Search Results

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

Page 15/520 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

• Auditing front end performance on web application

  - by user1018494

  I am currently trying to performance tune the UI of a company web application. The application is only ever going to be accessed by staff, so the speed of the connection between the server and client will always be considerably more than if it was on the internet. I have been using performance auditing tools such as Y Slow! and Google Chrome's profiling tool to try and highlight areas that are worth targeting for investigation. However, these tools are written with the internet in mind. For example, the current suggestions from a Google Chrome audit of the application suggests is as follows: Network Utilization Combine external CSS (Red warning) Combine external JavaScript (Red warning) Enable gzip compression (Red warning) Leverage browser caching (Red warning) Leverage proxy caching (Amber warning) Minimise cookie size (Amber warning) Parallelize downloads across hostnames (Amber warning) Serve static content from a cookieless domain (Amber warning) Web Page Performance Remove unused CSS rules (Amber warning) Use normal CSS property names instead of vendor-prefixed ones (Amber warning) Are any of these bits of advice totally redundant given the connection speed and usage pattern? The users will be using the application frequently throughout the day, so it doesn't matter if the initial hit is large (when they first visit the page and build their cache) so long as a minimal amount of work is done on future page views. For example, is it worth the effort of combining all of our CSS and JavaScript files? It may speed up the initial page view, but how much of a difference will it really make on subsequent page views throughout the working day? I've tried searching for this but all I keep coming up with is the standard internet facing performance advice. Any advice on what to focus my performance tweaking efforts on in this scenario, or other auditing tool recommendations, would be much appreciated.

  Read the article

• How to improve Varnish performance?

  - by Darkseal

  We're experiencing a strange problem with our current Varnish configuration. 4x Web Servers (IIS 6.5 on Windows 2003 Server, each installed on a Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5450 @ 3.00GHz Quad Core, 4GB RAM) 3x Varnish Servers (varnish-3.0.3 revision 9e6a70f on Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS - 64 bit/precise, Kernel Linux 3.2.0-29-generic, each installed on a Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5450 @ 3.00GHz Quad Core, 4GB RAM) The Varnish Servers performance are awfully bad in general, to the point that if we shut down one of them the other two are unable to fullfill all the requests and start to skip beats resulting in pending requests, timeouts, 404, etc. What can we do to improve our Varnish performance? Considering that we're getting less than 5k request per seconds during our max peak, we should be able to serve our pages even with a single one of them without any problem. We use a standard, vanilla CFG, as shown by this varnishadm param.show output: acceptor_sleep_decay 0.900000 [] acceptor_sleep_incr 0.001000 [s] acceptor_sleep_max 0.050000 [s] auto_restart on [bool] ban_dups on [bool] ban_lurker_sleep 0.010000 [s] between_bytes_timeout 60.000000 [s] cc_command "exec gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -pthread -fpic -shared - Wl,-x -o %o %s" cli_buffer 8192 [bytes] cli_timeout 20 [seconds] clock_skew 10 [s] connect_timeout 0.700000 [s] critbit_cooloff 180.000000 [s] default_grace 10.000000 [seconds] default_keep 0.000000 [seconds] default_ttl 120.000000 [seconds] diag_bitmap 0x0 [bitmap] esi_syntax 0 [bitmap] expiry_sleep 1.000000 [seconds] fetch_chunksize 128 [kilobytes] fetch_maxchunksize 262144 [kilobytes] first_byte_timeout 60.000000 [s] group varnish (113) gzip_level 6 [] gzip_memlevel 8 [] gzip_stack_buffer 32768 [Bytes] gzip_tmp_space 0 [] gzip_window 15 [] http_gzip_support off [bool] http_max_hdr 64 [header lines] http_range_support on [bool] http_req_hdr_len 8192 [bytes] http_req_size 32768 [bytes] http_resp_hdr_len 8192 [bytes] http_resp_size 32768 [bytes] idle_send_timeout 60 [seconds] listen_address :80 listen_depth 1024 [connections] log_hashstring on [bool] log_local_address off [bool] lru_interval 2 [seconds] max_esi_depth 5 [levels] max_restarts 4 [restarts] nuke_limit 50 [allocations] pcre_match_limit 10000 [] pcre_match_limit_recursion 10000 [] ping_interval 3 [seconds] pipe_timeout 60 [seconds] prefer_ipv6 off [bool] queue_max 100 [%] rush_exponent 3 [requests per request] saintmode_threshold 10 [objects] send_timeout 600 [seconds] sess_timeout 5 [seconds] sess_workspace 16384 [bytes] session_linger 50 [ms] session_max 100000 [sessions] shm_reclen 255 [bytes] shm_workspace 8192 [bytes] shortlived 10.000000 [s] syslog_cli_traffic on [bool] thread_pool_add_delay 2 [milliseconds] thread_pool_add_threshold 2 [requests] thread_pool_fail_delay 200 [milliseconds] thread_pool_max 2000 [threads] thread_pool_min 5 [threads] thread_pool_purge_delay 1000 [milliseconds] thread_pool_stack unlimited [bytes] thread_pool_timeout 300 [seconds] thread_pool_workspace 65536 [bytes] thread_pools 2 [pools] thread_stats_rate 10 [requests] user varnish (106) vcc_err_unref on [bool] vcl_dir /etc/varnish vcl_trace off [bool] vmod_dir /usr/lib/varnish/vmods waiter default (epoll, poll) This is our default.vcl file: LINK sub vcl_recv { # BASIC recv COMMANDS: # # lookup -> search the item in the cache # pass -> always serve a fresh item (no-caching) # pipe -> like pass but ensures a direct-connection with the backend (no-cache AND no-proxy) # Allow the backend to serve up stale content if it is responding slow. # This defines when Varnish should use a stale object if it has one in the cache. set req.grace = 30s; if (client.ip == "127.0.0.1") { # request from NGINX - do not alter X-Forwarded-For set req.http.HTTPS = "on"; } else { # Add an X-Forwarded-For to keep track of original request unset req.http.HTTPS; unset req.http.X-Forwarded-For; set req.http.X-Forwarded-For = client.ip; } set req.backend = www_director; # Strip all cookies to force an anonymous request when the back-end servers are down. if (!req.backend.healthy) { unset req.http.Cookie; } ## HHTP Accept-Encoding if (req.http.Accept-Encoding) { if (req.http.Accept-Encoding ~ "gzip") { set req.http.Accept-Encoding = "gzip"; } else if (req.http.Accept-Encoding ~ "deflate") { set req.http.Accept-Encoding = "deflate"; } else { unset req.http.Accept-Encoding; } } if (req.request != "GET" && req.request != "HEAD" && req.request != "PUT" && req.request != "POST" && req.request != "TRACE" && req.request != "OPTIONS" && req.request != "DELETE") { /* non-RFC2616 or CONNECT */ return (pipe); } if (req.request != "GET" && req.request != "HEAD") { /* only deal with GET and HEAD by default */ return (pass); } if (req.http.Authorization) { return (pass); } if (req.http.HTTPS ~ "on") { return (pass); } ###################################################### # COOKIE HANDLING ###################################################### # METHOD 1: do not remove cookies, but pass the page if they contain TB_NC if (!(req.url ~ "(?i)\.(png|gif|ipeg|jpg|ico|swf|css|js)(\?[a-z0-9]+)?$")) { if (req.http.Cookie && req.http.Cookie ~ "TB_NC") { return (pass); } } return (lookup); } # Code determining what to do when serving items from the IIS Server sub vcl_fetch { unset beresp.http.Server; set beresp.http.Server = "Server-1"; # Allow items to be stale if needed. This is the maximum time Varnish should keep an object. set beresp.grace = 1h; if (req.url ~ "(?i)\.(png|gif|ipeg|jpg|ico|swf|css|js)(\?[a-z0-9]+)?$") { unset beresp.http.set-cookie; } # Default Varnish VCL logic if (!beresp.cacheable || beresp.ttl <= 0s || beresp.http.Set-Cookie || beresp.http.Vary == "*") { set beresp.ttl = 120 s; return(hit_for_pass); } # Not Cacheable if it has specific TB_NC no-caching cookie if (req.http.Cookie && req.http.Cookie ~ "TB_NC") { set beresp.http.X-Cacheable = "NO:Got Cookie"; set beresp.ttl = 120 s; return(hit_for_pass); } # Not Cacheable if it has Cache-Control private else if (beresp.http.Cache-Control ~ "private") { set beresp.http.X-Cacheable = "NO:Cache-Control=private"; set beresp.ttl = 120 s; return(hit_for_pass); } # Not Cacheable if it has Cache-Control no-cache or Pragma no-cache else if (beresp.http.Cache-Control ~ "no-cache" || beresp.http.Pragma ~ "no-cache") { set beresp.http.X-Cacheable = "NO:Cache-Control=no-cache (or pragma no-cache)"; set beresp.ttl = 120 s; return(hit_for_pass); } # If we reach to this point, the object is cacheable. # Cacheable but with not enough ttl: we need to extend the lifetime of the object artificially # NOTE: Varnish default TTL is set in /etc/sysconfig/varnish # and can be checked using the following command: # varnishadm param.show default_ttl else if (beresp.ttl < 1s) { set beresp.ttl = 5s; set beresp.grace = 5s; set beresp.http.X-Cacheable = "YES:FORCED"; } # Cacheable and with valid TTL. else { set beresp.http.X-Cacheable = "YES"; } # DEBUG INFO (Cookies) # set beresp.http.X-Cookie-Debug = "Request cookie: " + req.http.Cookie; return(deliver); } sub vcl_error { set obj.http.Content-Type = "text/html; charset=utf-8"; if (obj.status == 404) { synthetic {" <!-- Markup for the 404 page goes here --> "}; } else if (obj.status == 500) { synthetic {" <!-- Markup for the 500 page goes here --> "}; } else if (obj.status == 503) { if (req.restarts < 4) { return(restart); } else { synthetic {" <!-- Markup for the 503 page goes here --> "}; } } else { synthetic {" <!-- Markup for a generic error page goes here --> "}; } } sub vcl_deliver { if (obj.hits > 0) { set resp.http.X-Cache = "HIT"; } else { set resp.http.X-Cache = "MISS"; } } Thanks in advance,

  Read the article

• Performance of file operations on thousands of files on NTFS vs HFS, ext3, others

  - by peterjmag

  [Crossposted from my Ask HN post. Feel free to close it if the question's too broad for superuser.] This is something I've been curious about for years, but I've never found any good discussions on the topic. Of course, my Google-fu might just be failing me... I often deal with projects involving thousands of relatively small files. This means that I'm frequently performing operations on all of those files or a large subset of them—copying the project folder elsewhere, deleting a bunch of temporary files, etc. Of all the machines I've worked on over the years, I've noticed that NTFS handles these tasks consistently slower than HFS on a Mac or ext3/ext4 on a Linux box. However, as far as I can tell, the raw throughput isn't actually slower on NTFS (at least not significantly), but the delay between each individual file is just a tiny bit longer. That little delay really adds up for thousands of files. (Side note: From what I've read, this is one of the reasons git is such a pain on Windows, since it relies so heavily on the file system for its object database.) Granted, my evidence is merely anecdotal—I don't currently have any real performance numbers, but it's something that I'd love to test further (perhaps with a Mac dual-booting into Windows). Still, my geekiness insists that someone out there already has. Can anyone explain this, or perhaps point me in the right direction to research it further myself?

  Read the article

• SAN performance issues storing SQL Server tempdb on a SAN that's being backed up

  - by user42724

  I'm afraid I don't know much about SAN's so please forgive my lack of detail or technical terms. As a developer I've just completed and put on an existing production system a new application but it would appear to have tipped the scales regarding the performance of the backups being taken from the SAN. As I understand it there's a mirror of the SAN being taken usually constantly at the block-level. However, there seem to be so many new writes to the disk that the SAN mirroring/backup process can no longer keep up. I believe I've narrowed this down to SQL Servers tempdb which exists on a drive that contributes the largest portion of the problem! In fact I think tempdb has be contributing the largest portion of the issues all along regardless of my application! My question therefore is whether the tempdb should ever be mirrored or backed on the SAN and whether anyone else has gone through this sort of pain already? I'm wondering whether it's a best practise to make sure that tempdb is never mirrored on a SAN simply because any writes to it don't need to be saved. This also raises a slightly connected question - is it better to rely on SQL Servers built-in database backups tools (DB in full-recovery mode with full/differential and transaction log backups) or, as is the case with our application, SQL server is in simple recovery mode and never backed up since the SAN is mirrored and backed up? Many thanks

  Read the article

• Outbound HTTP performance tuning recommendations

  - by Richard Gadsden

  I'll detail my exact setup below, but general recommendations for a better web-browsing experience will be useful. A nice checklist of things to try would be great! I have 600 users on a single site with an 8MB leased line. I get a lot of moans about the performance of "the internet" (ie web-browsing). What recommendations do the community have for speeding things up without just throwing more bandwidth at it? I expect I will end up buying some more, but good management tips are always valuable. My setup is this: Cisco PIX (515E) firewall on the edge of the network. It's just doing some basic NAT, and opening up a handful of ports to various bastion hosts (aka DMZ servers). The DMZ is just a switch that the servers are plugged into. ISA 2006 Enterprise array (two servers) connecting DMZ to the internal LAN, with WebSense Web Security filtering HTTP traffic so users can't look at porn or waste bandwidth on YouTube during working hours. I've done a few things - I've just switched my internal DNS over to use root hints, which halved DNS query latency from 500ms to 250ms. Well worth doing. I'm trying to cache more aggressively, but so much more of the internet is AJAXy and doesn't cache very well as compared to five years ago. Plus the 70GB of cache which felt like a lot a few years ago really isn't any more. I'm getting about 45% cache hits by number of requests, but only about 22% by size, ie larger objects are less likely to be cached. Latency seems to be part of the problem. Is that attributable to the bandwidth problem, or are there things I can look at to try to reduce latency even on heavily-loaded bandwidth?

  Read the article

• Strange performance differences in read/write from/to USB flash drive

  - by Mario De Schaepmeester

  When copying files from my 8GB USB 2.0 flash drive with Windows 7 to a traditional hard drive, the average speed is between 25 and 30 MB/s. When doing the reverse, copying to the USB drive, the speed is 5MB/s average. I have tested this with about 4.5GB of files, a mixture of smaller and larger ones. The observations were the same on both FAT32 and exFAT file systems on the USB drive, NTFS on the internal hard disk. I don't think I can be mistaken in saying that flash memory has a lot higher performance than a spinning hard drive in both terms of reading and writing. For both memory types, reading should be faster than writing too. Now I wonder, how can it be that copying files from a fast read memory to a faster write memory is actually slower than copying files from a fast read memory to a slow write memory? I think that the files are stored in RAM before being copied over too, and there's caching as well, but I don't see how even that could tip the balance. It can only be in the advantage of writing to the USB drive, since it is "closer" to the SATA system than the USB port and it will receive data from the internal SATA HDD faster. Perhaps my way of thinking is all wrong or it just depends on the manufacturer of the USB pen. But I am curious.

  Read the article

• Poor gaming performance with hyper-v installed in windows 8

  - by SnowCrash

  I am getting very poor gaming performance on my Windows 8 host OS with Hyper-V installed but no guest machines running. For example World of Tanks reports 60-70 FPS without Hyper-V installed and 4-14 FPS with it installed. A similar, dramatic, hit is observed in several other games so the issue is not WoT specific. To make the point clear, I am not trying to run games in a virtual machine. I don't even have a VM running while observing this effect. I simply have the Hyper-V feature installed. My system specs: AMD Phenom II 965 (3.4 GHz) AMD Radeon 6950 2GB (XFX Double D HD-695X-CDFC) 16GB DDR3 1333 AMD 790GX chipset Mainboard (Gigabyte GA-MA790GPT-UD3H) I have tried every AMD driver from 12.8 to the current 12.11beta8, virtualization is enabled in the BIOS settings, the onboard 3300HD video device is disabled in BIOS and I have read the MSDN blog entry here regarding a similar issue in Server 2008 that was resolved in 2008 R2 (and hopefully not regressed in Win 8). I'd like to be able to use Hyper-V for development and testing at home (I am a sysadmin/software developer professionally). If, however, I can't also use my home system for entertainment I'll have to scrap those plans.

  Read the article

• SSD, AHCI and write performance

  - by Dan

  We've started to deploy SSD drives to our developers workstations. At this moment we're having the unpleasant surprise that the systems using the new SSDs often freeze, with the HDD activity led blinking or being continuously on. Benchmarks shows read speeds around 180 MB/s, but write speeds around 5 MB/s. All developers are using Windows 7 Enterprise, 64 bit, SP1. One of our developers suggested (based on his experience) the following sequence: backup the workstation use a tool to completely erase the SSD make sure AHCI is enabled in BIOS install Windows restore from backup So far, this procedure seems to work (we're still testing, but write speed seems to be 120 MB/s). There are some questions in this context: why do we have to completely reinstall Windows? Is it possible to clean the SSD without reinstalling Windows? Is there a reliable tool? If AHCI was disabled when Windows was installed and we enable it, shouldn't this be enough to correct the write performance issue? If we have to completely erase the SSDs, does this mean the SSDs we've received were used before (SH)? I'm wondering this because the package I've got was open (I didn't think about it at that time, as I considered one of my coworkers simply took a peek inside the package). Has anyone seen a similar problem before?

  Read the article

• Poor Write Performance in VM inside Proxmox PVE 2.0

  - by sorsenne

  I am running a PVE 2.0 on a decent Hardware (2 SATA HDDs as RAID1, 12GB RAM, i7 CPU) but the I/O Performance is very poor inside the VM (Ubuntu 11.10 Server). The very same VM was copied to another Server running simply Ubuntu Server with KVM and had better I/O Perf. this is how the HDD is shown in the Guest: ata1: SATA link up 6.0 Gbps (SStatus 133 SControl 300) ata1.00: ATA-8: ST3000DM001-9YN166, CC49, max UDMA/133 ata1.00: 5860533168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 31/32), AA ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133 scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA ST3000DM001-9YN1 CC49 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 5860533168 512-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 4096-byte physical blocks sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA I tested with DD: $ dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync 128+0 records in 128+0 records out 134217728 bytes (134 MB) copied, 19.2222 s, 7.0 MB/s on the Host, this same Test will result with 156 MB/s in average. PS: I am using VirtIO and see no error in dmesg.

  Read the article

• Strange ASP.NET Queue Performance Counters Behavior?

  - by LemurTech

  We have an ASP.NET 2.0 site running in classic mode. I am seeing very strange behavior in the performance counter values. Perhaps these are bugs (I've been all over Google trying to verify this, without much luck), or perhaps it is just my inexperience with monitoring these things. This PerfMon graph (http://imgur.com/Jv5io5J) represents a load test where I add up to 350 virtual users to the site, at a rate of about 1/sec, performing relatively simple page browsing. At the end of the test, I gradually taper off the number of users. This is a 4 CPU server. Machine.config settings for are at the defaults. The solid blue line is ASP.NET Apps v2.x\Requests Executing for the application in question. The profile makes perfect sense, with a quick ramp-up to 32 executing requests (minWorkerThreads x 4CPUs), followed by a slower ramp-up to 48 ((maxWorkerThreads - minWorkerThreads) x 4CPUs). The solid yellow line is ASP.NET v2.x\Requests Queued. Again, this makes sense: after the initial 32 request threads are activated, the queue begins to build as new thread initialization can't keep pace with incoming requests. But as executing requests reaches its highest possible value of 48, the counter for ASP.NET Apps v2.x\Requests Queued (green solid line) suddenly springs to life and maintains step with the yellow counter. As far as I can tell, and with no other apps running on the server, these two counters should have had the same values from the start. One other odd thing: The counter for ASP.NET v2.x\Request Wait Time (dotted yellow line) also does not spring to life until executing requests reaches 48. Shouldn't I be seeing values here from the moment ASP.NET v2.x\Requests Queued begins to build? And likewise, why would ASP.NET Apps v2.x\Request Execution Time (dotted blue) increase significantly only after that peak of 48 is reached? Shouldn't it ramp-up gradually along with queued requests?

  Read the article

• Very poor SCSI hd performance on IBM x336 with LSI 1030 RAID1

  - by David Tschoepe

  I'm experiencing very poor performance on an IBM x336 server with dual 73GB 15k hard drives on a U320 controller, LSI 1030. We're getting maybe 3.5MB/sec max (per HD Tune utility). It should be over 100MB/sec at least, I would think (another x335 box is running 70-80MB/sec). The server was recently setup and didn't really notice the problem, but may have been there from the beginning, so not sure. I have installed the IBM ServerRAID Windows utility. The server is running Windows 2008 R2 Web edition (if that matters). I thought maybe one of the drives was bad, so far I have removed one of the drives out of the array and tested again, but still the same results. I'm waiting for the RAID1 to resync and I will try pulling the other drive next. I've also used the ServerRAID utility but haven't noticed anything in there that might indicate a problem. Not sure if I'm on the right path here. So looking for some advice to track this down.

  Read the article

• performance 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

• Slow performance of MySQL database on one server and fast on another one, with similar configurations

  - by Alon_A

  We have a web application that run on two servers of GoDaddy. We experince slow preformance on our production server, although it has stronger hardware then the testing one, and it is dedicated. I'll start with the configurations. Testing: CentOS Linux 5.8, Linux 2.6.18-028stab101.1 on i686 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5609 @ 1.87GHz, 8 cores 60 GB total, 6.03 GB used Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) MySQL 5.5.21-log PHP Version 5.3.15 Production: CentOS Linux 6.2, Linux 2.6.18-028stab101.1 on x86_64 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5410 @ 2.33GHz, 8 cores 120 GB total, 2.12 GB used Apache/2.2.15 (CentOS) MySQL 5.5.27-log - MySQL Community Server (GPL) by Remi PHP Version 5.3.15 We are running the same code on both servers. The Problem We have some function that executes ~30000 PDO-exec commands. On our testing server it takes about 1.5-2 minutes to complete and our production server it can take more then 15 minutes to complete. As you can see here, from qcachegrind: Researching the problem, we've checked the live graphs on phpMyAdmin and discovered that the MySQL server on our testing server was preforming at steady level of 1000 execution statements per 2 seconds, while the slow production MySQL server was only 250 executions statements per 2 seconds and not steady at all, jumping from 0 to 250 every seconds. You can clearly see it in the graphs: Testing server: Production server: You can see here the comparison between both of the configuration of the MySQL servers.Left is the fast testing and right is the slow production. The differences are highlighted, but I cant find anything that can cause such a behavior difference, as the configs are mostly the same. Maybe you can see something that I cant see. Note that our tables are all InnoDB, so the MyISAM difference is (probably) not relevant. Maybe it is the MySQL Community Server (GPL) that is installed on the production server that can cause the slow performance? Or maybe it needs to be configured differently for 64bit ? I'm currently out of ideas...

  Read the article

• Disk usage on IIS, PHP5, performance problems.

  - by Jacob84

  Hi everybody, I'm quite worried with a performance problem that I'm facing in one of our production servers. I'm working for a hosting company, so you can imagine how heterogeneous the applications runnning here are. All started with a call of a client complaining about the speed loading a Joomla. The setup is IIS6 (Windows 2003) with PHP5 and FAST CGI wich normally works pretty well. I've tested the loading time and indeed, he was right. 7 or 8 seconds to load, when usually this can be accomplished in 2. Seeing this results, I started to check first CPU and RAM. Everithing normal, 2GB of RAM free, 3%-8% of CPU activity. That's what I call a relaxed server ;). Unfortunately, digging a little deeper I've found the 'PhysicalDisk' counters quite high (above 10), specially the read queues. I've used Process Explorer to see wich of those processes has the higher deltas, but everything seemed normal. As the problem is specially related to PHP pages, I've checked specific IIS counters, as Actual connections, Number of CGI requeriments and Number of ISAPI requeriments. CGI -> 3 to 7 ISAPI -> 5 to 9 Connections-> 90 to 120 (wich appears at the top of the graph) More than a solution (I know this is hard to find), I would like to know if you have an specifical methodology to face this kind of problems. Thanks a lot, as always.

  Read the article

• Photoshop CS5 performance over network drive (cifs)

  - by grub

  Hello Everyone I did install a QNAP NAS TS410 for a customer (professional photographer) with 3 Hitachi Deskstar 7200rpm 2TB disk configured as RAID5. The NAS and the workstations are connected over a Gigabit network. He and his co-worker are accessing the photos (about 1TB of photos) over a mapped network drive from their windows machines (Windows XP - 32bit and Windows 7 Ultimate - 32bit). Both are using Photoshop CS5 to edit the photos. The problem is that to save a edited photo takes a really long time, it takes about 3 times as long to save a photo as to open it. After some tests I can exclude the network, the NAS and the windows machines as source of the issue. I think the problem is the Photoshop software and its handling of the network drives. Officially network drives are not supported by Adobe. I do not have any experience with the Adobe products, especially with Adobe Photoshop CS5. What are your recommendation to solve the performance issue? Should my customer copy the photos to the local drive, edit them and upload them again to the network drive or is Adobe Drive or Adobe Version Cue the answer? One requirement is that the photos need to be accessible / editable from both computers even when one of them is offline. Adobe Version Cue needs a dedicated service running to be usable, so this solution is not possible as far as I understand the Cue software. Thank you for your input to this issue and have a nice day :-) Greetings grub

  Read the article

• Performance decrease in every game and application

  - by Márk Vincze

  When I start a game, initially it runs smoothly, but after a couple of minutes, the performance gradually decreases to the point of being unplayable (1-2 FPS). The sound also starts to lag at this point. This does not happen every time I start my PC, usually exiting the game, rebooting, then starting the game again solves the problem, and I can play with perfect FPS for as long as I want. I could not find any deterministic reason when this happens and when doesn't. It happens in every game I tried (SWTOR, Diablo 3, Skyrim), and not even games, but simple applications like a browser or the Control Panel can get unusably slow. This is a brand new PC I bought three months ago, and this problem occurs since the first day I've been using it. Could you provide any advice how to further diagnose the problem? I tried to reinstall Windows, and tried different video card drivers, but it did not help. It would be important to know whether this is a hardware or software problem, because I can use the warranty if it is a hardware issue. (I did not want to return the PC yet, because I can't reproduce the issue deterministically.) Spec of the pc: Motherboard: ASROCK H61M-HVS CPU: INTEL Core i3-2120 3.30GHz 1155 BOX Memory: KINGMAX 4096MB DDR3 1333MHz KIT Video card: GIGABYTE GV-R685OC-1GD HD6850 1GB GDDR5 PCIE HDD: SEAGATE 500GB Barracuda 7200rpm 16MB SATA3 ST500DM002 I am using Windows 7 64 bit. Thanks a lot in advance!

  Read the article

• file read performance degrades as number of files increases

  - by bfallik-bamboom

  We're observing poor file read IO results that we'd like to better understand. We can use fio to write 100 files with a sustained aggregate throughput of ~700MB/s. When we switch the test to read instead of write, the aggregate throughput is only ~55MB/s. The drop seems related to the number of files since the throughput for read and write are comparable for a single file then diverge proportionally as we increase the number of files. The test server has 24 CPU cores, 48GB of memory, and is running CentOS 6.0. The disk hardware is a RAID 6 array with 12 disks and a Dell H800 controller. This device is partitioned with ext4 using the default settings. Increasing the readahead (using blockdev) improves the read throughput significantly but it still doesn't match write speed. For instance, increasing the readahead from 128KB to 1M improved the read throughput to ~145MB/s. Is this a known performance issue in our OS/disk/filesystem configuration? If so, how can we tell? If not, what tools or tests can we use to further isolate the issue? Thanks.

  Read the article

• SQL SERVER – 3 Online SQL Courses at Pluralsight and Free Learning Resources

  - by pinaldave

  Usain Bolt is an inspiration for all. He broke his own record multiple times because he wanted to do better! Read more about him on wikipedia. He is great and indeed fastest man on the planet. Usain Bolt – World’s Fastest Man “Can you teach me SQL Server Performance Tuning?” This is one of the most popular questions which I receive all the time. The answer is YES. I would love to do performance tuning training for anyone, anywhere.  It is my favorite thing to do, and it is my favorite thing to train others in.  If possible, I would love to do training 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  To me, it doesn’t feel like a job. Of course, as much as I would love to do performance tuning 24/7/365, obviously I am just one human being and can only be in one place t one time.  It is also very difficult to train more than one person at a time, and it is difficult to train two or more people at a time, especially when the two people are at different levels.  I am also limited by geography.  I live in India, and adjust to my own time zone.  Trying to teach a live course from India to someone whose time zone is 12 or more hours off of mine is very difficult.  If I am trying to teach at 2 am, I am sure I am not at my best! There was only one solution to scale – Online Trainings. I have built 3 different courses on SQL Server Performance Tuning with Pluralsight. Now I have no problem – I am 100% scalable and available 24/7 and 365. You can make me say the same things again and again till you find it right. I am in your mobile, PC as well as on XBOX. This is why I am such a big fan of online courses.  I have recorded many performance tuning classes and you can easily access them online, at your own time.  And don’t think that just because these aren’t live classes you won’t be able to get any feedback from me.  I encourage all my viewers to go ahead and ask me questions by e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, or whatever way you can get a hold of me. Here are details of three of my courses with Pluralsight. I suggest you go over the description of the course. As an author of the course, I have few FREE codes for watching the free courses. Please leave a comment with your valid email address, I will send a few of them to random winners. SQL Server Performance: Introduction to Query Tuning  SQL Server performance tuning is an art to master – for developers and DBAs alike. This course takes a systematic approach to planning, analyzing, debugging and troubleshooting common query-related performance problems. This includes an introduction to understanding execution plans inside SQL Server. In this almost four hour course we cover following important concepts. Introduction 10:22 Execution Plan Basics 45:59 Essential Indexing Techniques 20:19 Query Design for Performance 50:16 Performance Tuning Tools 01:15:14 Tips and Tricks 25:53 Checklist: Performance Tuning 07:13 The duration of each module is mentioned besides the name of the module. SQL Server Performance: Indexing Basics This course teaches you how to master the art of performance tuning SQL Server by better understanding indexes. In this almost two hour course we cover following important concepts. Introduction 02:03 Fundamentals of Indexing 22:21 Practical Indexing Implementation Techniques 37:25 Index Maintenance 16:33 Introduction to ColumnstoreIndex 08:06 Indexing Practical Performance Tips and Tricks 24:56 Checklist : Index and Performance 07:29 The duration of each module is mentioned besides the name of the module. SQL Server Questions and Answers This course is designed to help you better understand how to use SQL Server effectively. The course presents many of the common misconceptions about SQL Server, and then carefully debunks those misconceptions with clear explanations and short but compelling demos, showing you how SQL Server really works. In this almost 2 hours and 15 minutes course we cover following important concepts. Introduction 00:54 Retrieving IDENTITY value using @@IDENTITY 08:38 Concepts Related to Identity Values 04:15 Difference between WHERE and HAVING 05:52 Order in WHERE clause 07:29 Concepts Around Temporary Tables and Table Variables 09:03 Are stored procedures pre-compiled? 05:09 UNIQUE INDEX and NULLs problem 06:40 DELETE VS TRUNCATE 06:07 Locks and Duration of Transactions 15:11 Nested Transaction and Rollback 09:16 Understanding Date/Time Datatypes 07:40 Differences between VARCHAR and NVARCHAR datatypes 06:38 Precedence of DENY and GRANT security permissions 05:29 Identify Blocking Process 06:37 NULLS usage with Dynamic SQL 08:03 Appendix Tips and Tricks with Tools 20:44 The duration of each module is mentioned besides the name of the module. SQL in Sixty Seconds You will have to login and to get subscribed to the courses to view them. Here are my free video learning resources SQL in Sixty Seconds. These are 60 second video which I have built on various subjects related to SQL Server. Do let me know what you think about them? Here are three of my latest videos: Identify Most Resource Intensive Queries – SQL in Sixty Seconds #028 Copy Column Headers from Resultset – SQL in Sixty Seconds #027 Effect of Collation on Resultset – SQL in Sixty Seconds #026 You can watch and learn at your own pace.  Then you can easily ask me any questions you have.  E-mail is easiest, but for really tough questions I’m willing to talk on Skype, Gtalk, or even Facebook chat.  Please do watch and then talk with me, I am always available on the internet! Here is the video of the world’s fastest man.Usain St. Leo Bolt inspires us that we all do better than best. We can go the next level of our own record. We all can improve if we have a will and dedication.  Watch the video from 5:00 mark. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL in Sixty Seconds, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Training, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology, Video

  Read the article

• VMWare Esxi Looking for Bottlenecks

  - by nextgenneo

  I have a VMWare ESxi box, 22GB ram, Dual Quad Core Xeon, 2 Sas drives + Write caching raid controller etc. Anyways, have about 30 small XP VM's running on it and starting to get some very slow boot times and other performance issues. I THINK its I/O but looking at the graphs not too sure what to look for. Any ideas on what to look for would be appreciated. Here is the data I've got so far: (I feel like my IO is high but not sure what to bench it against)

  Read the article

• Is it OK to run perfmon on production servers? And why?

  - by Bill Paetzke

  Or should perfmon be limited to a Dev/QA server with load tests that simulate production activity? I'd like to run perfmon for a two days (like Sql Server master Brent Ozar suggests) to get an overall feel of my web app's database performance.

  Read the article

• IIS/ASP.NET performance incident - Perfmon Current Annonymous Users going through roof but Requests/sec low

  - by Laurence

  Setup: ASP.NET 4.0 website on IIS 6.0 on Win 2003 64 bit, 8xCPUs, 16GB memory, separate SQL 2005 DB server. Had a serious slowdown today with any otherwise fairly well performing ASP.NET site. For a period of a couple of hours all page requests were taking a very long time to be served - e.g. 30-60s compared to usual 2s. The w3wp.exe's CPU and memory usage on the webserver was not much higher than normal. The application pool was not in the middle of recycling (and it hadn't recycled for several hours). Bottlenecks in the database were ruled out - no blocks occurring and query results were being returned quickly. I couldn't make any sense of it and set up the following Perfmon counters: Current Anonymous Users (for site in question) Get requests/sec (ditto) Requests/sec for the ASP.NET application running the site Get requests/sec was averaging 100-150. Requests/sec for ASP.NET was averaging 5-10. However Current Anonymous Users was around 200. And then as I was watching, the Current Anonymous Users began to climb steeply going up to about 500 within a few minutes. All this time Get requests/sec & Requests/sec for ASP.NET was if anything going down. I did a whole load of things (in a panic!) to try to get the site working, like shutting it down, recycling the app pool, and adding another worker process to the pool. I also extended the expiration time for content (in IIS under HTTP Headers) in an attempt to lower the number of requests for static files (there are a lot of images on the site). The site is now back to normal, and the counters are fairly steady and reading (added Current Connections counter): Current Anonymous Users : average 30 Get requests/sec : average 100 Requests/sec for ASP.NET : 5 Current Connections : average 300 I have also observed an inverse relationship between Get requests/sec & Current Anonymous Users. Usually both are fairly steady but there will be short periods when Get requests/sec will go down dramatically and Current Anonymous Users will go up in a perfect mirror image. Then they will flip back to their usual levels. So, my questions are: Thinking of the original performance issue - if w3wp.exe CPU, memory usage were normal and there was no DB bottleneck, what could explain page requests taking 20 times longer to be served than usual? What other counters should I be looking at if this happens again? What explains the inverse relationship between Get requests/sec & Current Anonymous Users? What could explain Current Anonymous Users going from 200 to 500 within a few minutes? Many thanks for any insight into this.

  Read the article

• Baseline / Benchmark Physical and virtual server performance

  - by EyeonTech

  I am setting up a new server and there are some options. I want to perform some benchmarks and I need your help in determining the best tools and if possible run pre-configured benchmarks designed for SQL servers on Windows Server 2008/2012. Step 1. Run a performance monitor on the current Live SQL server (Windows Server 2008 Virtual machine running on ESXi. New server Hardware rundown: Intel® Server System R1304BTLSHBN - 1U Rack, LGA1155 http://ark.intel.com/products/53559/Intel-Server-System-R1304BTLSHBN Intel Xeon E3-1270V2 2x Intel SSD 330 Series 240GB 2.5in SATA 6Gb/s 25nm 1x WD 2TB WD2002FAEX 2TB 64M SATA3 CAVIAR BLACK 4x 8GB 1333MHz DDR3 ECC CL9 DIMM There are several options for configurations and I want to benchmark some of them and share the results. Option 1. Configure 2x SSDs at RAID 0. Install Windows Server 2008 directly to the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Store Database files on the RAID 0 Volume. Benchmark the OS direct on the hardware as an SQL Server. Store SQL Backup databases on the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Option 2. Configure 2x SSDs at RAID 0. Install Windows Server 2012 directly to the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Install Hyper-V. Install the SQL Server (Server 2008) as a virtual machine. Store the Virtual Hard Disks on the SSDs. Option 3. Configure 2x SSDs at RAID 0. Install VMWare ESXi on a partition of the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Install the SQL Server (Server 2008) as a virtual machine. Store the Virtual Hard Disks on the SSDs. I have a few tools in mind from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768530(v=bts.10).aspx. Any tools with pre-configured test would be fantastic. Specifically if there are pre-configured perfmon sets avaliable. Any opinions on the setup to gain the best results is welcome. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• MySQL performance over a (local) network much slower than I would expect

  - by user15241

  MySQL queries in my production environment are taking much longer than I would expect them too. The site in question is a fairly large Drupal site, with many modules installed. The webserver (Nginx) and database server (mysql) are hosted on separated machines, connected by a 100mbps LAN connection (hosted by Rackspace). I have the exact same site running on my laptop for development. Obviously, on my laptop, the webserver and database server are on the same box. Here are the results of my database query times: Production: Executed 291 queries in 320.33 milliseconds. (homepage) Executed 517 queries in 999.81 milliseconds. (content page) Development: Executed 316 queries in 46.28 milliseconds. (homepage) Executed 586 queries in 79.09 milliseconds. (content page) As can clearly be seen from these results, the time involved with querying the MySQL database is much shorter on my laptop, where the MySQL server is running on the same database as the web server. Why is this?! One factor must be the network latency. On average, a round trip from from the webserver to the database server takes 0.16ms (shown by ping). That must be added to every singe MySQL query. So, taking the content page example above, where there are 517 queries executed. Network latency alone will add 82ms to the total query time. However, that doesn't account for the difference I am seeing (79ms on my laptop vs 999ms on the production boxes). What other factors should I be looking at? I had thought about upgrading the NIC to a gigabit connection, but clearly there is something else involved. I have run the MySQL performance tuning script from http://www.day32.com/MySQL/ and it tells me that my database server is configured well (better than my laptop apparently). The only problem reported is "Of 4394 temp tables, 48% were created on disk". This is true in both environments and in the production environment I have even tried increasing max_heap_table_size and Current tmp_table_size to 1GB, with no change (I think this is because I have some BLOB and TEXT columns).

  Read the article

• Performance Tuning a High-Load Apache Server

  - by futureal

  I am looking to understand some server performance problems I am seeing with a (for us) heavily loaded web server. The environment is as follows: Debian Lenny (all stable packages + patched to security updates) Apache 2.2.9 PHP 5.2.6 Amazon EC2 large instance The behavior we're seeing is that the web typically feels responsive, but with a slight delay to begin handling a request -- sometimes a fraction of a second, sometimes 2-3 seconds in our peak usage times. The actual load on the server is being reported as very high -- often 10.xx or 20.xx as reported by top. Further, running other things on the server during these times (even vi) is very slow, so the load is definitely up there. Oddly enough Apache remains very responsive, other than that initial delay. We have Apache configured as follows, using prefork: StartServers 5 MinSpareServers 5 MaxSpareServers 10 MaxClients 150 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 And KeepAlive as: KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 KeepAliveTimeout 5 Looking at the server-status page, even at these times of heavy load we are rarely hitting the client cap, usually serving between 80-100 requests and many of those in the keepalive state. That tells me to rule out the initial request slowness as "waiting for a handler" but I may be wrong. Amazon's CloudWatch monitoring tells me that even when our OS is reporting a load of 15, our instance CPU utilization is between 75-80%. Example output from top: top - 15:47:06 up 31 days, 1:38, 8 users, load average: 11.46, 7.10, 6.56 Tasks: 221 total, 28 running, 193 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 66.9%us, 22.1%sy, 0.0%ni, 2.6%id, 3.1%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.7%si, 4.5%st Mem: 7871900k total, 7850624k used, 21276k free, 68728k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 3750664k cached The majority of the processes look like: 24720 www-data 15 0 202m 26m 4412 S 9 0.3 0:02.97 apache2 24530 www-data 15 0 212m 35m 4544 S 7 0.5 0:03.05 apache2 24846 www-data 15 0 209m 33m 4420 S 7 0.4 0:01.03 apache2 24083 www-data 15 0 211m 35m 4484 S 7 0.5 0:07.14 apache2 24615 www-data 15 0 212m 35m 4404 S 7 0.5 0:02.89 apache2 Example output from vmstat at the same time as the above: procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 8 0 0 215084 68908 3774864 0 0 154 228 5 7 32 12 42 9 6 21 0 198948 68936 3775740 0 0 676 2363 4022 1047 56 16 9 15 23 0 0 169460 68936 3776356 0 0 432 1372 3762 835 76 21 0 0 23 1 0 140412 68936 3776648 0 0 280 0 3157 827 70 25 0 0 20 1 0 115892 68936 3776792 0 0 188 8 2802 532 68 24 0 0 6 1 0 133368 68936 3777780 0 0 752 71 3501 878 67 29 0 1 0 1 0 146656 68944 3778064 0 0 308 2052 3312 850 38 17 19 24 2 0 0 202104 68952 3778140 0 0 28 90 2617 700 44 13 33 5 9 0 0 188960 68956 3778200 0 0 8 0 2226 475 59 17 6 2 3 0 0 166364 68956 3778252 0 0 0 21 2288 386 65 19 1 0 And finally, output from Apache's server-status: Server uptime: 31 days 2 hours 18 minutes 31 seconds Total accesses: 60102946 - Total Traffic: 974.5 GB CPU Usage: u209.62 s75.19 cu0 cs0 - .0106% CPU load 22.4 requests/sec - 380.3 kB/second - 17.0 kB/request 107 requests currently being processed, 6 idle workers C.KKKW..KWWKKWKW.KKKCKK..KKK.KKKK.KK._WK.K.K.KKKKK.K.R.KK..C.C.K K.C.K..WK_K..KKW_CK.WK..W.KKKWKCKCKW.W_KKKKK.KKWKKKW._KKK.CKK... KK_KWKKKWKCKCWKK.KKKCK.......................................... ................................................................ From my limited experience I draw the following conclusions/questions: We may be allowing far too many KeepAlive requests I do see some time spent waiting for IO in the vmstat although not consistently and not a lot (I think?) so I am not sure this is a big concern or not, I am less experienced with vmstat Also in vmstat, I see in some iterations a number of processes waiting to be served, which is what I am attributing the initial page load delay on our web server to, possibly erroneously We serve a mixture of static content (75% or higher) and script content, and the script content is often fairly processor intensive, so finding the right balance between the two is important; long term we want to move statics elsewhere to optimize both servers but our software is not ready for that today I am happy to provide additional information if anybody has any ideas, the other note is that this is a high-availability production installation so I am wary of making tweak after tweak, and is why I haven't played with things like the KeepAlive value myself yet.

  Read the article

• What is recommended minimum object size for gzip performance benefits?

  - by utt73

  I'm working on improving page speed display times, and one of the methods is to gzip content from the webserver. Google recommends: Note that gzipping is only beneficial for larger resources. Due to the overhead and latency of compression and decompression, you should only gzip files above a certain size threshold; we recommend a minimum range between 150 and 1000 bytes. Gzipping files below 150 bytes can actually make them larger. We serve our content through Akamai, using their network for a proxy and CDN. What they've told me: Following up on your question regarding what is the minimum size Akamai will compress the requested object when sending it to the end user: The minimum size is 860 bytes. My reply: What is the reason(s) for why Akamai's minimum size is 860 bytes? And why, for example, is this not the case for files Akamai serves for facebook? (see below) Google recommends to gzip more agressively. And that seems appropriate on our site where the most frequent hits, by far, are AJAX calls that are <860 bytes. Akamai's response: The reasons 860 bytes is the minimum size for compression is twofold: (1) The overhead of compressing an object under 860 bytes outweighs performance gain. (2) Objects under 860 bytes can be transmitted via a single packet anyway, so there isn't a compelling reason to compress them. So I'm here for some fact checking. Is the 860 byte limit due to packet size the end of this reasoning? Why would high traffic sites push this down to the 150 byte limit... just to save on bandwidth costs (since CDNs base their charges on bandwith offloaded from origin), or is there a performance gain in doing so?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >