Search Results

Search found 20904 results on 837 pages for 'disk performance'.

Page 149/837 | < Previous Page | 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156  | Next Page >

• Does AMD Cool n Quiet Slow Down Your System?

  - by Software Monkey

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

  Read the article

• Running a VM off a USB 2.0 Flash Drive - Mac/Parallels/XP

  - by geerlingguy

  I use a MacBook Air as my primary machine, and the 128GB SSD means space is precious. To save about 10 GB, I've been running Parallels with a Windows XP VM off an external USB hard drive, which performs as well in everyday use as running the VM off the internal SSD. So, I bought a tiny 32GB USB 2.0 flash drive, plugged it into the MacBook Air, formatted it first as ExFAT (which was slow), then as Mac OS Extended (Journaled) (which was also slow), and copied over my VM file, and ran Parallels off it. My full experience is documented here: http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/running-windows-xp-vm Straight file copies are really fast — 30 MB/sec read (solid the whole time), and 10-11 MB/sec write (solid the whole time). But I noticed that once XP started running, the disk access rates were in the low KB ranges. Are USB flash drives really that poor at random access, or could I possibly be missing something (the format of the flash drive, etc.?)? Of note, I've tried the following, to no great effect: Formatting the drive as either ExFAT or Mac OS Extended (Journaled) Unplugging all other USB devices and turning off Bluetooth (which runs on the right-side-port USB bus). Plugging in the flash drive either direct in the right side port, or the left side port, or into a USB 2.0 hub

  Read the article

• dd oflag=direct 5x fast

  - by César

  I have Centos 6.2 in server with this specs: 2xCPU 16 Core AMD Opteron 6282 SE 64GB RAM Raid controller H700 1GB cache NV - 2HD 74GB SAS 15Krpm RAID1 stripe 16k (OS Centos 6.2) sda - 4HD 146GB SAS 15Krpm RAID10 stripe 16k (ext4 bs 4096, no barriers) sdb -> /vol01 Raid controller H800 1GB cache nv - MD1200 12HD 300GB SAS 15Krpm RAID10 stripe 256k (For DB Postgres 8.3.18) (ext4 bs 4096, stride 64, stripe-width 384, no barriers) sdc -> /vol02 I'm benchmarking IO speed with dd, and view thah if in RAID10 12 disk exec: dd if=/dev/zero of=DD bs=8M count=10000 oflag=direct 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 83886080000 bytes (84 GB) copied, 126,03 s, 666 MB/s but if I remove "oflag=direct" option obtain about 80 MB/s. In read benchmark, results are similar: dd of=/dev/null if=DD bs=8M count=10000 iflag=direct 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 83886080000 bytes (84 GB) copied, 79,5918 s, 1,1 GB/s If remove iflag=direct obtain 150MB/s... I don't understand this huge differences, on other machines y don't have this behavior. Can I have some kernel parameter misconfigured? Thanks!

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2008 Web VS SQL Server 2008 Enterprise

  - by Jeremy

  I wrote an application a few months ago, and was hosting it out of our offices on a workstation with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz, 8 GB RAM, Windows Server 2008 Enterprise and SQL Server 2008 Enterprise. Both the webserver and database server were run on the same machine. We had a huge influx in traffic, and moved ClubUptime.com, and got 2 of their top teir windows VMs. The Database server runs Windows 2008 R2 Standard and SQL Server 2008 R2 Web on 8 GB ram and an Intel Xeon e5620 @ 2.40GHz. Ever since switching, the database which used to run at around 400MB in RAM now runs at around 4-7GB, and there haven't been any changes to it (other than a couple columns here and there). Our traffic has quadrupled, and our DB is 6 GB on disk, why would SQL server take up 7 GB if the DB is only 6. And why would it be storing the ENTIRE database in memory? Another thing is why growing 4 times in size did the database's memory footprint grow 12 times? Last question: Why does the CPU peg at 100% now where it didn't before? The design is simple, VERY few joins, NO subqueries. I am just at a loss, unless it is the SQL server edition, or the fact that I moved from real hardware to a VM.

  Read the article

• preformance wise htaccess

  - by purpler

  hese's the my htaccess template, i wonder if anything could be added to increase website performance.. # Defaults AddDefaultCharset UTF-8 DefaultLanguage en-US ServerSignature Off FileETag None Header unset ETag Options -MultiViews #Options All -Indexes # Force the latest IE version or ChromeFrame <IfModule mod_setenvif.c> <IfModule mod_headers.c> BrowserMatch MSIE ie Header set X-UA-Compatible "IE=Edge,chrome=1" env=ie </IfModule> </IfModule> # Proxy X-UA Setup <IfModule mod_headers.c> Header append Vary User-Agent </IfModule> #Rewrites Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / # Redirect to non-WWW RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.+)$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect to WWW RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com RewriteRule (.*) http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect index to root RewriteRule ^(.*)index\.(php|html)$ /$1 [R=301,L] # Caching ExpiresActive On ExpiresDefault A0 Header set Cache-Control "public" # 1 Year Long Cache <FilesMatch "\.(flv|fla|ico|pdf|avi|mov|ppt|doc|mp3|wmv|wav|png|jpg|jpeg|gif|swf|js|css|ttf|eot|woff|svg|svgz)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 </FilesMatch> # Proxy Caching <FilesMatch "\.(css|js|png)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 Header set Cache-Control "private" </FilesMatch> # Protect against DOS attacks by limiting file upload size LimitRequestBody 10240000 # Proper SVG serving AddType image/svg+xml svg svgz AddEncoding gzip svgz # GZip Compression <IfModule mod_deflate.c> <FilesMatch "\.(php|html|css|js|xml|txt|ttf|otf|eot|svg)$" > SetOutputFilter DEFLATE </FilesMatch> </IfModule> # Error page ErrorDocument 404 /404.html # Deny access to sensitive files <FilesMatch "\.(htaccess|ini|log|psd)$"> Order Allow,Deny Deny from all </FilesMatch>

  Read the article

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

  - by undefined hero

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

  Read the article

• Why does hiberfil.sys come back from the dead on Windows 7?

  - by Corey White

  I have Windows 7 running on a small (40GB) partition, with 4GB ram. This means that the hiberfil.sys file created by Hibernate takes up a significant portion of the available diskspace. I would like to remove it. I am aware that I can disable Hibernate and remove hiberfil.sys by entering powercfg -h off in an elevated command prompt. This works -- the file is immediately removed, and after doing so, the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Power\HibernateEnabled key is (correctly) set to 0. However, the next time I reboot the PC, hiberfil.sys returns from the dead, Hibernate is reenabled, and that registry key has returned to 1. I'm pretty much at my wits' end with this. Almost everything I can find online related to removing the hiberfil.sys file simply suggests using powercfg to turn off hibernation, and that appears to work for just about everyone. But it just keeps coming back for me! (Like a vampire, sucking up my disk space.) I did find one other thread from someone who seems to have had the same issue, but none of the suggestions there worked for the original poster (or for me). Still, I have tried everything listed there, including: Disabling hybrid sleep Disabling Hibernate through the command prompt, through the Power Options GUI, and through both (in both orders) Manually changing the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Power\HibernateEnabled key Pretty much everything else I can think of! I do want to reiterate that I have no problem removing the file -- that works great. It just comes back after every reboot. I'm about ready to throw in the towel and just run a script on login to disable Hibernate each time, even though that seems like a crazily hacky "solution" . . . but I was hoping someone here could suggest something else, first. Thanks!

  Read the article

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

  - by Soham

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

  Read the article

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

  - by Tom

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

  Read the article

• Am I getting the right memory for my motherboard?

  - by Daniel Carvalho

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

  Read the article

• Mysterious Windows 7 slowdown problem

  - by cletus

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

  Read the article

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

  - by Andrew

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

  Read the article

• mkfs Operation Takes Very Long on Linux Software Raid 5

  - by Elmar Weber

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

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V very slow

  - by Matt Taylor

  I have been running several Hyper-V VMs on Windows Server 2008 R2 for the past couple of years and enjoying perfectly adequate performance for my testing/development/r&d environments. I'm a software developer so my hardware knowledge is basic however I built the rig using: •Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R Intel X58 (Socket 1366) DDR3 Motherboard •Intel Core i7 960 3.20GHz (Bloomfield) (Socket LGA1366) •24GB triple channel RAM The host OS is running on an OCZ SSD and all the VMs are running on a 2TB Marvell SATA3 RAID 0 array consisting of 2 Western Digital Caviar Black 7,200rpm drives. I have tested the speed of the 2TB drive and appear to be getting less than 3Mbs but it can adequately run a 4 VM farm including a DC, (SQL) database and IIS application servers. I recently upgraded the SSD on which the host runs to a 256GB OCZ Vertex 4 and took the opportunity to upgrade to Windows Server 2012 and installed the Hyper-V role. I tried importing one of my existing Windows Server 2008 R2 VMs (and converted it to .vhdx) plus I have tried creating a brand new Windows Server 2008 R2 VM but both are running extremely slowly and I can see nothing obvious using the host and guest Task Manager/Resource Monitor tools. In both cases the VM has 8GB RAM (fixed), 4 CPUs, fixed size HD (not expanding) and is using an external virtual network running on a separate NIC to the host. I have upgraded the BIOS to the latest available version and checked the virtualization settings. I have run out of "obvious" (to a developer) things to check/configure and my next option will be to re-install the host OS but before I do I would very much appreciate any advice from any experts out there. Thanks

  Read the article

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

  - by domribaut

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

  Read the article

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

  - by Jan P.

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

  Read the article

• Windows is very slow with my new SSD

  - by Maksym H.

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

  Read the article

• setup lowcost image storage server with 24x SSD array to get high IOPS?

  - by Nenad

  I want to build let's name it a lowcost Ra*san which would host for our social site the images (many millions) we have 5 sizes of every photo with 3 KB, 7 KB, 15 KB, 25 KB and 80 KB per Image. My idea is to build a Server with 24x consumer 240 GB SSD's in Raid 6 which will give me some 5 TB Disk space for the photo storage. To have HA I can add a 2nd one and use drdb. I'm looking to get above 150'000 IOPS (4K Random reads). As we mostly have read access only and rarely delete photos i think to go with consumer MLC SSD. I read many endurance reviews and don't see there a problem as long we don't rewrite the cells. What you think about my idea? - I'm not sure between Raid 6 or Raid 10 (more IOPS, cost SSD). - Is ext4 OK for the filesystem - Would you use 1 or 2 Raid controller, with Extender Backplane If anyone has realized something similar i would be happy to get Real World numbers. UPDATE I have buy 12 (plus some spare) OCZ Talos 480GB SAS SSD Drive's they will be placed in a 12-bay DAS and attached to a PERC H800 (1GB NV Cache, manufactured by LSI with fastpath) Controller, I plan to setup Raid 50 with ext4. If someone is wondering about some benchmarks let me know what you would like to see.

  Read the article

• How to stop Firefox on an SSD from freezing when using the search box or submitting a form?

  - by sblair

  Firefox usually freezes for about a second whenever I search for something from the toolbar search box, when submitting a form, or when clearing the search box history. I suspect it has something to do with the auto-complete feature. Using Windows 7's Resource Monitor, the problem seems to be from the file: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\<profile>\formhistory.sqlite-journal I believe this is a temporary file which caches database writes. The following screenshot shows the very high response times from six different searches, and that the queue length on drive C shoots off the scale: My Firefox profile is on an Intel X25-M G2 SSD. The problem doesn't seem to occur if I create a new profile on a hard disk drive. However, I'd like to know why the problem exists on the SSD in the first place (because it's an annoying problem which contradicts the reason I bought an SSD, and it might happen with other applications too), and how to prevent it. It still occurs if Firefox is started in safe mode, and with the recent beta versions. Updates: VACUUMing the Firefox profile databases does not help with this problem. The SSD Optimizer in the Intel SSD Toolbox does not help either.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 starts getting sluggish over a few days

  - by munrobasher

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

  Read the article

• mkfs Operation Takes Very Long on Linux Software Raid 5

  - by Elmar Weber

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

  Read the article

• Windows 8 x64 with VMWare Workstation or inside ESXi

  - by Dommer

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

  Read the article

• What's throttling the database?

  - by Troels Arvin

  Hardware: Intel x86_64 with 192GB of RAM. OS: CentOS 5.4 x86_64. DBMS: DB2 v. 9.7.1 64 bit. During certain special workloads (e.g. parallel REORGs/RUNSTATs), I've seen the server transporting 450MB/s with 25000IO/s (yes, there is probably some storage system caching happening here) while all CPU cores were happily working in an even mix of usermode/wait. And disk benchmark tools can also bring some very satisfying bandwith and IO/s numbers to the table. On the other hand, we also have another scenario: A single rather complex query with at least one large table scan. db2's "list applications" reports that the query is Executing (not locked). IO: At most 10MB/s, 500 IO/s; CPU: two cores in 99.9% wait state, all other cores 100% idle. The tables which the query reads from have been altered to have LOCKSIZE=TABLE, so I would think that lock list work is zero. What's going on in such a situation? What tools/snapshots/... can I use to gain better insight in such a case?

  Read the article

• Missing drive space in Server 2003

  - by Tim Brigham

  I have two drives used for SQL backups which for the last week have been acting strange - the free space indicated by windows is far off from what windirstat, etc indicates. There should only be about 60 GB of drive space used and there is about 160. This would match the utilization if the two last backup files were still residing on disk. SQL server is 2000, OS Server 2003 x64. Running on a VMware 5.0 cluster. OSSEC and McAfee for this system shows clean. My current plan is to temporarily attach one of these drives this drive to another VM for analysis. Is there anything more I should be looking at? There were a lot of pages on the net when I was looking for documentation on this issue but I haven't found this case described. EDIT: Unfortunately even a full reboot did not clear this behavior. I also used process explorer to look for open file handles. No dice.

  Read the article

• Measure Upload Speed between a client and our server

  - by tresstylez

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

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156  | Next Page >