Search Results

Search found 5602 results on 225 pages for 'tuning red gate'.

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 19/225 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • Find out which task is generating a lot of context switches on linux

    - by Gaks
    According to vmstat, my Linux server (2xCore2 Duo 2.5 GHz) is constantly doing around 20k context switches per second. # vmstat 3 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 2 0 7292 249472 82340 2291972 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 79 0 0 0 7292 251808 82344 2291968 0 0 0 184 24 20090 1 1 99 0 0 0 7292 251876 82344 2291968 0 0 0 83 17 20157 1 0 99 0 0 0 7292 251876 82344 2291968 0 0 0 73 12 20116 1 0 99 0 ... but uptime shows small load: load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.01 and top doesn't show any process with high %CPU usage. How do I find out what exactly is generating those context switches? Which process/thread? I tried to analyze pidstat output: # pidstat -w 10 1 12:39:13 PID cswch/s nvcswch/s Command 12:39:23 1 0.20 0.00 init 12:39:23 4 0.20 0.00 ksoftirqd/0 12:39:23 7 1.60 0.00 events/0 12:39:23 8 1.50 0.00 events/1 12:39:23 89 0.50 0.00 kblockd/0 12:39:23 90 0.30 0.00 kblockd/1 12:39:23 995 0.40 0.00 kirqd 12:39:23 997 0.60 0.00 kjournald 12:39:23 1146 0.20 0.00 svscan 12:39:23 2162 5.00 0.00 kjournald 12:39:23 2526 0.20 2.00 postgres 12:39:23 2530 1.00 0.30 postgres 12:39:23 2534 5.00 3.20 postgres 12:39:23 2536 1.40 1.70 postgres 12:39:23 12061 10.59 0.90 postgres 12:39:23 14442 1.50 2.20 postgres 12:39:23 15416 0.20 0.00 monitor 12:39:23 17289 0.10 0.00 syslogd 12:39:23 21776 0.40 0.30 postgres 12:39:23 23638 0.10 0.00 screen 12:39:23 25153 1.00 0.00 sshd 12:39:23 25185 86.61 0.00 daemon1 12:39:23 25190 12.19 35.86 postgres 12:39:23 25295 2.00 0.00 screen 12:39:23 25743 9.99 0.00 daemon2 12:39:23 25747 1.10 3.00 postgres 12:39:23 26968 5.09 0.80 postgres 12:39:23 26969 5.00 0.00 postgres 12:39:23 26970 1.10 0.20 postgres 12:39:23 26971 17.98 1.80 postgres 12:39:23 27607 0.90 0.40 postgres 12:39:23 29338 4.30 0.00 screen 12:39:23 31247 4.10 23.58 postgres 12:39:23 31249 82.92 34.77 postgres 12:39:23 31484 0.20 0.00 pdflush 12:39:23 32097 0.10 0.00 pidstat Looks like some postgresql tasks are doing 10 context swiches per second, but it doesn't all sum up to 20k anyway. Any idea how to dig a little deeper for an answer?

    Read the article

  • Linux RAID-0 performance doesn't scale up over 1 GB/s

    - by wazoox
    I have trouble getting the max throughput out of my setup. The hardware is as follow : dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2376 16 GB DDR2 ECC RAM dual Adaptec 52245 RAID controllers 48 1 TB SATA drives set up as 2 RAID-6 arrays (256KB stripe) + spares. Software : Plain vanilla 2.6.32.25 kernel, compiled for AMD-64, optimized for NUMA; Debian Lenny userland. benchmarks run : disktest, bonnie++, dd, etc. All give the same results. No discrepancy here. io scheduler used : noop. Yeah, no trick here. Up until now I basically assumed that striping (RAID 0) several physical devices should augment performance roughly linearly. However this is not the case here : each RAID array achieves about 780 MB/s write, sustained, and 1 GB/s read, sustained. writing to both RAID arrays simultaneously with two different processes gives 750 + 750 MB/s, and reading from both gives 1 + 1 GB/s. however when I stripe both arrays together, using either mdadm or lvm, the performance is about 850 MB/s writing and 1.4 GB/s reading. at least 30% less than expected! running two parallel writer or reader processes against the striped arrays doesn't enhance the figures, in fact it degrades performance even further. So what's happening here? Basically I ruled out bus or memory contention, because when I run dd on both drives simultaneously, aggregate write speed actually reach 1.5 GB/s and reading speed tops 2 GB/s. So it's not the PCIe bus. I suppose it's not the RAM. It's not the filesystem, because I get exactly the same numbers benchmarking against the raw device or using XFS. And I also get exactly the same performance using either LVM striping and md striping. What's wrong? What's preventing a process from going up to the max possible throughput? Is Linux striping defective? What other tests could I run?

    Read the article

  • Changing memory allocator to Jemalloc Centos 6

    - by Brian Lovett
    After reading this blog post about the impact of memory allocators like jemalloc on highly threaded applications, I wanted to test things on a larger scale on some of our cluster of servers. We run sphinx, and apache using threads, and on 24 core machines. Installing jemalloc was simple enough. We are running Centos 6, so yum install jemalloc jemalloc-devel did the trick. My question is, how do we change everything on the system over to using jemalloc instead of the default malloc built into Centos. Research pointed me at this as a potential option: LD_PRELOAD=$LD_PRELOAD:/usr/lib64/libjemalloc.so.1 Would this be sufficient to get everything using jemalloc?

    Read the article

  • AIX network parameters to close TCP sockets of unplugged devices

    - by ADD Geek
    Hi there We have an AIX box, running what we call in banking "ATM Switch" not the ATM networking switch, but the bank ATM driver. where we have some ATM machines connected to two server processes. The problem is, when we disconnect any of these machines, the netstat -na| grep <port number> command shows that the socket established for this disconnected device is still established, we have to manually send a command from the software to make the socket aware that it is not live anymore. Is there a parameter on tcp level to make this connection aware within a minute or two that this device is not connected anymore? we had the following parameters set with root privileges: no -o tcp_keepidle=1000 no -o tcp_keepcnt=2 no -o tcp_keepintvl=150 no -o tcp_finwait2=100 it was originally having the default values. but even after we changed these parameters and restarted the server processes, the problem was still there.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

    - by Blootac
    Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Nginx Slower than Apache??

    - by ichilton
    Hi, I've just setup 2x identical Rackspace Cloud instances and am doing some comparisons and benchmarks to compare Apache and Nginx. I'm testing with a 3.4k png file and initially 512MB server instances but have now moved to 1024MB server instances. I'm very surprised to see that whatever I try, Apache seems to consistently outperform Nginx....what am I doing wrong? Nginx: Server Software: nginx/0.8.54 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 2.320 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3612000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 431.01 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 232.014 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 2.320 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1520.31 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 11 15.7 3 120 Processing: 1 35 76.9 20 1674 Waiting: 1 31 73.0 19 1674 Total: 1 46 79.1 21 1693 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 21 66% 39 75% 40 80% 40 90% 98 95% 136 98% 269 99% 334 100% 1693 (longest request) And Apache: Server Software: Apache/2.2.16 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 1.346 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3647000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 742.90 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 134.608 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.346 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 2645.85 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 1 3.7 0 27 Processing: 0 3 6.2 1 29 Waiting: 0 2 5.0 1 29 Total: 1 4 7.0 1 29 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 1 66% 1 75% 1 80% 1 90% 17 95% 19 98% 26 99% 27 100% 29 (longest request) I'm currently using worker_processes 4; and worker_connections 1024; but i've tried and benchmarked different values and see the same behaviour on all - I just can't get it to perform as well as Apache and from what i've read previously, i'm shocked about this! Can anyone give any advice? Thanks, Ian

    Read the article

  • performance monitor in iis 7 to monitor which website is using most resources (asp.net)

    - by Karl Cassar
    I am using Windows Server 2008 R2 and IIS 7.5, and am hosting multiple websites on the same webserver. Is it possible to use Performance Monitor to know on average which website is using the most resources? I've added a user-defined Data Collector Set in Performance Monitor collecting data for 1 day. However, I could not find any details which hint which website is using the most resources. Which counters are crucial to monitor websites? The generated report tells me that the top process is w3wp##1 - how can I know which website it corresponds to? I've also tried to add counters for ASP.Net Applications for all object instances, however % Managed Processor Time (estimated) is 0 at all times.

    Read the article

  • apache and ajp performance

    - by user12145
    I have an apache sitting in front of two tomcat app servers(one on the same physical server, the other on a different one) that does time consuming work(0.5 sec to 10sec per request). The apache http server is getting killed by an average of 1 to 2 concurrent requests per second. both Server spec is about 2GB of RAM. Is there a way to optimize apache to handle the load? any advise is welcome. BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8009/whoisserver BalancerMember ajp://XXX.XX.XXX.XX:8009/whoisserver I keep getting the following in apache2.2 log: [Mon Dec 28 00:31:02 2009] [error] ajp_read_header: ajp_ilink_receive failed [Mon Dec 28 00:31:02 2009] [error] (120006)APR does not understand this error code: proxy: read response failed from 127.0.0.1:8009 (localhost)

    Read the article

  • How to avoid Memory "Hard Fault/sec"

    - by Flavio Oliveira
    i've a problem on my windows 2008 server x64, and i cannot understand how can i solve it. i'm looking to Resource Monitor and see about 100 to 200 hard faults/sec. and generally the machine is slow. As i've readed a bit it is caused by a "memory Page" that is no longer available on physical memory and causes a io operations (disk) and it is a problem. The current hardware is a intel core2duo E8400 (3.0GHz) with 6GB RAM on a Windows Server Web 64-bit. Actually the machine have about 2GB Ram used what having 4Gb available to use, Why is the machine requires that high level of Disk operations? what can i do to increase the performance? Im experiencing a memory issues? what should be my starting point?

    Read the article

  • performance wise htaccess

    - by purpler
    hese's the my htaccess template, i wonder if anything could be added to increase website performance.. # Defaults AddDefaultCharset UTF-8 DefaultLanguage en-US ServerSignature Off FileETag None Header unset ETag Options -MultiViews #Options All -Indexes # Force the latest IE version or ChromeFrame <IfModule mod_setenvif.c> <IfModule mod_headers.c> BrowserMatch MSIE ie Header set X-UA-Compatible "IE=Edge,chrome=1" env=ie </IfModule> </IfModule> # Proxy X-UA Setup <IfModule mod_headers.c> Header append Vary User-Agent </IfModule> #Rewrites Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / # Redirect to non-WWW RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.+)$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect to WWW RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com RewriteRule (.*) http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect index to root RewriteRule ^(.*)index\.(php|html)$ /$1 [R=301,L] # Caching ExpiresActive On ExpiresDefault A0 Header set Cache-Control "public" # 1 Year Long Cache <FilesMatch "\.(flv|fla|ico|pdf|avi|mov|ppt|doc|mp3|wmv|wav|png|jpg|jpeg|gif|swf|js|css|ttf|eot|woff|svg|svgz)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 </FilesMatch> # Proxy Caching <FilesMatch "\.(css|js|png)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 Header set Cache-Control "private" </FilesMatch> # Protect against DOS attacks by limiting file upload size LimitRequestBody 10240000 # Proper SVG serving AddType image/svg+xml svg svgz AddEncoding gzip svgz # GZip Compression <IfModule mod_deflate.c> <FilesMatch "\.(php|html|css|js|xml|txt|ttf|otf|eot|svg)$" > SetOutputFilter DEFLATE </FilesMatch> </IfModule> # Error page ErrorDocument 404 /404.html # Deny access to sensitive files <FilesMatch "\.(htaccess|ini|log|psd)$"> Order Allow,Deny Deny from all </FilesMatch>

    Read the article

  • Programs minimized for long time takes long time to "wake up"

    - by bart
    I'm working in Photoshop CS6 and multiple browsers a lot. I'm not using them all at once, so sometimes some applications are minimized to taskbar for hours or days. The problem is, when I try to maximize them from the taskbar - it sometimes takes longer than starting them! Especially Photoshop feels really weird for many seconds after finally showing up, it's slow, unresponsive and even sometimes totally freezes for minute or two. It's not a hardware problem as it's been like that since always on all on my PCs. Would I also notice it after upgrading my HDD to SDD and adding RAM (my main PC holds 4 GB currently)? Could guys with powerful pcs / macs tell me - does it also happen to you? I guess OSes somehow "focus" on active software and move all the resources away from the ones that run, but are not used. Is it possible to somehow set RAM / CPU / HDD priorities or something, for let's say, Photoshop, so it won't slow down after long period of inactivity?

    Read the article

  • Very long (>300s) request processing time on Apache Server serving static content from particular IP

    - by Ron Bieber
    We are running an Apache 2.2 server for a very large web site. Over the past few months we have been having some users reporting slow response times, while others (including our resources, both on the internal network and our home networks) do not see any degradation in performance. After a ton of investigation, we finally found a "Deny from none" statement in our configuration that was causing reverse DNS lookups (which were timing out) that solved the bulk of our issues, but we still have some customers that we are seeing in the Apache logs (using %D in the log format) with request processing times of 300s for images, css, javascript and other static content. We've checked all Deny / Allow statements for reoccurrence of "none", as well as all other things we know of that would cause reverse DNS lookups (such as using "REMOTE_HOST" in rewrite rules, using %a instead of %h in our log format configuration) as well as verified that HostnameLookups is set to "Off". As an aside, we've also validated that reverse DNS lookups for folks having this problem do not time out - so I'm fairly certain DNS is not an issue in this case. I've run out of ideas. Are there any Apache configuration scenarios that someone can point me to that I might be missing that would cause request times for static content to take so long only for certain users? Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why MySQL sat for 2 minutes doing nothing?

    - by Alex R
    This was a one-time thing, not reproducible... But I saved the show innodb status output. Can anybody tell what's going on here? The simple insert took almost 3 minutes to complete. | InnoDB | | ===================================== 110201 15:58:10 INNODB MONITOR OUTPUT ===================================== Per second averages calculated from the last 34 seconds ---------- SEMAPHORES ---------- OS WAIT ARRAY INFO: reservation count 11963, signal count 11766 --Thread 1824 has waited at .\btr\btr0cur.c line 443 for 118.00 seconds the sema phore: S-lock on RW-latch at 09D6453C created in file .\buf\buf0buf.c line 550 a writer (thread id 1824) has reserved it in mode wait exclusive number of readers 1, waiters flag 1 Last time read locked in file .\buf\buf0flu.c line 599 Last time write locked in file .\btr\btr0cur.c line 443 Mutex spin waits 0, rounds 527817, OS waits 7133 RW-shared spins 2532, OS waits 1226; RW-excl spins 1652, OS waits 1118 ------------ TRANSACTIONS ------------ Trx id counter 0 95830 Purge done for trx's n:o < 0 95814 undo n:o < 0 0 History list length 11 LIST OF TRANSACTIONS FOR EACH SESSION: ---TRANSACTION 0 0, not started, OS thread id 3704 MySQL thread id 551, query id 2702112 localhost 127.0.0.1 root show innodb status ---TRANSACTION 0 95829, not started, OS thread id 3132 MySQL thread id 534, query id 2702020 localhost 127.0.0.1 root ---TRANSACTION 0 95828, not started, OS thread id 3152 MySQL thread id 527, query id 2701973 localhost 127.0.0.1 root ---TRANSACTION 0 95827, ACTIVE 118 sec, OS thread id 1824 inserting, thread decl ared inside InnoDB 500 mysql tables in use 1, locked 1 1 lock struct(s), heap size 320, 0 row lock(s) MySQL thread id 526, query id 2701972 localhost 127.0.0.1 root update INSERT INTO log_searchcriteria (userid,search_criteria,date,search_type) VALUES ( NAME_CONST('userid',NULL), NAME_CONST('search_criteria',_latin1' SELECT SQL_C ALC_FOUND_ROWS idx_search.CTCX_LATITUDE, idx_search.CTCX_LONGITUDE, idx_search.b uilding_id, idx_search.LN_LIST_NUMBER, idx_search.LP_LIST_PRICE, idx_search.HSN_ ADRESS_HOUSE_NUMBER, idx_search.STR_ADDRESS_STREET, idx_search.CP_ADDRESS_COMPAS S_POINT, idx_search.UN_UNIT, idx_search.CIT_CITY, idx_search.ZP_ZIP_CODE, idx_se arch.AR_AREA_NAME, idx_search.BR_BEDROOMS, idx_search.BTH_BATHS, idx_search.ST_S TATUS, idx_search.CTCX_STYLE_TYPE, idx_s -------- FILE I/O -------- I/O thread 0 state: wait Windows aio (insert buffer thread) I/O thread 1 state: wait Windows aio (log thread) I/O thread 2 state: wait Windows aio (read thread) I/O thread 3 state: wait Windows aio (write thread) Pending normal aio reads: 0, aio writes: 1, ibuf aio reads: 0, log i/o's: 0, sync i/o's: 0 Pending flushes (fsync) log: 0; buffer pool: 0 151006 OS file reads, 120758 OS file writes, 6844 OS fsyncs 0.00 reads/s, 0 avg bytes/read, 0.00 writes/s, 0.00 fsyncs/s ------------------------------------- INSERT BUFFER AND ADAPTIVE HASH INDEX ------------------------------------- Ibuf: size 1, free list len 5, seg size 7, 24664 inserts, 24664 merged recs, 4612 merges Hash table size 553253, node heap has 629 buffer(s) 0.00 hash searches/s, 0.00 non-hash searches/s --- LOG --- Log sequence number 5 2318193115 Log flushed up to 5 2318193115 Last checkpoint at 5 2318129891 0 pending log writes, 0 pending chkp writes 3036 log i/o's done, 0.00 log i/o's/second ---------------------- BUFFER POOL AND MEMORY ---------------------- Total memory allocated 213459462; in additional pool allocated 1720192 Dictionary memory allocated 240416 Buffer pool size 8192 Free buffers 0 Database pages 7563 Modified db pages 18 Pending reads 0 Pending writes: LRU 0, flush list 18, single page 0 Pages read 150973, created 28788, written 115137 0.00 reads/s, 0.00 creates/s, 0.00 writes/s No buffer pool page gets since the last printout -------------- ROW OPERATIONS -------------- 1 queries inside InnoDB, 0 queries in queue 1 read views open inside InnoDB Main thread id 2992, state: flushing buffer pool pages Number of rows inserted 794294, updated 89203, deleted 13698, read 1453084305 0.00 inserts/s, 0.00 updates/s, 0.00 deletes/s, 0.00 reads/s ---------------------------- END OF INNODB MONITOR OUTPUT ============================ Thanks

    Read the article

  • preformance wise htaccess

    - by purpler
    hese's the my htaccess template, i wonder if anything could be added to increase website performance.. # Defaults AddDefaultCharset UTF-8 DefaultLanguage en-US ServerSignature Off FileETag None Header unset ETag Options -MultiViews #Options All -Indexes # Force the latest IE version or ChromeFrame <IfModule mod_setenvif.c> <IfModule mod_headers.c> BrowserMatch MSIE ie Header set X-UA-Compatible "IE=Edge,chrome=1" env=ie </IfModule> </IfModule> # Proxy X-UA Setup <IfModule mod_headers.c> Header append Vary User-Agent </IfModule> #Rewrites Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / # Redirect to non-WWW RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.+)$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect to WWW RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com RewriteRule (.*) http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect index to root RewriteRule ^(.*)index\.(php|html)$ /$1 [R=301,L] # Caching ExpiresActive On ExpiresDefault A0 Header set Cache-Control "public" # 1 Year Long Cache <FilesMatch "\.(flv|fla|ico|pdf|avi|mov|ppt|doc|mp3|wmv|wav|png|jpg|jpeg|gif|swf|js|css|ttf|eot|woff|svg|svgz)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 </FilesMatch> # Proxy Caching <FilesMatch "\.(css|js|png)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 Header set Cache-Control "private" </FilesMatch> # Protect against DOS attacks by limiting file upload size LimitRequestBody 10240000 # Proper SVG serving AddType image/svg+xml svg svgz AddEncoding gzip svgz # GZip Compression <IfModule mod_deflate.c> <FilesMatch "\.(php|html|css|js|xml|txt|ttf|otf|eot|svg)$" > SetOutputFilter DEFLATE </FilesMatch> </IfModule> # Error page ErrorDocument 404 /404.html # Deny access to sensitive files <FilesMatch "\.(htaccess|ini|log|psd)$"> Order Allow,Deny Deny from all </FilesMatch>

    Read the article

  • IIS 7.0 - responses throttled to 500ms blocks?

    - by Julia Hayward
    Scenario: ASP.NET MVC wep app sitting on my local machine (Vista Ultimate, IIS 7.0), nothing going on except one user (me) logged in and viewing an index page. The page includes 9 dynamic images drawn from the underlying DB and returned from a controller action. I have got the actual processing time for these images down to 15ms each. Turn on Firebug and watch the page load. What I see is 9 requests for images firing off together – no surprise – but four come back to me almost immediately; two more after 0.5s; another after 1s; then at 1.5s and 2s. Logging on the server side suggests the individual responses are still only taking 15ms. So it appears IIS is queueing things up into 500ms chunks. (Repeating the experiment produces different results, but each time the images return in similar blocks – you might get three in the first group, then three at 0.5s, two at 1s etc, for example – and it’s always at 500ms intervals, not anything else.) It’s also repeatable cross-browser, and it’s not repeatable with other forms of content. I haven't found any particular mention of this problem out there, so I'm sort of assuming it's not an IIS bug, so is it: i) IIS on desktop OSs deliberately does it, to make you use server OSs in production? ii) There is some magical setting that has eluded me for as long as I’ve known IIS? iii) Something peculiar to MVC or SQL Server 2008? or something else?

    Read the article

  • SQL server peformance, virtual memory usage

    - by user45641
    Hello, I have a very large DB used mostly for analytics. The performance overall is very sluggish. I just noticed that when running the query below, the amount of virtual memory used greatly exceeds the amount of physical memory available. Currently, physical memory is 10GB (10238 MB) whereas the virtual memory returns significantly more - 8388607 MB. That seems really wrong, but I'm at a bit of a loss on how to proceed. USE [master]; GO select cpu_count , hyperthread_ratio , physical_memory_in_bytes / 1048576 as 'mem_MB' , virtual_memory_in_bytes / 1048576 as 'virtual_mem_MB' , max_workers_count , os_error_mode , os_priority_class from sys.dm_os_sys_info

    Read the article

  • Simple queries occasionally running very slowly

    - by Johan
    I have some very simple queries that occasionally run very slowly. The table viewed_sites has about 10 - 20 rows. Running EXPLAIN ANALYZE always gives a runtime of less than 3 milliseconds. When the query is run automatically (every 10 seconds) it occasionally takes over a second to run. The query: INSERT INTO ga.viewed_sites (site_id) VALUES ('gop2') The table: CREATE TABLE viewed_sites ( site_id character varying(4) NOT NULL, last_viewed timestamp with time zone DEFAULT now() NOT NULL ); The (occasional) log result: 2010-05-24 15:47:55 UTC LOG: duration: 1044.632 ms statement: INSERT INTO ga.viewed_sites (site_id) VALUES ('gop2') It's a horribly vague question, but what could be causing this? I suppose it comes down to CPU, RAM, HDD or some combination of the above. Postgresql 8.3, Ubuntu 8.04 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz 2 GiB RAM

    Read the article

  • How to check for bottlenecks in Windows Server 2008 R2

    - by Phil Koury
    I recently switched out a 10 year old server for a brand new server in a small office and upgraded from Windows Server 2000 to Windows Server 2008 R2. After the switch was complete and some configurations were changed around we are running into what appear to be some bottlenecks in the network speed. Accessing programs on the server is slower (resulting in long loading times, slower report generation, etc.) than it was on the old server hardware. I am wondering what options or tools I have, if there are any at all, to find out exactly where these hang ups might be coming from.

    Read the article

  • Exchange 2010 SP2 OWA performance

    - by Frederik Nielsen
    How do I increase performance in OWA 2010 SP2? I am running CAS on a seperate installation, which has 8GB RAM and 4 CPU cores - running virtualized in a vmware environment. However, the load times are pretty bad, so is there any way to improve those? I am thinking of installing a linux cache-stuff-server in front of the OWA, but will that work? And how should it be done? Allright, I "fixed" it - was just something temporary issue. Thanks for your replies

    Read the article

  • Webserver: Performance impact when storing session files on /dev/shm

    - by GetFree
    I have a website runing on a typical setup: Linux, Apache, PHP, MySQL. However, what's not typical about it, is that it's getting tons of traffic (400,000+ visits a day) and so, efficiency is becoming more and more important to me. I'm constantly looking for things I could optimize and, right now, my attention is focused on PHP's session files. There's a hell lot of session files constantly being read and created on the /tmp directory. So my question is: Is it a good idea to store the session files in /dev/shm (tmpfs) in order to speed things up a little bit??

    Read the article

  • How to speed up apache

    - by Zen_silence
    We have a server with 8Cores, 16GB of RAM and RAID 0 SAS 10K drives. Our goal is to use this to serve a fairly simple php application quickly. We have tested all other components and we think we have narrowed it down to apache is our bottleneck. I am no apache guru I have done some research and tested a couple things but when i test with JMeter launching 100 concurrent connections against the server the first 10 - 20 come back quickly 30 - 100ms but the rest take between 1000ms to 3000ms. Anyone have any ideas on what to change in our apache config to make this faster right now its a vanilla install of apache.

    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 | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >