Search Results

Search found 30217 results on 1209 pages for 'website performance'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 18/1209 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • Windows 7 network performance tuning for LAN

    - by Hubert Kario
    I want to tune Windows 7 TCP stack for speed in a LAN environment. Bit of background info: I've got a Citrix XenServer set up with Windows 2008R2, Windows 7 and Debian Lenny with Citrix kernel, Windows machines have Tools installed the iperf server process is running on different host, also Debian Lenny. The servers are otherwise idle, tests were repeated few times to confirm results. While testing with iperf 2008R2 can achieve around 600-700Mbps with no tuning what so ever but I can't find any guide or set of parameters that will make Windows 7 achieve anything over 150Mbps with no change in TCP window size using -w parameter to iperf. I tried using netsh autotuining to disabled, experimental, normal and highlyrestricted - no change. Changing congestionprovider doesn't do anything, just as rss and chimney. Setting all the available settings to same values as on Windows 2008R2 host doesn't help. To summarize: Windows 2008R2 default settings: 600-700Mbps Debian, default settings: 600Mbps Windows 7 default settings: 120Mbps Windows 7 default, iperf -w 65536: 400-500Mbps While the missing 400Mbps in performance I blame on crappy Realtek NIC in the XenServer host (I can do ~980Mbps from my laptop to the iperf server) it doesn't explain why Windows 7 can't achieve good performance without manually tuning window size at the application level. So, how to tune Windows 7?

    Read the article

  • How to configure VirtualBox server for performance at home

    - by BluJai
    I currently have two physical Ubuntu Server 10.10 servers at home: one serves as our firewall/router/DHCP/VPN server and the other performs double-duty as a file server and a VirtualBox host for an Ubuntu Desktop 10.10 machine which I use from remote connections (via NoMachine) for many thin-client purposes which are irrelevant to my question. What I'd like to accomplish is to consolidate the two physical machines into one which is a dedicated VirtualBox host (most likely running Ubuntu Server 10.10). Note that I'd like to stick with VirtualBox (if possible) because I'm most comfortable with it and use it on a daily basis at both home and work. Specifically, I plan to have one VM set up as file server, another as the firewall/router/DHCP/VPN (or possibly split those a bit) and a third, which is the only current VM (already VirtualBox), which is the thin-client host. My question comes down to performance and/or recommendations about the file server VM. The file server hosts about 6 terabytes of data across 4 drives. What I'd like to do is use raw disk access from the VM directly to the existing disks. However, I'm curious what performance advantage/disadvantage that would have as compared to using shared folders from the VM host and basically just have the whole drive served as a shared folder to the VM which would then serve it to the other machines on the network. I don't know if virtual disks would even work in this scenario and I certainly wouldn't want a drive to be filled with just a single file which is 1.5 TB (disk image). To add understanding of context, but not to get additional advice, I want to virtualize these machines because I intend to regularly use the snapshot capabilities of VirtualBox for the system disks (which will be virtual drives) of the VMs and I have some physical space/power needs to address (as I mentioned, this is at home).

    Read the article

  • graphics performance better on battery?

    - by Scott Beeson
    Anyone have any idea why my laptop would perform (considerably) better while on battery than while plugged in? It's a Dell Latitude E6420 with Windows 8 Pro. I tried mirroring all the settings in the selected power plan from "On battery" to "Plugged In" and that didn't help. I then just restored the defaults for all power plans (balanced and high performance). I'm still seeing the same results. The best example where it is most noticeable (don't laugh) is Sim City Social in Chrome. I'm probably seeing a performance increase of 5x on battery versus plugged in. This is easily reproducible too. I'm very confused. Could it be caused by dust? The laptop isn't that old and there is no visible dust. I'm not going to take it apart to check the insides as it's a corporate laptop. Could it be overheating? Battery Sim City Social: 68 degrees max Civ V: 77 degrees max Charger Sim City Social: 68 Civ V: did not test See answer below... I'm retarded

    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

  • VMWare Workstation Linux Host performance tuning

    - by Hoghweed
    I need to improve my linux hosted vmware workstation for using multiple virtual machines at the same time. I feel very stupid I lost a great blog post link which I found last month (and I'm not able to find it again..) so I try to ask here if anyone can help me: This is my host (laptop): 16GB DDR3 Ram HDD Hybrid 750GB 7200 (8GB SSD Cache) Mint 15 x64 Kernel 3.9.7 swappiness set to 10 The above are the important things about the host. So, My need is the ability to run 2 or 3 VMs at the same time. The lack of performance is about the disk, The last time from that blog post I lost, I setup /tmp to be mounted ad a memory partition and in my previous installation that was good, now I'm not able to find a good solution to tweak the things. I think with 16GB o RAM there will be no problems to run multiple VMs, but whe they start to swap or use the /tmp things going bad (guest cursor going too fast after a freeze, guest freeze and so on) Anyone can help me to fit a good host tweak and configuration to get better performance? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Performance associated with storing millions of files on NTFS

    - by Tim Brigham
    Does anyone have a method / formula, etc that I could use - hopefully based on both current and projected numbers of files - to project the 'right' length of the split and the number of nested folders? Please note that although similar it isn't quite the same as Storing a million images in the filesystem. I'm looking for a way to help make the theories outlined more generic. Assumptions I have 'some' initial number of files. This number would be arbitrary but large. Say 500k to 10m+. I have considered the underlying physical hardware disk IO requirements that would be necessary to support such an endeavor. Put another way As time progresses this store will grow. I want to have the best balance of current performance and as my needs increase. Say I double or triple my storage. I need to be able to address both current needs and projected future growth. I need to both plan ahead and not sacrifice too much of current performance. What I've come up with I'm already thinking about using a hash split every so many characters to split things out across multiple directories and keeping the trees even, very similar as outlined in the comments in the question above. It also avoids duplicate files, which would be critical over time. I'm sure that the initial folder structure would be different based on what I've outlined, and depending on the initial scale. As far as I can figure there isn't a one size fits all solution here. It would be horrendously time intensive to work something out experimentally.

    Read the article

  • CloudFlare dashboards empty, or performance issues

    - by Katafalkas
    I wanted to test CloudFlare performance so I set my image gallery domain on it and started testing. I have added PageRules for caching. And chose the Security: Essentially Off. I checked NS check tools and they say that my domain name is propagated with CloudFlare. For testing purpose I created a link that loads 200 images from that server, and was using loads.in website to determine how much it is faster. After trying few regions, I noticed that there were no improvement in loading speed. So I looked up the dashboards, and it was empty. I am not sure if I am doing something wrong, or made some error in my setup, or it takes few days to start caching or working properly, but at the moment - after a day of testing - dashboards are empty. Also the NS check tools sais that all name servers are propagated to CloudFlare and working fine. So I assume I got a bad performance because it is simply not working. I sent a letter to CloudFlare support team, but did not get any straight answer. So essentially my question is: Anyone has any experience with CloudFlare ? How long does it take for it to start caching static content to CDN ? Or there is simply something I am doing wrong ?

    Read the article

  • Xubuntu vs Ubuntu 10.04 Performance

    - by wag2639
    I know it just came out today, but are there any statistics with memory requirements, system resources, power usage, and performance to decide which is better Xubuntu or Ubuntu (XFCE vs Gnome)? My main concern is running it as secondary OS on my Lenovo T400 laptop to just get online quickly and using SSH from a terminal to connect to remote web servers.

    Read the article

  • How do you fix the Performance Dashboard datetime overfow error

    - by Mike L
    I'm a programmer/DBA by accident and we're running SQL Server 2005 with Performance Dashboard for basic monitoring. The server has been up for a few weeks and now we can't drill into certain reports. Is there any way to reset these reports without a complete reboot? edit: I bet the error message would help. I get this when I drill into the CPU graph: Error: Difference of two datetime columns caused overflow at runtime.

    Read the article

  • Disk performance below expectations

    - by paulH
    this is a follow-up to a previous question that I asked (Two servers with inconsistent disk speed). I have a PowerEdge R510 server with a PERC H700 integrated RAID controller (call this Server B) that was built using eight disks with 3Gb/s bandwidth that I was comparing with an almost identical server (call this Server A) that was built using four disks with 6Gb/s bandwidth. Server A had much better I/O rates than Server B. Once I discovered the difference with the disks, I had Server A rebuilt with faster 6Gbps disks. Unfortunately this resulted in no increase in the performance of the disks. Expecting that there must be some other configuration difference between the servers, we took the 6Gbps disks out of Server A and put them in Server B. This also resulted in no increase in the performance of the disks. We now have two identical servers built, with the exception that one is built with six 6Gbps disks and the other with eight 3Gbps disks, and the I/O rates of the disks is pretty much identical. This suggests that there is some bottleneck other than the disks, but I cannot understand how Server B originally had better I/O that has subsequently been 'lost'. Comparative I/O information below, as measured by SQLIO. The same parameters were used for each test. It's not the actual numbers that are significant but rather the variations between systems. In each case D: is a 2 disk RAID 1 volume, and E: is a 4 disk RAID 10 volume (apart from the original Server A, where E: was a 2 disk RAID 0 volume). Server A (original setup with 6Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 63 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 170 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 68 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 320 MB/s Server B (original setup with 3Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 52 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 88 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 112 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 130 MB/s Server A (new setup with 3Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 55 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 85 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 67 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 180 MB/s Server B (new setup with 6Gpbs disks) D: Read (MB/s) 61 MB/s D: Write (MB/s) 95 MB/s E: Read (MB/s) 69 MB/s E: Write (MB/s) 180 MB/s Can anybody suggest any ideas what is going on here? The drives in use are as follows: Dell Seagate F617N ST3300657SS 300GB 15K RPM SAS Dell Hitachi HUS156030VLS600 300GB 3.5 inch 15000rpm 6GB SAS Hitachi Hus153030vls300 300GB Server SAS Dell ST3146855SS Seagate 3.5 inch 146GB 15K SAS

    Read the article

  • Performance issues concurrently running MySQL and MS SQL Sever

    - by pacifika
    We're considering installing MySQL on the same database server that has been running MS SQL Server. From my research there are no technical issues running both concurrently, but I am worried that the performance will be affected. Is by default SQL Server set up to use all available memory for example? What should I look out for? Thanks

    Read the article

  • optimizing operating systems to provide maximum informix performance.

    - by Frank Developer
    Are there any Informix-specific guides for optimizing any operating system where an ifx engine is running? For example, in Linux, strip-down to a bare minimum all unecessary binaries, daemons, utilities, tune kernel parameters, optimize raw and cooked devices (hdparm). Someday, maybe, informix can create its own proprietary PICK-like O/S. The general idea is for the OS where ifx sits on have the smallest footprint, lowest overhead impact on ifx and provide optimized ifx performance.

    Read the article

  • Which is faster? 4x10k SAS Drives in RAID 10 or 3x15k SAS Drives in RAID 5?

    - by Jenkz
    I am reviewing quote for a server upgrade. (RHEL). The server will have both Apache and MySQL on it, but the reason for upgrade is to increase DB performance. CPU has been upgraded massively, but I know that disk speed is also a factor. So RAID 10 is faster performance than RAID 5, but how much difference does the drive speed make? (The 15k discs in the RAID 5 config is at the top of my budget btw, hence not considdering 4x15k discs in RAID 10, which I assume would be the optimum.)

    Read the article

  • Linux's best filesystem to work with 10000's of files without overloading the system I/O

    - by mhambra
    Hi all. It is known that certain AMD64 Linuxes are subject of being unresponsive under heavy disk I/O (see Gentoo forums: AMD64 system slow/unresponsive during disk access (Part 2)), unfortunately have such one. I want to put /var/tmp/portage and /usr/portage trees to a separate partition, but what FS to choose for it? Requirements: * for journaling, performance is preffered over safe data read/write operations * optimized to read/write 10000 of small files Candidates: * ext2 without any journaling * BtrFS In Phoronix tests, BtrFS had demonstrated a good random access performance (fat better than XFS thereby it may be less CPU-aggressive). However, unpacking operation seems to be faster with XFS there, but it was tested that unpacking kernel tree to XFS makes my system to react slower for 51% disregard of any renice'd processes and/or schedulers. Why no ReiserFS? Google'd this (q: reiserfs ext2 cpu): 1 Apr 2006 ... Surprisingly, the ReiserFS and the XFS used significantly more CPU to remove file tree (86% and 65%) when other FS used about 15% (Ext3 and ... Is it same now?

    Read the article

  • Performance issues concurrently running MySQL and SQL Sever

    - by pacifika
    We're considering installing MySQL on the same database server that has been running SQL Server. From my research there are no technical issues running both concurrently, but I am worried that the performance will be affected. Is by default SQL Server set up to use all available memory for example? What should I look out for? Thanks

    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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >