Search Results

Search found 511 results on 21 pages for 'benchmark'.

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

  • Virtualbox HTTP load testing, host CPU overload issues

    - by aschuler
    I'm doing HTTP load testing benchmarks (using Apache Benchmark and Siege) on a small Java EE 1.7.0 / Tomcat 7.0.26 application running on a Debian Squeeze 6.0.4 x64 virtualized with Virtualbox 4.1.8. The computer host is Ubuntu 11.10 x64. I've modified those parameters in the Tomcat server.xml : <Connector port="8080" protocol="HTTP/1.1" connectionTimeout="200000" redirectPort="8443" acceptCount="2000" maxThreads="150" minSpareThreads="50" /> The application executed on the server takes around 300ms. This app is running well until a certain amount of concurrent connections like those one : ab -n 500 -c 150 http://xx.xx.xx.xx:8080/myapp/ ab -n 1000 -c 50 http://xx.xx.xx.xx:8080/myapp/ siege -b -c 100 -r 20 http://xx.xx.xx.xx:8080/myapp/ A lot of socket connection timed out happens and this completly overload the host processor (but the CPU load inside the VM is normal). Doing an htop on the host, i can see that the Virtualbox processus is running under 300% CPU and never come down even after the load test is finished. (I've allocated 4 processors to the VM, if I allocate only one processor, CPU load goes under 100%). Restarting Tomcat don't do anything, i'm forced to restart the whole VM. I've tryed to launch those ab/siege commands locally on the VM and everything goes well. I first thought it was related to a linux network limit as explained here: Running some benchmarks using ab, and tomcat starts to really slow down So I've modified those TCP parameters : echo 15 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_fin_timeout echo 30 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_intvl echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_tw_recycle echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_tw_reuse It seems to be better, but it continues to overload the host CPU and output socket connections time out at a certain amount of concurrent connections. I'm wondering if this is not related to how Virtualbox handles external concurrent connections.

    Read the article

  • Expected IOPS for log writing on PS6000X SAN?

    - by dssz
    Customer is experiencing poor Sybase ASE 15 performance on a PS6000X SAN with 16 X 450GB 10K in RAID-50. The server is a Dell R710 running 2003 server R2 64bit in ESX 4.0.0,256968 I've used sqlio to benchmark the sequential write performance of 4KB blocks on the drive. sqlio -kW -t1 -s600 -dE -o1 -fsequential -b4 -BH -LS sqliotestfile.dat Result is 1900 IOPS. However, when Sybase is running a sustained workload of small inserts SAN HQ shows a consistent 590 IOPS (and 100% 4K write activity). It also shows that the write latency increases to 1.2ms from <1ms. Monitoring and tests in Sybase demonstrate the performance problem is IO related and in particular there is a lot of wait time writing to the log. The SAN indicates that write caching is enabled. What IOPS should the SAN be capable of for 4k sequential write activity? Also, with write caching enabled, shouldn't the controller be batching up the 4K writes into something more efficient? Also, any tips on Sybase on ESX would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Pentium 4 Willamette vs. Faster Celeron Northwood [closed]

    - by Synetech inc.
    Which is the preferable of the following two processors? Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 1.70 GHz, 256K Cache, 400 MHz FSB Willamette Intel® Celeron® Processor 2.40 GHz, 128K Cache, 400 MHz FSB Northwood Details: A few months ago my motherboard died, so I bought a used computer that had a 2.4GHz Celeron. My old system had a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, so now I’m trying to decide which CPU to use. Obviously a P4 is preferable over a Celeron, but the Celeron is (significantly?) faster than the P4. I’m wondering if the faster Celeron might be better for certain tasks (ie, stronger but dumber is better at some things than smarter but weaker). I tried Googling for some reviews and comparisons for graphs to get a clear depiction of which is better overall, but found nothing that helped. (I did manage to find one page that indicates (apparently by poll, not benchmark) that the Celeron is better.) So which CPU should I use? Does anyone know of some graphs that I can use to compare the two? The system is a general-purpose machine for word-processing, Internet, and casual games (not Crysis, but not Solitaire either). It will be running Windows XP. The board is a 478 with 400MHz FSB.

    Read the article

  • How do I diagnose a bottleneck in an Intel Atom based Ubuntu server?

    - by Jon Cage
    I have a small media server at home which has software raid and a gigabit link to the rest of my network. For some reason though, I only get ~10MB/s transfers when copying to/from the server. I use software RAID5 (mdadm) over 4 1TB disks. On top of that I then use LVM to give me a huge pool of disk space which is then split up into multiple partitions which can be resized as and when they need it. I'm guessing this it most likely the cause, but I'd like to know for sure where the root cause is. So, how can I benchmark network throughput (Windows 7 desktop <- Ubuntu server) and hard disk performance to try and identify where my bottleneck might be? [Edit] If anyone's interested, the motherboard is an Intel Desktop Board D945GCLF2. So that's a 300 series Atom processor with the Intel® 945GC Express Chipset [Edit2] I feel like such a fool! I just checked my desktop and I had the slower of the two onboard NICs plugged in so the server is probably not at fault here. Transferring a copy of ubuntu off the server I get ~35-40MB/s according to Windows 7. I'll do those HD tests when I get a chance though (just for completeness).

    Read the article

  • Why does "commit" appear in the mysql slow query log?

    - by Tom
    In our MySQL slow query logs I often see lines that just say "COMMIT". What causes a commit to take time? Another way to ask this question is: "How can I reproduce getting a slow commit; statement with some test queries?" From my investigation so far I have found that if there is a slow query within a transaction, then it is the slow query that gets output into the slow log, not the commit itself. Testing In mysql command line client: mysql begin; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec) mysql UPDATE members SET myfield=benchmark(9999999, md5('This is to slow down the update')) WHERE id = 21560; Query OK, 0 rows affected (2.32 sec) Rows matched: 1 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0 At this point (before the commit) the UPDATE is already in the slow log. mysql commit; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec) The commit happens fast, it never appeared in the slow log. I also tried a UPDATE which changes a large amount of data but again it was the UPDATE that was slow not the COMMIT. However, I can reproduce a slow ROLLBACK that takes 46s and gets output to the slow log: mysql begin; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec) mysql UPDATE members SET myfield=CONCAT(myfield,'TEST'); Query OK, 481446 rows affected (53.31 sec) Rows matched: 481446 Changed: 481446 Warnings: 0 mysql rollback; Query OK, 0 rows affected (46.09 sec) I understand why rollback has a lot of work to do and therefore takes some time. But I'm still struggling to understand the COMMIT situation - i.e. why it might take a while.

    Read the article

  • Difference in performance: local machine VS amazon medium instance

    - by user644745
    I see a drastic difference in performance matrix when i run it with apache benchmark (ab) in my local machine VS production hosted in amazon medium instance. Same concurrent requests (5) and same total number of requests (111) has been run against both. Amazon has better memory than my local machine. But there are 2 CPUs in my local machine vs 1 CPU in m1.medium. My internet speed is very low at the moment, I am getting Transfer rate as 25.29KBps. How can I improve the performance ? Do not know how to interpret Connect, Processing, Waiting and total in ab output. Here is Localhost: Server Hostname: localhost Server Port: 9999 Document Path: / Document Length: 7631 bytes Concurrency Level: 5 Time taken for tests: 1.424 seconds Complete requests: 111 Failed requests: 102 (Connect: 0, Receive: 0, Length: 102, Exceptions: 0) Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 860808 bytes HTML transferred: 847155 bytes Requests per second: 77.95 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 64.148 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 12.830 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 590.30 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.5 0 1 Processing: 14 63 99.9 43 562 Waiting: 14 60 96.7 39 560 Total: 14 63 99.9 43 563 And this is production: Document Path: / Document Length: 7783 bytes Concurrency Level: 5 Time taken for tests: 33.883 seconds Complete requests: 111 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 877566 bytes HTML transferred: 863913 bytes Requests per second: 3.28 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1526.258 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 305.252 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 25.29 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 290 297 14.0 293 413 Processing: 897 1178 63.4 1176 1391 Waiting: 296 606 135.6 588 1171 Total: 1191 1475 66.0 1471 1684

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 11.10 ATI Drivers vesa park

    - by Matthias
    This is probably not an issue, from all I can get it seems my hardware and drivers are properly installed. However when I go to system settings - system info - graphics. I get Driver: VESA:PARK. Experience: Standard. my graphics card is a: Ati Mobility Radeon HD 5470 512MB. I am pretty sure it's not a same-die GPU since there is a fan exhaust at the side of my laptop which I presume is the exhaust for the GPU... I have no clue whatsoever what this means. I installed the ati drivers first using the 'additional drivers' method. However I also decided to look a manual installation up via the terminal since I've had problems before with Ubuntu and ati cards. I used wget and something among the lines of sh dpkg -i. I can recall exactly, I took them from another stackoverflow answer. Anyway, it seems everything is installed properly since it shows up with these commands: sudo lshw -C video fglrxinfo however the first command seems to detect hardware, not the driver per se, although the driver is probably needed to detect the hardware anyway which would indicate its properly installed. I am still not sure about that VES:PARK thing though. I'd like to know what it means.. Also, if someone happens to know a good way of testing if the gpu is connected/being used...some sort of benchmark maybe...I'd like to hear it. P.s. I can find my way around in Ubuntu but I would probably still be considered a rookie by more experienced users.

    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

  • Can anyone explain these differences between two similar i7 processors? [closed]

    - by Brian Frost
    I have two systems I've just built. They both have i7 processors and Asus P8Z77 motherboards. When I run a simple processor loop benchmark that I wrote in Delphi some time back I get one machine showing nealry twice as fast as the other. I then used CPU-Z to dump me the details of the hardware and I see that the fast machine shows: Processor 1 ID = 0 Number of cores 4 (max 8) Number of threads 8 (max 16) Name Intel Core i7 2700K Codename Sandy Bridge Specification Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2700K CPU @ 3.50GHz Package (platform ID) Socket 1155 LGA (0x1) CPUID 6.A.7 Extended CPUID 6.2A Core Stepping D2 Technology 32 nm TDP Limit 95 Watts Core Speed 3610.7 MHz Multiplier x FSB 36.0 x 100.3 MHz Stock frequency 3500 MHz the slow machine shows: Processor 1 ID = 0 Number of cores 4 (max 8) Number of threads 8 (max 16) Name Intel Core i7 2600K Codename Sandy Bridge Specification Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz Package (platform ID) Socket 1155 LGA (0x1) CPUID 6.A.7 Extended CPUID 6.2A Core Stepping D2 Technology 32 nm TDP Limit 95 Watts Core Speed 1648.2 MHz Multiplier x FSB 16.0 x 103.0 MHz Stock frequency 3400 MHz i.e the slow machine has a 2600k to the fast machine 2700k. The very different "Multiplier x FSB" must be significant but I dont understand how two processors with a very 'similar' number can be so different. To get the machines the same must I copy the processors or is there some clever setting that I can change? Thanks for any help. Brian.

    Read the article

  • Website has become slower on a VPS, was much fast on a shared host. What's wrong?

    - by Arpit Tambi
    My shared host suspended my website stating system overload, so I moved my website to a VPS which has 4GB RAM. But for some reason the website has become very slow. This is the vmstat output - procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- -----cpu------ r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 1 0 0 3050500 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 Here's the Apache Benchmark output for a STATIC html page I ran on the server itself - Benchmarking www.ask-oracle.com (be patient)...apr_poll: The timeout specified has expired (70007) Total of 20 requests completed Update: Server Config: List item Centos 5.6 4 cores cpu 4 GB RAM LAMP stack with APC Wordpress Only one website It takes almost double time to load now, same website was much fast on shared hosting. I know I need to tweak some settings but have no clue where to start from? I have already tried to optimize apache, mysql etc. Update 2: CPU usage is low, see uptime output: 11:09:02 up 7 days, 21:26, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.11, 0.09 Update 3: When I load any webpage, browser shows "Waiting" for a long time and then page loads quickly. So I suspect server can accept only limited connections and holds extra connections in a waiting state. How to check this? Update 4: Following is the output on executing netperf TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1) port 0 AF_INET Recv Send Send Socket Socket Message Elapsed Size Size Size Time Throughput bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec 87380 16384 16384 10.00 9615.40 [root@ip-118-139-177-244 j3ngn5ri6r01t3]# Here are the Apache MPM settings from httpd.conf, do they look okay? <IfModule worker.c> StartServers 5 MaxClients 100 MinSpareThreads 50 MaxSpareThreads 250 ThreadsPerChild 125 MaxRequestsPerChild 10000 ServerLimit 100 </IfModule>

    Read the article

  • Need help trying to diagnose Symmetrix SAN performance issues

    - by arcain
    I am helping to benchmark hardware for a new SQL Server instance, and the volume presented to the OS for the data files is carved from a set of spindles on a Symmetrix SAN. The server has yet to have SQL Server installed, so the only activity on the box is our benchmarking. Now, our storage engineers say that this volume and it's resources are dedicated to our new server (I don't have access to see the actual SAN config) however the performance benchmarks are troubling. For example, the numbers look good until suddenly, and randomly, we see in our IO benchmarking tool wait times of 100 seconds, and disk queue lengths of 255 in perfmon. This SAN has an 8 GB cache, plus there are other applications besides ours that use the SAN. I'm wondering if (even though the spindles for our volumes should be dedicated to us) the cache may be getting hammered during the performance testing, or perhaps the spindles our volumes are on aren't really dedicated to us. We're not getting much traction from our storage engineers in helping us track down the problem, so if anybody has experience with diagnosing a problem like this and would like to share insights and troubleshooting methodologies, I'd appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • What performance degradation to expect with Nginx over raw Gunicorn+Gevent?

    - by bouke
    I'm trying to get a very high performing webserver setup for handling long-polling, websockets etc. I have a VM running (Rackspace) with 1GB RAM / 4 cores. I've setup a very simple gunicorn 'hello world' application with (async) gevent workers. In front of gunicorn, I put Nginx with a simple proxy to Gunicorn. Using ab, Gunicorn spits out 7700 requests/sec, where Nginx only does a 5000 request/sec. Is such a performance degradation expected? Hello world: #!/usr/bin/env python def application(environ, start_response): start_response("200 OK", [("Content-type", "text/plain")]) return [ "Hello World!" ] Gunicorn: gunicorn -w8 -k gevent --keep-alive 60 application:application Nginx (stripped): user www-data; worker_processes 4; pid /var/run/nginx.pid; events { worker_connections 768; } http { sendfile on; tcp_nopush on; tcp_nodelay on; keepalive_timeout 65; types_hash_max_size 2048; upstream app_server { server 127.0.0.1:8000 fail_timeout=0; } server { listen 8080 default; keepalive_timeout 5; root /home/app/app/static; location / { proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header Host $http_host; proxy_redirect off; proxy_pass http://app_server; } } } Benchmark: (results: nginx TCP, nginx UNIX, gunicorn) ab -c 32 -n 12000 -k http://localhost:[8000|8080]/ Running gunicorn over a unix socket gives somewhat higher throughput (5500 r/s), but it still does't match raw gunicorn's performance.

    Read the article

  • Why is writing to my external hard drive slow, while benchmarks show fast writing?

    - by matix2267
    I have an iOmega eGo 320GB portable drive connected through USB2.0 to my laptop running Windows Vista. It's been working fine for quite some time until recently it became very slow when writing e.g. when copying ~300MB movie over to the drive at first it is extremely fast but it actually doesn't write it only puts in cache and then hangs on last 10-20MBs for about a minute. When copying larger files it's the same story: starts fast but then slows down to ~5MB/s (sometimes even slower down to 2MB/s). Strange thing is that I have always had caching disabled for this drive (it was disabled by default and I never bothered changing it). At first I thought that the disk is dying so I checked S.M.A.R.T. values and everything is fine there. I also run chkdsk and it seemed to fix the problem - it worked fast for a few minutes but then it slowed down again. I also tried plugging it into another USB port - no difference. Additionally I noticed that reading under certain circumstances is sometimes slower e.g. loading times for some games are ~10 times longer, whereas simple copying files from this drive to my internal HDD is fast. I ran a speed benchmark using CrystalDiskMark with a 5x100MB run and strangely got these results: read write (MB/s) Seq 33.05 28.25 512k 17.30 15.27 4k 0.267 0.372 4kQD32 0.510 0.260 This is different from what most other people have (I've found many threads about slow disk write while googling but all of them were slow on benchmarks too) which is why I decided to post this problem here. BTW most of the time when writing (or sometimes reading) the activity led is mostly idle (blinks a while and then stops for longer, sometimes has slower blinks ~1 sek, sometimes goes off for a few seconds - extremely long blink :) ) but when benchmarking, defragmenting or just reading (copying from this drive, installing apps from installers there, watching HD videos) it is blinking really fast (like it should) and there are no slowdowns. It shouldn't be driver issue unless stock Windows drivers have some issues I'm not aware of.

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to limit the turbo boost speed / intensity on i7 lap?

    - by Anonymous
    I've just got a used i7 laptop, one of these overheating pavilions from HP with quad cores. And I really want to find a compromise between the temp and performance. If I use linpack, or some other heavy benchmark, the temp easily gets to 95+, and having a TJ of 100 Degrees, for a 2630QM model, it really gets me throttling, that no cooling pad or even an industrial fan could solve. I figured later that it is due to turbo boost, and if I set my power settings to use 99% of the CPU instead of 100%, and it seems to disable the turbo boost, so the temp gets better. But then again it loses quite a bit of performance. The regular clock is 2GHz, and in turbo boost it gets to 2.6Ghz, but I just wonder if I could limit it to around 2.3Ghz, that would be a real nice thing. Also there is another question I've hard time getting answer to. It seems to me that clocks are very quickly boosting up to max even when not needed, eg, it's ok if the CPU has 0% load, the clocks get to their 800MHz, but even if it gets to about 5% it quickly jumps to a max and even popping up turbo, which seems very strange to me. So I wonder if there is any way to adjust the sensitivity of the Speed Step feature. I believe it would be more logical to demand increased clock if it hits let's say 50% load. I do understand that most of these features are probably hardwired somewhere in the CPU itself or the MB, which has no tuning options just like on many laptops. But I would appreciate if you could recommend some thing, or some software. Thanks

    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

  • sysbench memory test on ec2 small instance

    - by caribio
    I'm seeing a problem with sysbench memory test (the default version that's compiled in). This is on Ubuntu Maverick, sysbench installed via apt-get install sysbench. Running the same thing on Ubuntu @ Rackspace worked just as expected. While the CPU and I/O tests worked fine on EC2 servers, the memory test just runs without doing anything (notice the 0M in the test results). The instance used was the publicly available 'stock' Ubuntu image with no changes to it: ./ec2-run-instances ami-ccf405a5 --instance-type m1.small --region us-east-1 --key mykey Supplying more arguments (such as: --memory-block-size=1K --memory-total-size=102400M) didn't help. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. sysbench --num-threads=4 --test=memory run sysbench 0.4.12: multi-threaded system evaluation benchmark Running the test with following options: Number of threads: 4 Doing memory operations speed test Memory block size: 1K Memory transfer size: 0M Memory operations type: write Memory scope type: global Threads started! Done. Operations performed: 0 ( 0.00 ops/sec) 0.00 MB transferred (0.00 MB/sec) Test execution summary: total time: 0.0003s total number of events: 0 total time taken by event execution: 0.0000 per-request statistics: min: 18446744073709.55ms avg: 0.00ms max: 0.00ms Threads fairness: events (avg/stddev): 0.0000/0.00 execution time (avg/stddev): 0.0000/0.00

    Read the article

  • one 16K random read I/O issues 2 scsi I/O (16K and 4K) requests in linux

    - by hiroyuki
    I noticed weird issue when benchmarking random read I/O for files in linux (2.6.18). The Benchmarking program is my own program and it simply keeps reading 16KB of a file from a random offset. I traced I/O behavior at system call level and scsi level by systemtap and I noticed that one 16KB sysread issues 2 scsi I/Os as following. SYSPREAD random(8472) 3, 0x16fc5200, 16384, 128137183232 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 226321183 size: 4096 bufflen 4096 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008068009 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 226323431 size: 16384 bufflen 16384 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008075927 SYSPREAD random(8472) 3, 0x16fc5200, 16384, 21807710208 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 1889888935 size: 4096 bufflen 4096 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008085128 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 1889891823 size: 16384 bufflen 16384 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008097161 SYSPREAD random(8472) 3, 0x16fc5200, 16384, 139365318656 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 254092663 size: 4096 bufflen 4096 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008100633 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 254094879 size: 16384 bufflen 16384 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008111723 SYSPREAD random(8472) 3, 0x16fc5200, 16384, 60304424960 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 58119807 size: 4096 bufflen 4096 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008120469 SCSI random(8472) 0 1 0 0 start-sector: 58125415 size: 16384 bufflen 16384 FROM_DEVICE 1354354008126343 As shown above, one 16KB pread issues 2 scsi I/Os. (I traced scsi io dispatching with probe scsi.iodispatching. Please ignore values except for start-sector and size.) One scsi I/O is 16KB I/O as requested from the application and it's OK. The thing is the other 4KB I/O which I don't know why linux issues that I/O. of course, I/O performance is degraded by the weired 4KB I/O and I am having trouble. I also use fio (famous I/O benchmark tool) and noticed the same issue, so it's not from the application. Does anybody know what is going on ? Any comments or advices are appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • RAID 6 that can read with least 1000 Mbit/s?

    - by Diblo Dk
    I purchased a Dell PERC 6/i which I expected to be able to read with 1000 Mbps. There is not much to do now, but there are some things I wanted knowledge about for another time. I have configured it with four 2 TByte drives and RAID 6. It have 256 MByt ram and transfer rate of 300 Mbps. The benchmark test showed: Min read rate: 136.3 Mbps Max read rate: 329,6 Mbps Avg read rate: 242,2 Mbps What could I had done to get at least 1000 Mbps? Is it normal for internal and external RAID controllers to have a lower transfer rate eg. 300 Mbps? (I did not noticed at the time that it was not 3 Gbps) How would a RAID 10 had performed compared to RAID 6 or 5? Would it have been better to use software RAID (Linux) with the internal 3 Gbps SATA controller? UPDATE: The drives is SATA III 6 Gbps. http://www.seagate.com/files/staticfiles/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/desktop-hdd-data-sheet-ds1770-1-1212us.pdf (2TB)

    Read the article

  • Is there a utility to visualise / isolate and watch application calls

    - by MyStream
    Note: I'm not sure what to search for so guidance on that may be just as valuable as an answer. I'm looking for a way to visually compare activity of two applications (in this case a webserver with php communicating with the system or mysql or network devices, etc) such that I can compare the performance at a glance. I know there are tools to generate data dumps from benchmarks for apache and some available for php for tracing that you can dump and analyse but what I'm looking for is something that can report performance metrics visually from data on calls (what called what, how long did it take, how much memory did it consume, how can that be represented visually in a call stack) and present it graphically as if it were a topology or layered visual with different elements of system calls occupying different layers. A typical visual may consist of (e.g. using swim diagrams as just one analogy): Network (details here relevant to network diagnostics) | ^ back out v | Linux (details here related to firewall/routing diagnostics) ^ back to network | | V ^ back to system Apache (details here related to web request) | | ^ response to V | apache PHP (etc) PHP---------->other accesses to php files/resources----- | ^ v | MySQL (total time) MySQL | ^ V | Each call listed + time + tables hit/record returned My aim would be to be able to 'inspect' a request/range of requests over a period of time to see what constituted the activity at that point in time and trace it from beginning to end as a diagnostic tool. Is there any such work in this direction? I realise it would be intensive on the server, but the intention is to benchmark and analyse processes against each other for both educational and professional reasons and a visual aid is a great eye-opener compared to raw statistics or dozens of discrete activity vs time graphs. It's hard to show the full cycle. Any pointers welcome. Thanks! FROM COMMENTS: > XHProf in conjunction with other programs such as Perconna toolkit > (percona.com/doc/percona-toolkit/2.0/pt-pmp.html) for mySQL run apache > with httpd -X & (Single threaded debug mode and background) then > attach with strace -> kcache grind

    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

  • IIS 7 much slower than IIS 6

    - by JoeJoe
    I have a asp.net 3.5 web application running fine on Windows2003 IIS6. I published same exact application to IIS7.5 (Win2008R2) on a faster box (i5,8Gram) and it is significantly slower. 5-6 sec per page vs. 1-2 sec per page. During that time the Task Mgr CPU is always under 10%. Both attach to same database on other box. Benchmark is consistent from any other client browser or machine. I have connection pool on both, compression on both. Same network subnet. Forms authentication (no SSL yet). Can you give me steps on how to troubleshoot where the delays are being inserted or settings in IIS7 that I may have overlooked. Just using defaults. There is only 1 web site on each box. I understand the roles of an Application as defined in IIS has changed. There is no special Application defined in IIS.

    Read the article

  • How do I find the cause for a huge difference in performance between two identical Ubuntu servers?

    - by the.duckman
    I am running two Dell R410 servers in the same rack of a data center. Both have the same hardware configuration, run Ubuntu 10.4, have the same packages installed and run the same Java web servers. No other load. One of them is 20-30% faster than the other, very consistently. I used dstat to figure out, if there are more context switches, IO, swapping or anything, but I see no reason for the difference. With the same workload, (no swapping, virtually no IO), the cpu usage and load is higher on one server. So the difference appears to be mainly CPU bound, but while a simple cpu benchmark using sysbench (with all other load turned off) did yield a difference, it was only 6%. So maybe it is not only CPU but also memory performance. I tried to figure out if the BIOS settings differ in some parameter, did a dump using dmidecode, but that yielded no difference. I compared /proc/cpuinfo, no difference. I compared the output of cpufreq-info, no difference. I am lost. What can I do, to figure out, what is going on?

    Read the article

  • VMWare vSphere 5: 4 pNICs for iSCSI vs. 2 pNICs

    - by gravyface
    New SAN for me, never used before: it's an IBM DS3512, dual controller with a quad 1GbE NIC per controller that a client bought and needs help setting up. Hosts (x2) have 8 pNICs and while I usually reserve 2 pNICs for iSCSI per host (and 2 for VM, 2 for management, 2 for vMotion, staggered across adapters), these extra ports on the SAN have me wondering if storage I/O would be significantly improved with 2 additional NICs per host, or if the limitations of the vmkernel/initiator would prevent the additional multipaths from ever being realized. I'm not seeing alot of 4 pNIC iSCSI implementations per host; 2 is the de facto standard from what I've read/seen online. I could and probably will do some I/O testing, but just wondering if there's a "wall" that someone else has discovered long ago (i.e. before 10GbE) that makes a 4 NIC iSCSI per host setup somewhat pointless. Just to clarify: I'm not looking for a how-to, but an explanation (link to paper, VMWare recommendation, benchmark, etc.) as to why 2-NIC configurations are the norm vs. 4-NIC iSCSI configurations. i.e. storage vendor limitations, VMKernel/initiator limitations, etc.

    Read the article

  • How can I optimize my ajax calls to deliver at 60ms.

    - by Quintin Par
    I am building an autocomplete functionality for my site and the Google instant results are my benchmark. When I look at Google, the 50-60 ms response time baffle me. They look insane. In comparison here’s how mine looks like. To give you an idea my results are cached on the load balancer and served from a machine that has httpd slowstart and initcwnd fixed. My site is also behind cloudflare From a server side perspective I don’t think I can do anything more. Can someone help me take this 500 ms response time to 60ms? What more should I be doing to achieve Google level performance? Edit: People, you seemed to be angry that I did a comparison to Google and the question is very generic. Sorry about that. To rephrase: How can I bring down response time from 500 ms to 60 ms provided my server response time is just a fraction of ms. Assume the results are served from Nginx - Varnish with a cache hit. Here are some answers I would like to answer myself assume the response sizes remained more or less the same. Ensure results are http compressed Ensure SPDY if you are on https Ensure you have initcwnd set to 10 and disable slow start on linux machines. Etc. I don’t think I’ll end up with 60 ms at Google level but your collective expertise can help easily shave off a 100 ms and that’s a big win.

    Read the article

  • amazon ec2-medium apache requests per second terrible

    - by TheDayIsDone
    EDITED -- test running from localhost now to rule out network... i have a c1.medium using EBS. when i do an apache benchmark and i'm just printing a "hello" for the test from localhost - no database hits, it's very slow. i can repeat this test many times with the same results. any thoughts? thanks in advance. ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://localhost/home/test/ Benchmarking localhost (be patient) Completed 100 requests Completed 200 requests Completed 300 requests Completed 400 requests Completed 500 requests Completed 600 requests Completed 700 requests Completed 800 requests Completed 900 requests Completed 1000 requests Finished 1000 requests Server Software: Apache/2.2.23 Server Hostname: localhost Server Port: 80 Document Path: /home/test/ Document Length: 5 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 25.300 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 816000 bytes HTML transferred: 5000 bytes Requests per second: 39.53 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 2530.037 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 25.300 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 31.50 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 7 21.0 0 73 Processing: 81 2489 665.7 2500 4057 Waiting: 80 2443 654.0 2445 4057 Total: 85 2496 653.5 2500 4057 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 2500 66% 2651 75% 2842 80% 2932 90% 3301 95% 3506 98% 3762 99% 3838 100% 4057 (longest request)

    Read the article

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