Search Results

Search found 472 results on 19 pages for 'xeon'.

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

  • Faster, secure, protocol/code required for long-distance transfer.

    - by Chopper3
    I've ran into a problem and I'm looking for a new secure protocol/client/server that's faster over a 1Gb/s fibre link - let me tell you the story... I have a pair of redundant, diversely-routed, 1Gb/s links over a distance of around 250 miles or so (not dark fibre but a dedicated point to point link, not a mesh). At the 'client' end I have a HP DL380 G5 (2 x dual-core 2.66Ghz Xeon's, 4GB, Windows 2003EE 32-bit), at the 'server' end I have a HP BL460c G6 (2 x quad-core 2.53Ghz Xeons, 48GB, Oracle Linux 5.3 64-bit). I need to transfer around 500 x 2GB files per week from the client to the server machines per week - but the transfer NEEDS to be secure. Using both iPerf or regular FTP I can get ~80MB/s of transfer pretty consistently, which is great. Using WinSCP or Windows SFTP I can't seem to get more that ~3-4MB/s, at this point the server's CPU is 3% busy while CPU0 of the client goes to ~30% utilised. We've tried editing various TCP window sizes with little success. Both ends are connected to quite low-usage Cisco Cat6509's with Sup720's. I can replace the client machine with a newer machine and/or move it to Linux - but this will take time. Clearly these single-threaded secure Windows clients are introducing too much latency doing their encryption. So a few questions/thoughts; Are there any higher performing secure protocols or client software for Windows that I could try? I'm pretty protocol-gnostic so long as it'll work between Windows and Linux. Should I be using hardware to do the encryption, either in the client or the network parts? If so what would you recommend? I'm not convinced that just swapping the server would be that much faster, the CPU was only at 30% but then again that's higher than I'd have expected given the load - moving to Linux at the client end may be a better idea but would be quite disruptive. Am I missing a trick? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Decrease in disk performance after partitioning and encryption, is this much of a drop normal?

    - by Biohazard
    I have a server that I only have remote access to. Earlier in the week I repartitioned the 2 disk raid as follows: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt 363G 1.8G 343G 1% / tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 2.0G 140K 2.0G 1% /dev tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda5 461M 26M 412M 6% /boot /dev/sda7 179G 8.6G 162G 6% /data The raid consists of 2 x 300gb SAS 15k disks. Prior to the changes I made, it was being used as a single unencrypted root parition and hdparm -t /dev/sda was giving readings around 240mb/s, which I still get if I do it now: /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 730 MB in 3.00 seconds = 243.06 MB/sec Since the repartition and encryption, I get the following on the separate partitions: Unencrypted /dev/sda7: /dev/sda7: Timing buffered disk reads: 540 MB in 3.00 seconds = 179.78 MB/sec Unencrypted /dev/sda5: /dev/sda5: Timing buffered disk reads: 476 MB in 2.55 seconds = 186.86 MB/sec Encrypted /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt: /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt: Timing buffered disk reads: 150 MB in 3.03 seconds = 49.54 MB/sec I expected a drop in performance on the encrypted partition, but not that much, but I didn't expect I would get a drop in performance on the other partitions at all. The other hardware in the server is: 2 x Quad Core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz and 4gb RAM $ cat /proc/scsi/scsi Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 32 Lun: 00 Vendor: DP Model: BACKPLANE Rev: 1.05 Type: Enclosure ANSI SCSI revision: 05 Host: scsi0 Channel: 02 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: DELL Model: PERC 6/i Rev: 1.11 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: HL-DT-ST Model: CD-ROM GCR-8240N Rev: 1.10 Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 05 I'm guessing this means the server has a PERC 6/i RAID controller? The encryption was done with default settings during debian 6 installation. I can't recall the exact specifics and am not sure how I go about finding them? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Bypass network stack. Which options do we have? Pros and cons of each option [on hold]

    - by javapowered
    I'm writing trading application. I want to bypass network stack in Linux but I don't know how this can be done. I'm looking for complete list of options with pros and cons of each of them. The only option I know - is to buy solarflare network card which supports OpenOnLoad. What other options should I consider and what is pros and cons of each of them? Well the question is pretty simple - what is the best way to bypass network stack? upd: OpenOnload It achieves performance improvements in part by performing network processing at user-level, bypassing the OS kernel entirely on the data path. Intel DDIO to allow Intel® Ethernet Controllers and adapters to talk directly with the processor cache of the Intel® Xeon® processor E5. What's key difference between these techologies? Do they do roughly the same things? I much better like Intel DDIO because it's much easy to use, but OpenOnload required a lot of installation and tuning. If good OpenOnload application is much faster than good Intel DDIO application?

    Read the article

  • What may the reason of slowness be (see details in message body)?

    - by Ivan
    I've got a really weird situation I'm beating to solve. A performance problem which looks really like an empty waiting sequence set in code (while it probably isn't so). I've got a pretty powerful dedicated server (10 GB RAM, eight Xeon cores, etc) running Ubuntu 10.04 with all the functionality services (except OpenVPN server used to provide secure access to clients) deployed in separate VirtualBox (vboxheadless) machines (one for the company e-mail server, one for web server and one for accounting/crm server (Firebird + proprietary app server working with Delphi-made clients)). CPU load (as "top" says) is almost always near zero. Host system RAM is close to 100% usage but not overloaded (as very little swapping gets used, and freed (by stopping one of VMs) memory doesn't get reused any quickly). Approximately 50% of guests RAM is used. iostat usually shows near zero %util. Network bandwidth seems to be underused. But the accounting/crm client (a Win32 Delphi application run on WinXP machines) software works hell-slow with this server (and works much better using an inside-LAN Windows server). I just can't imagine what can make it be slow if there are so plenty of CPU, RAM, HDD and bandwidth resources available on clients and on the server even in their hardest moments. Saying bandwidth is underused I not only know that clients and the server are connected to the Internet with a bigger channels than really used (which leaves the a chance they may have a bottleneck of a sort on the route between them), I've tested bandwidth between clients and the server by copying files among them.

    Read the article

  • What is the max connections via remote desktop for a small server?

    - by Jay Wen
    I have a small server running MS Server 2012. The CPU is a Xeon E3-1230 V2 @ 3.30GHz, 4 Cores, 8 Logical Processors, 8 GB RAM. Main HD is a Samsung 840, and the big storage is a 4 disk WD Black Raid 10 Array in a Synology NAS enclusure. My question is: given this hardware, approximately how many users can the system support via "Remote Desktop Connection"? Assume there are no licensing limits. These are not admin users. I know there is a two admin limit. This boils down to: What resources does one remote connection require? RAM? % of the CPU? Networking bandwidth? I guess the base case would be for a conection where the user is inactive or simply browsing cnn. Once you know this, you know how many you could fit on the machine before something is maxed-out. In reality, users would be mostly on Excel (multi-MB spreadsheets). I know the approx. resources currently required by each copy of Excel.

    Read the article

  • Servers - Buying New vs Buying Second-hand

    - by Django Reinhardt
    We're currently in the process of adding additional servers to our website. We have a pretty simple topology planned: A Firewall/Router Server infront of a Web Application Server and Database Server. Here's a simple (and technically incorrect) diagram that I used in a previous question to illustrate what I mean: We're now wondering about the specs of our two new machines (the Web App and Firewall servers) and whether we can get away with buying a couple of old servers. (Note: Both machines will be running Windows Server 2008 R2.) We're not too concerned about our Firewall/Router server as we're pretty sure it won't be taxed too heavily, but we are interested in our Web App server. I realise that answering this type of question is really difficult without a ton of specifics on users, bandwidth, concurrent sessions, etc, etc., so I just want to focus on the general wisdom on buying old versus new. I had originally specced a new Dell PowerEdge R300 (1U Rack) for our company. In short, because we're going to be caching as much data as possible, I focussed on Processor Speed and Memory: Quad-Core Intel Xeon X3323 2.5Ghz (2x3M Cache) 1333Mhz FSB 16GB DDR2 667Mhz But when I was looking for a cheap second-hand machine for our Firewall/Router, I came across several machines that made our engineer ask a very reasonable question: If we stuck a boat load of RAM in this thing, wouldn't it do for the Web App Server and save us a ton of money in the process? For example, what about a second-hand machine with the following specs: 2x Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2218 2.6Ghz (2MB Cache) 1000Mhz HT 16GB DDR2 667Mhz Would it really be comparable with the more expensive (new) server above? Our engineer postulated that the reason companies upgrade their servers to newer processors is often because they want to reduce their power costs, and that a 2.6Ghz processor was still a 2.6Ghz processor, no matter when it was made. Benchmarks on various sites don't really support this theory, but I was wondering what server admin thought. Thanks for any advice.

    Read the article

  • CPU usage always below 10% in windows server 2008 r2 x64

    - by ???
    I am using a server with windows server 2008 r2 running on it to run my program. The CPU of the server is Intel xeon x5570 2.93GHz with 2 processors, 8 cores per processer. However, I found that the cpu usage is almost always below 10% even I use 32 threads in my program. And I also found that sometimes the cpu usage could reach as high as 93% through the task manager when running my program and at that moment my program has processed over 1000 files per second while normally, it only processed over 50 files per second. However, this does not happen often. I use tools downloaded from the internet to make sure no core sleeps when the server is on, nothing changed. Also, I edited the windows register to make sure that I, as an administer, have no cpu usage limit. But it changed nothing. Is there anyway that I can make full use of my cpu? That is to say that each core runs a thread of my program and the total cpu usage could reach over 50% when I use a reasonable number of threads in my program. Did this happen to anyone of you? And could you help me with this ? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • HPET missing from available clocksources on CentOS

    - by squareone
    I am having trouble using HPET on my physical machine. It is not available, even though I have enabled it in my bios, forced it in grub, and triple checked my kernel to include HPET in its compilation. Motherboard: Supermicro X9DRW Processor: 2x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 SAS Controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic SAS2004 PCI-Express Fusion-MPT SAS-2 [Spitfire] (rev 03) Distro: CentOS 6.3 Kernel: 3.4.21-rt32 #2 SMP PREEMPT RT x86_64 GNU/Linux Grub: hpet=force clocksource=hpet .config file: CONFIG_HPET_TIMER=y CONFIG_HPET_EMULATE_RTC=y CONFIG_HPET=y dmesg | grep hpet: Command line: ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_xxxx-lv_root rd_NO_LUKS rd_LVM_LV=vg_xxxx/lv_root KEYBOARDTYPE=pc KEYTABLE=us rd_NO_MD SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 crashkernel=auto rd_LVM_LV=vg_xxxx/lv_swap rd_NO_DM LANG=en_US.UTF-8 rhgb quiet panic=5 hpet=force clocksource=hpet Kernel command line: ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_xxxx-lv_root rd_NO_LUKS rd_LVM_LV=vg_xxxx/lv_root KEYBOARDTYPE=pc KEYTABLE=us rd_NO_MD SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 crashkernel=auto rd_LVM_LV=vg_xxxx/lv_swap rd_NO_DM LANG=en_US.UTF-8 rhgb quiet panic=5 hpet=force clocksource=hpet cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource: tsc cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/available_clocksource: tsc jiffies What is even more confusing, is that I have about a dozen other machines that utilize the same kernel .config, and can use HPET fine. I fear it is a hardware issue, but would appreciate any advice or help with getting HPET available. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • php-cgi.exe Taking out server, multiple running

    - by Alex
    I have been using ZendServer CE for over a year and have never had a problem. Recently, about a week or two ago I have found my server to be acting up and even causing RDP to be un-connectable. After some looking around I have 20, 25, 30+ php-cgi.exe running. With my IIS7 service starting with Windows once my server started all these php-cgi.exe would start running (even though the limit is 10) and I could not even connect to it. After disabling the Web Server as startup which stops php-cgi.exe from running the server runs flawless, like it always has. As soon as I run the web server all these odd issues start. I have a post over at Zend http://forums.zend.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=41043&p=95133 where I was told to update my Zend install. After doing so this issue has not gone away. Even running 1 php-cgi.exe (somehow 2 start anyway) the server begins to go silly. The first issue I find myself with running php-cgi.exe is that Windows Services, weather be stock or using FireDaemon begin to lag, slow start, crash, etc. If anyone can help me with this I would GREATLY appreciate it. At this time I am forced to look for a alternative to running PHP other than cgi as it simply takes out the whole box. On another note, I run this same version of Zend on a similar server with no issues. Starting to think its a IIS issue. (UPDATE) Installed newest version of PHP, separate from Zend, same issue. Server Specs: Intel Xeon Quad w HT Nehlam Based 24GB DDR3 1333 2x1TB Raid Mirror OS 2x1TB Raid Mirror (Other) 4x2TB Raid 5 (Storage) Server 2008 R2

    Read the article

  • mysql - moving to a lower performance server, how small can I go?

    - by pedalpete
    I've been running a site for a few years now which really isn't growing in traffic, and I want to save some money on hosting, but keep it going for the loyal users of the site and api. The database has one a nearly 4 million row table, and on a 4gb dual xeon 5320 server. When I check server stats on this server with ps -aux, i get returns of mysql running at about 11% capacity, so no serious load. The main query against mysql runs in about 0.45 seconds. I popped over to linode.com to see what kind of performance I could get out of one of their tiny boxes, and their 360mb ram XEN vps returns the same query in 20 seconds. Clearly not good enough. I've looked at the mysql variables, and they are both very similar (I've included the show variables output below, if anybody is interested). Is there a good way to decide on what size server is needed based on what I'm coming from? Is it RAM that is likely making the difference with the large table size? Is there a way for me to figure out how much ram would be ideal?? Here's the output of the show variables (though I'm not sure it is important). +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | Variable_name | Value | +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | auto_increment_increment | 1 | | auto_increment_offset | 1 | | automatic_sp_privileges | ON | | back_log | 50 | | basedir | /usr/ | | bdb_cache_size | 8384512 | | bdb_home | /var/lib/mysql/ | | bdb_log_buffer_size | 262144 | | bdb_logdir | | | bdb_max_lock | 10000 | | bdb_shared_data | OFF | | bdb_tmpdir | /tmp/ | | binlog_cache_size | 32768 | | bulk_insert_buffer_size | 8388608 | | character_set_client | latin1 | | character_set_connection | latin1 | | character_set_database | latin1 | | character_set_filesystem | binary | | character_set_results | latin1 | | character_set_server | latin1 | | character_set_system | utf8 | | character_sets_dir | /usr/share/mysql/charsets/ | | collation_connection | latin1_swedish_ci | | collation_database | latin1_swedish_ci | | collation_server | latin1_swedish_ci | | completion_type | 0 | | concurrent_insert | 1 | | connect_timeout | 10 | | datadir | /var/lib/mysql/ | | date_format | %Y-%m-%d | | datetime_format | %Y-%m-%d %H:%i:%s | | default_week_format | 0 | | delay_key_write | ON | | delayed_insert_limit | 100 | | delayed_insert_timeout | 300 | | delayed_queue_size | 1000 | | div_precision_increment | 4 | | keep_files_on_create | OFF | | engine_condition_pushdown | OFF | | expire_logs_days | 0 | | flush | OFF | | flush_time | 0 | | ft_boolean_syntax | + - For some reason, that table formats properly in the preview, but apparently not when viewing the question. Hopefully it isn't needed anyway.

    Read the article

  • Tuning Linux + HAProxy

    - by react
    I'm currently rolling out HAProxy on Centos 6 which will send requests to some Apache HTTPD servers and I'm having issues with performance. I've spent the last couple of days googling and still can't seem to get past 10k/sec connections consistently when benchmarking (sometimes I do get 30k/sec though). I've pinned the IRQ's of the TX/RX queues for both the internal and external NICS to separate CPU cores and made sure HAProxy is pinned to it's own core. I've also made the following adjustments to sysctl.conf: # Max open file descriptors fs.file-max = 331287 # TCP Tuning net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 1 net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1024 65023 net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 10240 net.ipv4.tcp_max_tw_buckets = 400000 net.ipv4.tcp_max_orphans = 60000 net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries = 3 net.core.somaxconn = 40000 net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 8192 16384 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 8192 16384 net.ipv4.tcp_mem = 65536 98304 131072 net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 40000 net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 1 If I use AB to hit the a webserver directly I easily get 30k/s connections. If I stop the webservers and use AB to hit HAProxy then I get 30k/s connections but obviously it's useless. I've also disabled iptables for now since I read that nf_conntrack can slow everything down, no change. I've also disabled the irqbalance service. The fact that I can hit each individual device with 30k/s makes me believe the tuning of the servers is OK and that it must be some HAProxy config? Here's the config which I've built from reading tuning articles, etc http://pastebin.com/zsCyAtgU The server is a dual Xeon CPU E5-2620 (6 cores) with 32GB of RAM. Running Centos 6.2 x64. The private and public interfaces are on separate NICS. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Application Screen Repainting Issues

    - by Jeff Sheldon
    I have this issue lately at work. It drives be nuts, and I finally stopped to ask this question. It's quite often that an application I've been running just randomly fails to repaint itself for a while, usually in the editor screen. I most often see this occurring with Expression Web, Visual Studio 2008/2010 and SQL Server Management studio. These applications are what I work in the most, so I'm not surprised to mostly see it here. But I was curious if anyone else had a solution for this. I've tried: Reboots. The screen shot below is about 10 minutes after a reboot. New Video Drivers. This machine is running a Nvidia Quadro NVS 290 video card with the latest drivers. Closing other applications, this is the only thing running right now. As far as hardware, this machine has Dual Quad-Core Xeon 2.83ghz Processors, with 10 gigs of memory, running Windows XP SP3 64bit. Any help would be great. JNK EDIT: Per comments from deleted (wrong) answer: I'm running dual monitors. Set it to single display, still occurred. Rebooted, and tried it again, and it still occurred. Switched it back to dual screen. My resolution is only 1400x900 on each.

    Read the article

  • Windows Displays Double the Actual Installed Physical Memory

    - by Andrew Barber
    I have a server I've installed Windows Web 2008 R2 on, which is reporting that I have double the physical memory installed as is actually the case. In msinfo32 "Installed Physical Memory" shows as 2x what ever the actual installed amount is, though "Total Physical Memory" shows the correct amount. The "System" info window shows installed memory as 2x, with the correct amount in parenthesis listed as the "usable" amount). This server mistakenly had Windows Web 2008 (32-bit) installed on it just previously, and that OS also reported the same faulty information as Win2K8R2 is reporting. BIOS reports the correct amount, memtest was run on this server before installation, and a previous Windows 2000 instance installed on this system also reported the correct amount, as I recall. Server operation seems to be fine as well (it's only trying to use the correct amount of memory). The server is a generic pizzabox running on a SuperMicro X6DVL-EG with dual Xeon-3.2's. Memory installed are 4 matching mt18vddf12872g-335c3 sticks (1GB pc2700 DDR ECC REG cl2.5) This behavior occurs whether two or all four are installed. So, has anyone seen something like this before? Have any idea about what's causing it, and how I should be concerned about it? Everything else seems good so far, and I'll be upgrading the memory before putting the server into service, but I don't want to spend too much time/money/effort on the server if it's got something odd going wrong here. UPDATE: There was a question I ran into regarding memory sparing in the BIOS and a possible (buggy) effect thereof; however, flipping that bit back and forth in the BIOS revealed that isn't the issue. Still flummoxed a bit about this one, though I still have seen no negative impacts. Post-Answer Update (January 13, 2011): Upgrading the system with new, larger memory has fixed this issue.

    Read the article

  • What is best configuration settings for Wordpress and MySQL on Win2008 + IIS7 stack?

    - by holiveira
    I currently have four blogs that uses Wordpress running on a shared hosting company. This blogs have a considerable amount of visits and I'm constantly receiving warnings from the hosting company saying that I'm consuming too much server CPU. Considering the fact that I have a dedicated server in another company with plenty of idle resources (it has a quad core Xeon 2.5GHz and 8GB of Ram and run on Win2008) I'm planning to move the blogs to this server in order to have some more freedom. I'm currently using this server to host some web applications using ASP.Net and SQL Express. I've installed a blog to test and it worked fine, but some issues appeared and raised some questions in my mind: How to properly set the permissions in the folders used by wordpress plugins, I mean, what permissions should I set for the IIS_User in some folders so that the plugins works correctly? What's the best caching plugin to use considering this is a Window Server? In the previous hosting company I used the WPSuperCache, but it was a Linux Stack. Or should I ignore the caching plugins and use the Dynamic Caching Feature of IIS7? How can I optmize the MySQL server running in this server (specially the settings regarding memory and caching) How can I protect the admin folders against hacker attacks? I know some people will advice me not to run Wordpress in a Windows stack, but that's my only choice. I don't even know were to start managing and LAMP stack, don't have the time to do so nor the money to rent another server.

    Read the article

  • Wildcard subdomain setup ... want to change host IP throws off client A records... what to do...

    - by Joe
    Here is the current set up (in a nutshell). The site is set up with a wildcard subdomain, so *.website.com is accessible. Clients can then domain map their own domains with an A record to the server IP address and it will translate the to appropriate *.website.com with re directions and env variables in htaccess. Everything is working perfect... but now comes the problem. The site has grown larger than a single DQC Xeon server can handle at peak times. Looking at cloud options seems tempting, but clients are pointing their domains to a single IP address with the A record (our server). Now, this was probably bad planing from the start, but the question is, if this was to be done today, how would we set it up so that clients use a CNAME perhaps to point their domains to our server rather than an A record. And, if that is not possible for the root domain, how can we then use multiple IP addresses on our side to translate the incoming http request? Complex enough? Hope I've explained it well!

    Read the article

  • HP DL380 G3 2U For Basic Web Server in 2012

    - by ryandlf
    I have an opportunity to pick up a used HP DL380 G3 2U for $100. I'm looking for a basic entry level web server that I can host a small - medium size website on and more or less learn the ins and outs of running my own web server before I bite the bullet and spend a couple grand on a server. The specs are: Dual (2) Intel Xeon 2.4GHz 400MHz 512KB Cache 4GB PC2100 ECC Registered Memory 6 x 72GB 10K U320 SCSI Hard Drives Smart Array 5i RAID Controller Redundant Power Supplies DVD/Floppy, Dual Intel GB NIC's, USB Or would I be better off spending a couple hundred bucks on something like: this new HP Seems like the only major difference is SATA and a bit of storage, but I will likely be implementing a separate storage system of some sort anyways. I guess it also wouldn't hurt to mention that I plan on running a linux server distro, so would the hardware be likely to support linux with a system that is 4 generations old? I don't mind spending a couple hundred extra dollars if its a better solution, but as mentioned previously I am simple looking for a server to learn on and probably use for a year or so while I put together a small - medium size website.

    Read the article

  • Internet compression proxy for low speed broadband?

    - by user23150
    I live in a rural location, using high-latency wireless off a local ISP's tower. My speed tests vary day to day, but I can get around 1Mb up/down. The problem is, I work with large files, uploading and downloading (HD videos, development software, etc.). It can be painful to wait sometimes. Plus I do some side contract game development, and it can be very difficult to playtest with other developers (200ms ping is a good day for me). Now, obviously it's not going to be easy to solve the latency problem without different wireless hardware. But speedwise, I am wondering if I can use some kind of compression technology on a proxy. For instance, my work computer has full access to a 26Mb down, 10Mb up connection, that is totally unused at night and the weekends. If I could run some kind of compression technology on our server, and use it as a proxy to route to my home computer, I could stand to gain some major speed. I realize that by bogging down a system with compression, I could potentially lose whatever speed gain I had. But the proxy server is a quad core xeon, and the receiving computer is a pretty decent i7 computer, so that shouldn't be a concern. I found http://toonel.net/ but it seems more geared toward very slow narrowband users, like dial-up. Plus, I would prefer to just be able to point my browser to a proxy server, rather then install software on my client machine. EDIT I thought about my question a little more, and realize I am going to need to install software on my client in order to decompress, and possible compress (for uploading). That's not a huge deal.

    Read the article

  • Fedora Core 6 Migration

    - by Matthew Sprankle
    I am at a loss as to what I should to for this server. I need it to run php5.3 and corresponding version of mysql. I received a client today through work that is using Fedora core 6 running 10 very small websites on some very hodge podge setup. My original idea was just upgrade to php5.3. I have yum (installed 3.0.8) reconfigured for the fedora archive. The latest version of php it allows is 5.1.8. I am still relatively new to server setups and am nervous about wiping their server to upgrade it. Since it is about 6-8 years old I'm not sure if it will even support the newest version of fedora. The server specs are: Parallels Plesk Panel version 9.5.4 Operating system Linux 2.6.9-023stab048.4-smp CPU GenuineIntel, Intel(R) Xeon(R)CPU E5335 @ 2.00GHz (10gb disk space and 1gb of memory). I use fedora for my personal server so I was a little familiar with it. I haven't done anything too extravagant. Is there a way I can escape this nightmare with installing php5.3 or do I need to migrate these sites to a new server?

    Read the article

  • Optimize Apache performance

    - by Phliplip
    I'm looking for ways to optimize our current web server hosted in-house. I'm trying to supply as much relevant information below. Please let me know if you would require additional information in order to assist. Server is running 1 single website, which is an online pizza ordering platform built on Zend Framework (ver1). On traffic stats from the last month aprox 6.000 pageloads per day, concentrated mainly around dinnertime. Around 1500 loads/hour peaks in that period. We recently upgraded from a 2/2mbit aDSL-line to 100/100mbit fiber, and we still have performance issues at dinner time. We assumed the 2mbit was the issue. Website is pretty snappy in low-load periods. Hardware CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5160 @ 3.00GHz (3000.13-MHz K8-class CPU) Mem: 328M Active, 4427M Inact, 891M Wired, 244M Cache, 623M Buf, 33M Free Swap: 16G Total, 468K Used, 16G Free (6GB physical, 16GB swap) Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad7s1a ufs 4.8G 768M 3.7G 17% / devfs devfs 1.0K 1.0K 0B 100% /dev /dev/ad7s1g ufs 176G 5.2G 157G 3% /home /dev/ad7s1e ufs 4.8G 2.8M 4.5G 0% /tmp /dev/ad7s1f ufs 19G 3.5G 14G 19% /usr /dev/ad7s1d ufs 4.8G 550M 3.9G 12% /var Server OS FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE Software apache-2.2.17 php5-5.3.8 mysql-server-5.5 Apache footprint (example, taken from # top) 31140 www 1 45 0 377M 41588K lockf 2 0:00 0.00% httpd 31122 www 1 44 0 375M 35416K lockf 2 0:00 0.00% httpd 31109 www 1 44 0 375M 38188K lockf 2 0:00 0.00% httpd 31113 www 1 44 0 375M 35188K lockf 2 0:00 0.00% httpd Apache is using the prefork MPM, APC (Alternative PHP Cache). SSL module is loaded, but not utilized (as in don't really work, thus not used). There is a file containing settings for MPM modules, but as i see it's not included in the httpd.conf file, the include line is commented out. Thus i would guess that the prefork MPM is working of default values too. Here are some other Apache conf values that i found - which are included in https.conf Timeout 300 KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 KeepAliveTimeout 5 UseCanonicalName Off HostnameLookups Off

    Read the article

  • Does cloud computing offer this? [closed]

    - by TheBlackBenzKid
    I have some newb questions I want answering please about cloud hosting - we are currently looking at Rackspace and getting a windows box. This is the situation: We have 15 computers in our office. We have 3 printers, some wifi and some network plugged. We have a standard router and the office share things via dropbox. The computers are not on Windows SBS or something similar. We want a cloud hosting solution that will offer User can login on any machine in the office and see the machine software User can login on any machine in the office and open Outlook and their emails and signature will be on exchange automatically A shared company folder on the network All printers automatically installed on the network Users can login remotely to access emails via the web At the moment we have a network company saying we need Xeon server in house with backup and psu and Windows SBS with license for each machine and also we need cabinets and cabling setup and also load balancers and modification of our DNS for emails. My question is this. Can cloud offer this? Can we have a server in the cloud that does this? Is it possible I mean the computers would be wireless connected to this cloud and you turn the machine on and its hosted?

    Read the article

  • Very high CPU and low RAM usage - is it possible to place some of swap some of the CPU usage to the RAM (with CloudLinux LVE Manager installed)?

    - by Chriswede
    I had to install CloudLinux so that I could somewhat controle the CPU ussage and more importantly the Concurrent-Connections the Websites use. But as you can see the Server load is way to high and thats why some sites take up to 10 sec. to load! Server load 22.46 (8 CPUs) (!) Memory Used 36.32% (2,959,188 of 8,146,632) (ok) Swap Used 0.01% (132 of 2,104,504) (ok) Server: 8 x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31230 @ 3.20GHz Memory: 8143680k/9437184k available (2621k kernel code, 234872k reserved, 1403k data, 244k init) Linux Yesterday: Total of 214,514 Page-views (Awstat) Now my question: Can I shift some of the CPU usage to the RAM? Or what else could I do to make the sites run faster (websites are dynamic - so SQL heavy) Thanks top - 06:10:14 up 29 days, 20:37, 1 user, load average: 11.16, 13.19, 12.81 Tasks: 526 total, 1 running, 524 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie Cpu(s): 42.9%us, 21.4%sy, 0.0%ni, 33.7%id, 1.9%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8146632k total, 7427632k used, 719000k free, 131020k buffers Swap: 2104504k total, 132k used, 2104372k free, 4506644k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 318421 mysql 15 0 1315m 754m 4964 S 474.9 9.5 95300:17 mysqld 6928 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 2.0 0.0 90:42.85 kondemand/3 476047 headus 17 0 172m 19m 10m S 1.7 0.2 0:00.05 php 476055 headus 18 0 172m 18m 9.9m S 1.7 0.2 0:00.05 php 476056 headus 15 0 172m 19m 10m S 1.7 0.2 0:00.05 php 476061 headus 18 0 172m 19m 10m S 1.7 0.2 0:00.05 php 6930 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 1.3 0.0 161:48.12 kondemand/5 6931 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 1.3 0.0 193:11.74 kondemand/6 476049 headus 17 0 172m 19m 10m S 1.3 0.2 0:00.04 php 476050 headus 15 0 172m 18m 9.9m S 1.3 0.2 0:00.04 php 476057 headus 17 0 172m 18m 9.9m S 1.3 0.2 0:00.04 php 6926 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 1.0 0.0 90:13.88 kondemand/1 6932 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 1.0 0.0 247:47.50 kondemand/7 476064 worldof 18 0 172m 19m 10m S 1.0 0.2 0:00.03 php 6927 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 0.7 0.0 93:52.80 kondemand/2 6929 root 10 -5 0 0 0 S 0.3 0.0 161:54.38 kondemand/4 8459 root 15 0 103m 5576 1268 S 0.3 0.1 54:45.39 lvest

    Read the article

  • Exchange 2013 really slow outside of localhost

    - by ItsJustJP
    We've got a 12 core xeon, 24GB of ram 2012 server. We've recently migrated from exchange 2010 (which was on another server) to exchange 2013 which resides on our new 12 core server. Accessing the OWA on the exchange server is fine; it's very quick and responsive however accessing it via any other computer connect to the domain via a 1 gpbs connection and it'll take 10-15 seconds to load. Also running slow is public calenders that people in my place need to access, again taking 10-15 seconds to access and can sometimes cause outlook to not respond. Further to that we have phones that connect via the internet (of course) to the exchange so people can get work emails when they are out of the office. Guess what, this is also running slow. I've have search for many solutions and have tried changing outlook authentication methods but there is no change in speed. The old exchange 2010 server no longer exists but there was no problem before the migration. Has anyone got any suggestions? Thanks :) Must also mention that server 2012 that exchange 2013 is installed on is also the DC. Update: It would appear that any connection via https is slow. It took more than 15 mins for an outlook client to download 50MB of emails (outlook anywhere).

    Read the article

  • How to decouple development server from Internet?

    - by intoxicated.roamer
    I am working in a small set-up where there are 4 developers (might grow to 6 or 8 in cuople of years). I want to set-up an environment in which developers get an internet access but can not share any data from the company on internet. I have thought of the following plan: Set-up a centralized git server (Debian). The server will have an internet access. A developer will only have git account on that server, and won't have any other account on it. Do not give internet access to developer's individual machine (Windows XP/Windows 7). Run a virtual machine (any multi-user OS) on the centralized server (the same one on which git is hosted). Developer will have an account on this virtual machine. He/she can access internet via this virtual machine. Any data-movement between this virtual machine and underlying server, as well as any of the developer's machine, is prohibited. All developers require USB port on their local machine, so that they can burn their code into a microcontroller. This port will be made available only to associated software that dumps the code in a microcontroller (MPLAB in current case). All other softwares will be prohibited from accessing the port. As more developers get added, providing internet support for them will become difficult with this plan as it will slow down the virtual machine running on the server. Can anyone suggest an alternative ? Are there any obvious flaws in the above plan ? Some key details of the server are as below: 1) OS:Debian 2) RAM: 8GB 3) CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1220v2 4C/4T

    Read the article

  • Display on secondary video card (Nvidia 8400 GS): horrible refresh, bogs system

    - by minameismud
    This is my work computer, but it's a small shop. We do business software development. The most hardcore thing we create is some web animations with html5 and fancy javascript/css. The base machine is a Dell Precision T3500 - Xeon W3550 (3.07GHz quad), 6GB ram, pair of 500GB harddrives, and Win 7 x64 Enterprise SP1. My primary video card is an ATI FirePro V4800 1GB in a PCIe slot of some speed driving a pair of 23s at 1920x1080 through DisplayPort-HDMI adapters. The secondary card is an NVidia GeForce 8400GS in a PCI slot driving a single 17" at 1280x1024 through DVI. On either of the 23" monitors, windows move smoothly, scroll quickly, and are generally very responsive. On the 17", it's slow, chunky, and when I'm trying to scroll a ton of content, Windows will occasionally suggest I drop to the Windows Basic theme. I've updated drivers for both cards, and I've gotten every Windows update relating to video. Specifically: ATI FirePro Provider: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc Date: 6/22/2014 Version: 13.352.1014.0 NVidia 8400 GS Provider: NVIDIA Date: 7/2/2014 Version: 9.18.13.4052 Unfortunately, new hardware isn't really an option. Is there anything I can do software-wise to speed up the NVidia-driven monitor?

    Read the article

  • How to force two process to run on the same CPU?

    - by kovan
    Context: I'm programming a software system that consists of multiple processes. It is programmed in C++ under Linux. and they communicate among them using Linux shared memory. Usually, in software development, is in the final stage when the performance optimization is made. Here I came to a big problem. The software has high performance requirements, but in machines with 4 or 8 CPU cores (usually with more than one CPU), it was only able to use 3 cores, thus wasting 25% of the CPU power in the first ones, and more than 60% in the second ones. After many research, and having discarded mutex and lock contention, I found out that the time was being wasted on shmdt/shmat calls (detach and attach to shared memory segments). After some more research, I found out that these CPUs, which usually are AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon, use a memory system called NUMA, which basically means that each processor has its fast, "local memory", and accessing memory from other CPUs is expensive. After doing some tests, the problem seems to be that the software is designed so that, basically, any process can pass shared memory segments to any other process, and to any thread in them. This seems to kill performance, as process are constantly accessing memory from other processes. Question: Now, the question is, is there any way to force pairs of processes to execute in the same CPU?. I don't mean to force them to execute always in the same processor, as I don't care in which one they are executed, altough that would do the job. Ideally, there would be a way to tell the kernel: If you schedule this process in one processor, you must also schedule this "brother" process (which is the process with which it communicates through shared memory) in that same processor, so that performance is not penalized.

    Read the article

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