Search Results

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

Page 16/1944 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • SQL Performance Problem IA64

    - by Vendoran
    We’ve got a performance problem in production. QA and DEV environments are 2 instances on the same physical server: Windows 2003 Enterprise SP2, 32 GB RAM, 1 Quad 3.5 GHz Intel Xeon X5270 (4 cores x64), SQL 2005 SP3 (9.0.4262), SAN Drives Prod: Windows 2003 Datacenter SP2, 64 GB RAM, 4 Dual Core 1.6 GHz Intel Family 80000002, Model 6 Itanium (8 cores IA64), SQL 2005 SP3 (9.0.4262), SAN Drives, Veritas Cluster I am seeing excessive Signal Wait Percentages ( 250%) and Page Reads /s (50) and Page Writes /s (25) are both high occasionally. I did test this query on both QA and PROD and it has the same execution plan and even the same stats: SELECT top 40000000 * INTO dbo.tmp_tbl FROM dbo.tbl GO Scan count 1, logical reads 429564, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. As you can see it’s just logical reads, however: QA: 0:48 Prod: 2:18 So It seems like a processor related issue, however I’m not sure where to go next, any ideas? Thanks, Aaron

    Read the article

  • Performance monitor visualization tool

    - by MK
    I'm looking for a tool to display data from performance monitor counters. I'm looking for something that would be visually appealing (look like a dashboard) and it should be able to aggregate (sum up) over multiple counters. No thresholds/alarming needed, we are using Nagios for that.

    Read the article

  • How to increase performance of Remote Desktop

    - by H B K
    How can I increase performance of Remote Desktop on windows XP sp3? A better network connection is not an option, this is for at work. I have suggested a network upgrade to my boss and it is not in the budget right now, but I need to access my home computer and right now it is somewhat unusable.

    Read the article

  • Load and performance testing for webapps with JavaScript support

    - by MrG
    Years ago I used OpenSTA to perform load and performance tests. Unfortunately it doesn't support JavaScript, which is a requirement this time. But I remember that it offered great recording possibilities which enabled us to quickly create new test scripts. Please let me which tools you recommend. Free tools are clearly preferred ;)

    Read the article

  • Further Performance Tuning on Medium SharePoint Farm?

    - by elorg
    I figured I would post this here, since it may be related more to the server configuration than the SharePoint configuration or a combination of both? I'm open for ideas to try, or even feedback on things that maybe have been configured incorrectly as far as performance is concerned. We have a medium MOSS 2007 install prepped and ready for receiving the WSS 2003 data to upgrade. The environment was originally architected by a previous coworker, and I have since added a few configuration modifications to assist with performance before we finally performed the install. When testing the new site collections & SharePoint install (no actual data yet), things seemed a bit slow. I had assumed that it was because I was accessing it remotely. Apparently the client is still experiencing this and it is unacceptably slow. 1 SQL Server running SQL Server 2008 2x SharePoint WFEs - hosting queries (no index) 1x SharePoint Index - hosting index (no queries) MOSS 2007 installed and patched up through December '09 on WFEs & Index All 4 servers are VMs, should have more than sufficient disk space & RAM (don't recall at the moment), and are running Windows Server 2008 - everything is 64-bit. The WFEs have Windows NLB configured, with a DNS name & IP for the NLB cluster. Single NIC on each server (virtual, since VMWare). The Index server is configured as a WFE (outside of the NLB cluster) so that it can index itself and replicate the indexes to the WFEs that will serve the queries. Everything is configured & working properly - it just takes a minute or two to load a page on the local LAN. The client is still using their old portal (we haven't started the migration/upgrade just yet) so there's virtually no data or users. We need to either further tune the configuration, or fix anything that may have been configured incorrectly which is causing this slowness? I've already reviewed & taken into account everything that I could find that was relevant before we even started the install. Does anyone have ideas or pointers? Perhaps there's something that I've missed?

    Read the article

  • Windows 2003 :: Performance Monitoring :: Simple/Stupid Tutorial

    - by BSI Support
    I have a half dozen front-end servers all running IIS 6.0-based/hosted applications. (primary .NET 2.0 web apps.) Basically, I'd like to take some basic performance data from each one, through such into a spreadsheet, and compare. CPU load, RAM load, whatever... If anyone can point out a very simple/stupid "here's how you do that" type of tutorial, that would be wonderful.

    Read the article

  • Steps to diagnose performance bottlenecks on Mac OS X

    - by Dave Cahill
    If you wanted to track down performance issues on a machine running Mac OS X and find out what was causing slowdowns, which command-line or graphical tools would you use, and how would you use them? I'm interested in advice on the best tools, and explanations of how to use them - when a machine slows down or freezes up, I'd like to be able to dig down and understand what's going on, memory / disk / CPU-wise. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is Page-Loading Time Relevant?

    - by doug
    Take this (ServerFault) page for instance. It has about 20 elements. When the last of these has loaded, the page is deemed "loaded"--but not before. This is certainly the protocol used by our testing service (which is among the small group of well-known vendors that offer that sort of service). Obviously this method is based on a clear, definite endpoint--therefore it's easy to apply w/ concomitant reliability. I think it's also the metric used by the popular Firefox plugin, 'YSlow.' For my employer's website, nearly always the last-to-load items are tracking code, tracking pixels, etc., so from the user's point of view--their perception--the page was "loaded" well before it had actually loaded based on the criterion used by our testing service (15-20% is a rough estimate). I'm sure i'm not the first person to consider this nor the first to wonder if it is causing micro-optimization while ignoring overall system-level, or user-perceived performance. So my question is, are there are other more practical (yet still reasonably precise) measures of page loading time?

    Read the article

  • How to figure out disks performance in Xen?

    - by cpt.Buggy
    So, I have a Dell R710 with PERC 6/i Integrated and 6 450Gb Seagate 15k SAS disks in RAID10, I have 30 Xen vps working on it. Now I need to deploy second server with same hardware for same tasks and I want to figure out maybe it's a good idea to use RAID5 instead of RAID10 because we have a lot of "free" memory on first server and not so much "free space". How do I find out disks performance on first server and find out could I move it to RAID5 without slowing down of whole system?

    Read the article

  • Facebook: I became Admin of a Page but can't edit it

    - by Michael G.
    Hello! I'm testing around with facebook and made a test-page with a workmate. He made me an admin. I clicked the link in the mail from facebook, i got to the side and there's no "edit the page" link under the picture. So we added an other workmate as admin. Even he isn't supposed to edit the page. What can it be?

    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

  • Page Load Time - "Waiting on..." taking ages. What part of page request process is hung?

    - by James
    I have a new cluster site running on Magento that's on a development server that is made up of 2 x web servers and 1 x database server. I have optimized the site in all areas I know (gzip, increasing php memory limits, increasing database memory limits etc) but sometimes the page loading gets stuck on 'waiting for xxx.xx.xx.xxx' (Chrome and other broswers, chrome just shows it that way). It can sit there for 40 + seconds, sometimes it just never loads and I close it in frustration. What part of the page loading process is this hung at? Is it a server issue, database issue, platform issue? I need to know where to start or whether to push the hosting provider about it.

    Read the article

  • Google bots are severely affecting site performance

    - by Lynn
    I have an aggregate site on a linux server that pulls in feeds from a universe of about 2,000 blogs. It's in Wordpress 3.4.2 and I have a cron job that is staggered to run five times an hour on another server to pull in the stories and then publish them to the front page of this site. This is so I didn't put too much pressure all on one server. However, the Google bots, which visit a few times every hour bring the server to its knees in the morning and evenings when there is an increase in traffic on the site. The bots have something like 30,000 links to follow at this point. How do I throttle the bots to simply grab the new stories off the front page and stop there? EDIT- Details of my server configuration: The way we have this set up is the server that handles all the publishing is an unmanaged instance via AWS. It mounts the NFS server and connects to the RDS to update content, etc. You get to this publishing instance via a plugin that detects the wp-admin link and then redirects you into there. The front end app server also mounts the NFS and requests data from the RDS. It is the only one that has the WP Super Cache on it.... The OS is Ubuntu on the App server and the NFS runs CentOs. The front end is Nginx and the publishing server is Apache.

    Read the article

  • ESXi 5 network performance is slow

    - by R D
    We just did a fresh install of ESXi 5 on a host that was running ESX 4 before. Nothing has changed hardware wise. After the upgrade network performance is much slower. Even copying a big file from one VM to another VM within same virtual switch is slower compared to other hosts that are running ESX 4. Network cards are auto-negotiating at 1Gbps as were on ESX 4 prior to upgrade. All settings are default and I haven't played with Advanced Settings at all. Before opening a case with vmware, wanted to know if I am missing something or if others have experienced similar issues and found a fix?

    Read the article

  • Performance Testing through distributed jmeter instances and bamboo

    - by user1617754
    I´m working on performance test for several services running in an Amazon network. Our architecture is: Continuous Integration server running in our facilities (Bamboo); A Jmeter server instance in the same network than the services to test; A Jmeter client connected to the JMeter server (ssh tunnels) in our facilities. I want to start the execution of tests from bamboo, and see the different results on it too. Bamboo with <---------> Jmeter server <--------> WebService Jmeter client on Amazon on Amazon Has anybody tried something like this?

    Read the article

  • How to open ports on modem for better torrent performance

    - by Mehper C. Palavuzlar
    I've been using utorrent to download and upload torrents for a long time. Recently someone told me that I need to open port(s) for utorrent from my modem settings for better downloading and uploading performance. Is it true? If yes, how can I do that? My utorrent version: 2.0 and the port used for incoming connections: 61829. My modem: Yaksu S200 ADSL router modem and I can reach its settings via web interface. I looked at the settings but they seem a bit complicated to me. Other info you may need to know: I have dynamic IP. I'm using Win7 x64.

    Read the article

  • Apache mpm-itk Performance

    - by Matt Beckman
    I manage a bunch of VPSs with memory ranging from 1GB to 8GB. Most of these websites are Joomla websites, and the servers must support multiple sites/users/S-FTP. I use mpm-itk almost exclusively (mostly due to it's convenience in these shared environments). However, I'm aware it isn't known for performance, so I need some advice on making it faster. Due to the lack of documentation when I first went the way of mpm-itk, I included only one setting in the config, and that was to limit each user to 50 clients (the rest I left up to defaults): <IfModule mpm_itk_module> MaxClientsVHost 50 </IfModule> Are there any better alternatives available? Are there any settings supported in mpm-prefork or mpm-worker that are also supported in mpm-itk? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Troubleshooting server performance with a hosted server?

    - by ProfessionalAmateur
    We are in a tough spot, we have a hosted server with the following specs: OS: Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise SP1 64bit Processor: Intel Xeon X7550 @ 2GHz (8 processors) RAM: 16GB The file system is on a SAN or NAS (not sure). We are seeing very odd issues where a user will open a 25MB .xslb file and it takes literally 60-120 seconds sometimes. The server is just dog slow for excel. Resources are not being pegged, CPU never jumps up, plenty of RAM... it's just oddly slow. Our host has been looking at the issue for several weeks with not much to show for it. Is there a utility I can run myself that will help trackdown our issue? I have found Server Performance Advisor V1.0 Any experience in using it? Our host is ultimately responsible for fixing this, but we are going on 1 month and our users are losing patience. Any tips would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • Improving terminal server performance for a specfic app

    - by Matt
    We have a windows 2003 terminal server running 2X application load balancign that is hosting a client's application that is accessed by around 50 users. Each user has there own database. The database is a file based database. The application is developed under Delphi so I think the database may be BDE based. As you can imagine, there is probably quite a lot of disk i/o. Here are some of the perfmon settings. Logged in users (average) 20 - 25 CPU Utilization (average) 80 - 100% Disk Queue Length (average) 1.6 % Disk time (average) 111 Page faults/sec (average) 1400 The application takes on average about a minute to load up. As usual, the budget is tight. Is there basic windows performance tuning tips that people can recommend to improve things before we fork out on more RAM etc. Server is a 2.8GHz Xeon with 3GB of RAM.

    Read the article

  • Performance hit with new hard drive?

    - by aaaidan
    I've recently upgraded my laptop's internal hard drive from a 160GB to 1TB drive. I cloned the drive, then installed it. The general system performance seems appreciably slower. In particular application launches seem to take much longer. Is this possible, or am I just expecting too much from the new drive? It's running a Macbook Pro which is a couple of years old. Any ideas? 160 GB 7MB cache 5400 rpm NCQ (Hitachi HTS545016B9SA02) -- original drive 1 TB 8MB cache 5400 rpm SATA300 NCQ (Western Digital WD10TPVT-00HT5T0) Sisoftware links: Hitachi HTS545016B9SA02 Western Digital WD10TPVT-00HT5T0

    Read the article

  • Disable Memory Modules In BIOS for Testing Purposes (Optimize Nehalem/Gulftown Memory Performance)

    - by Bob
    I recently acquired an HP Z800 with two Intel Xeon X5650 (Gulftown) 6 core processors. The person that configured the system chose 16GB (8 x 2GB DDR3-1333). I'm assuming this person was unaware these processors have 3 memory channels and to optimize memory performance one should choose memory in multiples of three. Based on this information, I have a question: By entering the BIOS, can I disable the bank on each processor that has the single memory module? If so, will this have any adverse effects or behave differently than physically removing the modules? I ask due to the fact that I prefer to store the extra memory in the system if it truly behaves as if the memory is not even there. Also, I see this as an opportunity to test 12GB vs. 16GB to see if there is a noticeable difference. Note: According to http://www.delltechcenter.com/page/04-08-2009+-+Nehalem+and+Memory+Configurations?t=anon, the current configuration reduces the overall data transfer speed to 1066 and in addition, the memory bandwidth goes down by about 23%.

    Read the article

  • Improving Chrome performance on OSX

    - by Giannis
    There are a number of sites that do not display properly on Safari and I need to switch to Chrome. Although when the content of the sites requires flash player, Chrome will consume a significant amount of CPU. Running more than 3 windows, will cause my MBP to overheat, start the fans, and reduce battery life way more than Safari. What I am looking for is suggestions on ways to improve performance of Chrome running flash. I know Safari is optimised for OSX, but any improvement is welcome. Following I have a demo to display the issue. I am running same youtube video on Safari 6 and Chrome 21,both updated,at the same time. Both browsers have been reseted and have no extensions. This is run on MBP 13" 2012 with 2.9 i7 running OSX 10.8.1. p.s If any additional details can help please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Raid0 performance degradation?

    - by davy8
    Not sure if this belongs here or on SuperUser, feel free to move as appropriate. I've noticed the performance on my RAID0 setup seems to have degraded over the past months. The throughput is fine, but I think the random access time has increased or something. In use I generally see about 1-5mb/sec when loading stuff in Visual Studio and other apps and it doesn't seem like the CPU is bottlenecking as the CPU utilization is pretty low. I don't recall what Access Time used to be, but HD Tune is reporting 12.6ms Read throughput is showing as averaging about 125MB/sec so it should be great for sequential reads. Defrag daily and it shows fragmentation levels low, so that shouldn't be an issue. Additional info, Windows 7 x64, Intel raid controller on mobo, WD Black 500GB (I think 32mb cache) x2.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >