 656821791 Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: # 4 Short offline Completed: read failure 90% 5818 651637856 Nov 15 06:49:45 umbilo smartd[2827]: So I went to check the Cacti graphs for the disks in the array. Here we see that, yes, disk 7 is slipping away just like syslog says it is. But we also see that disk 8's SMART Read Erros are fluctuating. There are no messages about disk 8 in syslog. More interesting is that the fluctuating values for disk 8 directly correlate to the high IO wait times! My interpretation is that: Disk 8 is experiencing an odd hardware fault that results in intermittent long operation times. Somehow this fault condition on the disk is locking up the entire array Maybe there is a more accurate or correct description, but the net result has been that the one disk is impacting the performance of the whole array. The Question(s) How can a single disk in a hardware SATA RAID-10 array bring the entire array to a screeching halt? Am I being naïve to think that the RAID card should have dealt with this? How can I prevent a single misbehaving disk from impacting the entire array? Am I missing something?

  Read the article

• SSRS 2008 printing single page renders different for print

  - by user270437

  I have a problem with SSRS 2008 reports rendering differently on the reporting server than the way it renders when you print the report. I’m trying to figure out to print a single page and have the print show that same records as I see on the report on the screen. As a test, I created a simple report with no headers or footers and just added a Tablix table to display the records (no groupings). My data set for this test displays 2 ¼ pages of records when I deploy it to our reporting services server and run it. If I click the print Icon and preview the report is 2 ¾ pages. I haven’t found anything searching on this so it makes me think it is something simple I’m missing. A basically want the report to render the same records on each page in Report Manager as it does when it prints, how do I accomplish this? (In response to answer posted by Chris)…If that is the case then it is disappointing. Customers are accustomed to WYSIWYG and will have a hard time understanding that, I imagine we will be getting a lot of support calls. This still leaves an issue. I tried using print preview and could not find any way to single out a page. If I select a page up front to print, or preview it renders different so I get different records. And if I preview the entire document, I can only print the entire document. You mentioned the Excel render; we have customers that will want that also. The problem I have found with Excel exports is that even a basic report winds up merging some cells and that messes up sorting. I’m going to try your tip about grouping to see if I can get a clean export to a page. It would have been nice if they would have created a property for certain controls like the tablix table called “ExcelSheet”. Then all you would have to do is give it a name and it would create a new sheet for each control with a name, the name becoming the sheet title. Thanks for the information you supplied it is very useful as I’m new to SSRS. If you know how I can Preview in print render and select individual pages to print from the render let me know. Update 02/19/2010 After testing this more I now realize it is just a bad design of Report managers print driver or a limitation because it is server based. The options work differently than Windows apps drivers, But I did find a work around. Here is the test I performed comparing Excel to Report Manager. I bring up a report that will render more than 1 page when printed. I then export to Excel, in Excel I select print preview. I can navigate the pages in preview and then select a single page like page 3. I can then print just page 3 without leaving print preview and it prints just like it rendered. I cannot do this using print in report manager. If I select print preview in report manager then try to print while in preview it always prints the entire document. However if I close out of print preview, I can then select page 3 and print it as rendered. It is just one additional step once you know what to do, but it took some time to figure it out.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136  | Next Page >