Search Results

Search found 22065 results on 883 pages for 'performance testing'.

Page 192/883 | < Previous Page | 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199  | Next Page >

  • Why Can't I Pre-Zip Server Files?

    - by ThinkBohemian
    It's just good common sense to have your server gzip your files before they send them to users (I use Nginx) Is there anyway to save the server some overhead and pre-zip those files for the server, and if not why? For instance rather than giving the server an myscript.js and having the server zip the file and send it to the user, is there a way to create myscript.js.zip so the server doesn't have to?

    Read the article

  • Multiple servers vs 1 big server performace

    - by pistacchio
    Hi to all! My team of developers has suggested a server structure for an upcoming project we are developing. Our structure is "logical", meaning that the various logical components of the application (it is a distributed one) relies on different servers. Some components are more critical than others and will be subjected to more load. Our proposal was to have 1 server per component but the hardware guys suggested to replace the various machines with a single, bigger one with virtual servers. They're gonna use Blade Servers. Now, I'm not an expert at all, but my question to the guys was: so if we need, for example, 3 2GHz CPU / 2GB RAM machines and you give me 1 machine with 3 2GHz CPUs and 6 GB of RAM it is the same? They told me it is. Is this accurate? What are the advantages or disadvantages of both the solutions? What are the generally accepted best practices? Could you point out some URL reference dealing with the problem? Thank you in advance! EDIT: Some more info. The (internet / intranet) application is already layered. We have some servers on the DMZ that will expose pages to the internet and the databases are on their own machines. What we want to split (and they want to join) are some webservers that mainly expose webservices. One is a DAL that communicates with the database layer, one is our Single Sign On / User Profile application that gets called once per page and one is a clone of what seen on the Internet to be used on our lan.

    Read the article

  • Chipset GPU causes a massive slowdown

    - by zyboxenterprises
    My AMD Radeon HD 7700 recently broke (fan stopped working and GPU overheated), and now I'm running on internal chipset graphics, and it causes a massive slowdown of the whole PC. I've changed the graphics memory from 32MB (minimum) to 256MB (highest), and it hasn't made any difference whatsoever. I'm using Windows Aero, and disabling it should have made a small difference, but it didn't; the whole PC is still slow. I know that it's not the computer build, because I built it myself, and it was a lot faster when it had the AMD Radeon HD 7700 in it, which is the reason why I believe it's the internal chipset graphics that are causing the problem. Is this behavior normal? I don't have the cash right now to go out and buy a new dedicated GPU. I'm using an ASRock N68C-GS FX motherboard with an AMD FX 4100 (overclocked to 4.3GHZ), with 4GB RAM. The overclock was an attempt to resolve this issue, and it isn't related to this issue that the integrated graphics is causing a slowdown.

    Read the article

  • Reporting memory usage per process/program

    - by Nick Retallack
    How can I get the current memory usage (preferably in bytes so they can be added up accurately) for all running processes individually? Can I roll up the summaries for child processes into the process that spawned them? (e.g all apache threads together). Sometimes, my server runs out of memory and becomes unresponsive. I want to discover what is using up all the memory. Unfortunately, it's likely to not be a single process. Some programs spawn hundreds of processes, each using very little memory, but it adds up. On a side note, is it normal for apache to spawn 200+ processes?

    Read the article

  • Flash stream makes my internet slow and cpu rush

    - by user1225840
    When I try to watch a live Flash stream, my CPU usage goes up to 75% and my Internet speed goes down. If I run a test before the video-stream, my speed is ~40/10Mbps and during the stream it drops to 0.1-0.5Mbps. The stream is laggy and I can only watch one to two seconds at a time, start/stop/start/stop. I have cleared my history, cache, cookies, temp files, and so on. I have searched for malware and took care of that. I have updated my drivers, reinstalled Flash and everything else I can think of, but it remains slow. I had this problem before and it just started working normally from one day to another. Could it be a hardware problem?

    Read the article

  • Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 versus AMD Athlon II X2 3GHZ

    - by Billy ONeal
    Hello :) I have an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHZ) in my current desktop, and I have a newer machine with an AMD Athlon II X2 3.0GHZ. I'm wondering how the systems will perform in comparison to one another. I'd like to use the AMD because it's 45nm and uses less power, but I don't want to do so at a loss in perforamnce. Which should perform better? Billy3

    Read the article

  • What is the computer "doing" when it is running slow and task manager is not showing any CPU activity?

    - by Joakim Tall
    Typical example is when shutting down a memoryintensive application. It can take quite a while before the computer gets back up to speed. Is there some inherent cost in releasing memory? Or is it throttled by some kind of harddrive activity, and if so is there any good way to track that? I usually bring up task manager when a computer is running slow, and usually sorting by cpu activity can show what process is causing the problem, but sometimes there is no activity showing. And yes I "show processes from all users", I have been wondering this since the days win2k :)

    Read the article

  • linux: accessing thousands of files in hash of directories

    - by 130490868091234
    I would like to know what is the most efficient way of concurrently accessing thousands of files of a similar size in a modern Linux cluster of computers. I am carrying an indexing operation in each of these files, so the 4 index files, about 5-10x smaller than the data file, are produced next to the file to index. Right now I am using a hierarchy of directories from ./00/00/00 to ./99/99/99 and I place 1 file at the end of each directory, like ./00/00/00/file000000.ext to ./00/00/00/file999999.ext. It seems to work better than having thousands of files in the same directory but I would like to know if there is a better way of laying out the files to improve access.

    Read the article

  • What's throttling the database?

    - by Troels Arvin
    Hardware: Intel x86_64 with 192GB of RAM. OS: CentOS 5.4 x86_64. DBMS: DB2 v. 9.7.1 64 bit. During certain special workloads (e.g. parallel REORGs/RUNSTATs), I've seen the server transporting 450MB/s with 25000IO/s (yes, there is probably some storage system caching happening here) while all CPU cores were happily working in an even mix of usermode/wait. And disk benchmark tools can also bring some very satisfying bandwith and IO/s numbers to the table. On the other hand, we also have another scenario: A single rather complex query with at least one large table scan. db2's "list applications" reports that the query is Executing (not locked). IO: At most 10MB/s, 500 IO/s; CPU: two cores in 99.9% wait state, all other cores 100% idle. The tables which the query reads from have been altered to have LOCKSIZE=TABLE, so I would think that lock list work is zero. What's going on in such a situation? What tools/snapshots/... can I use to gain better insight in such a case?

    Read the article

  • Laptop is super slow on network

    - by Gary
    So on our network we have a bunch of wireless macs and window Operating laptops, we have a network setup with 802.11g,b,n. All the laptops seem fine except one which is only getting speeds of 54Mb. I have changed the encryption from AES to TKIP and reset the connection, i have updated the drivers, tried plugging it into the LAN and still same slow speed. Apparently the laptop with the slow speed is fine on other networks. I don't know what to do, can anyone help me?

    Read the article

  • Why such a dramatic difference in wireless router max. simultaneous connections?

    - by Jez
    Recently, I've needed to look into buying a wireless router for a mission-critical system at work that will need to support quite a few simultaneous connections (potentially a few hundred laptops). One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a dramatic difference between the max. simultaneous connections different routers can support; see this page for example - anything from 32 to 35,000! Why is there this degree of difference? You'd have thought that if we know how to make routers that can handle thousands of connections, we wouldn't be making stuff that's limited to a pathetic 32 anymore. Is it a firmware thing? A hardware thing? Are low-end manufacturers purposely putting low arbitrary connection limits in so people can be "encouraged" to pay more for high-end routers?

    Read the article

  • Monitoring User Login time

    - by beakersoft
    Hi, i have recently been given the task of trying to work out why the login time (not machine boot time) for some of our users seems slow. The vast majority of clients (95%) are running on XP sp3, Windows 2003 domain controlers. Most users have the same model of machine. I would like to be able to see how long each of the polices are taking to load (if possable split user and computer) and any other info that might help (services starting etc) I changed the userenvdebuglevel reg option to generate the userenv.log file but it did'nt contain very much info Thanks Luke

    Read the article

  • sys.dm_exec_query_stats interaction with recompilation

    - by Sam Saffron
    We use sys.dm_exec_query_stats to track down slow queries and queries that are IO offenders. This works great, we get a lot of very insightful stats. It is clear this is not as accurate as running a profiler trace, as you have no idea when SQL Server will decide to chuck out a an execution plan. We have quite a few queries where the wrong execution plan is cached. For example queries like the following: SELECT TOP 30 a.Id FROM Posts a JOIN Posts q ON q.Id = a.ParentId JOIN PostTags pt ON q.Id = pt.PostId WHERE a.PostTypeId = 2 AND a.DeletionDate IS NULL AND a.CommunityOwnedDate IS NULL AND a.CreationDate @date AND LEN(a.Body) 300 AND pt.Tag = @tag AND a.Score 0 ORDER BY a.Score DESC The problem is that the ideal plan really depends on the date selected (screenshot of ideal plan): However if the wrong plan is cached, it totally chokes when the date range is big: (notice the big fat lines) To overcome this we were recommended to use either OPTION (OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN) or OPTION (RECOMPILE) OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN results in a slightly better plan, which is far from optimal. Executions are tracked in sys.dm_exec_query_stats. RECOMPILE results in the best plan being chosen, however no execution counts and stats are tracked in sys.dm_exec_query_stats. Is there another DMV we could use to track stats on queries with OPTION (RECOMPILE)? Is this behavior by-design? Is there another way we can for recompilation while keeping stats tracked in sys.dm_exec_query_stats? Note: the framework will always execute parameterized queries using sp_executesql

    Read the article

  • sysbench memory test on ec2 small instance

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

    Read the article

  • Linux Read-Ahead Downsides

    - by JPerkSter
    Hi Everyone, Hope all is well. I have a question regarding read-ahead caching. Are there any downsides to raising the size of the read-ahead cache? On our farm, we're currently running at 256, and upon raising that higher, we are seeing significant throughput gains.   [root@server~]# hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 7352 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3677.62 MB/sec 3 Timing buffered disk reads: 244 MB in 3.10 seconds = 78.68 MB/sec [root@server ~]# blockdev --setra 10240 /dev/sda [root@server ~]# hdparm -tT /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 11452 MB in 2.00 seconds = 5728.52 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 422 MB in 3.17 seconds = 133.04 MB/sec We are running on 2.6. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Optimal disk partitions for database setup (15 Drives)

    - by Jason
    We are setting up a new database system and have 15 drives to play with (+2 on-board for the OS). With a total of 15 drives would it be better to setup all 14 as one RAID-10 block (+1 hot spare) OR split into two RAID-10 sets one for Data (8 disks) and one for logs/backups (6 disks). My question boils down to the following: is there a specific point where having more drives in a RAID-10 setup will out preform having the drives broken into smaller RAID-10 sets.

    Read the article

  • What is fastest way to backup a disk image over LAN?

    - by David Balažic
    Sometimes I boot sysrescd or a similar live linux on a PC to backup the hardrive over local network to my server. I noticed many times, that the transfer speed is not optimal (slower than HDD and network speed). Any rules of thumb what to do and what to avoid? What I typically do is something like: dd bs=16M if=/dev/sda | nc ... # on client nc ... | dd bs=16M of=/destination/disk/backup1 # on server I also "throw" in lzop (other are way too slow) and sometimes on the fly md5sum calculation (both of uncompressed and compress source). I try to add (m)buffer (or other alternatives) to improve throughput (and get a progress indicator). I noticed that even with enough free CPU, adding commands to the pipeline slows things down. Typically the destination is on a NTFS volume (accessed via ntfs-3g, with the _big_writes_ option).

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Full Text Search resource consumption

    - by Sam Saffron
    When SQL Server builds a fulltext index computer resources are consumed (IO/Memory/CPU) Similarly when you perform full text searches, resources are consumed. How can I get a gauge over a 24 hour period of the exact amount of CPU and IO(reads/writes) that fulltext is responsible for, in relation to global SQL Server resource usage. Are there any perfmon counters, DMVs or profiler traces I can use to help answer this question?

    Read the article

  • Windows XP: Slow start menu 'All Programs' response

    - by user17381
    When I click start, and then 'All Programs' (or select a sub menu of all programs) I get a grey menu which does not respond for about 5 seconds - after this it is ok. Any idea what is causing the menu to behave sluggishly? What can be done to fix this? Thanks Info Requested System Specs : Core2 T5500 @1.66GHz, 2GB Ram Windows version: XP Professional SP2 Happens Every time I click the menu (not just first time), has gradually been getting worse. Nothing too unusual at startup: ComodoFirewall, AVG AV, Truecrypt (only for small volume). AV Software: AVG.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • How to calculate required switch speed based on network usage?

    - by tobefound
    I have a 48 port HP Procurve Switch 2610 (J9088A) that can handle 13.0 million PPS (packets per second) and features wire speed switching capacity at 17.6Gbps. First off, what does that REALLY mean? Where do I start when trying to figure out if my office (with 70 employees) will be well setup with this switch? How to calculate through-put based on a user average load of X MB per day? 90% of the folks will only be sending email, access random websites, etc... the other 10% will be conducting heavier tasks like moving image files (10 MB) across network shares, constant external FTP streams through the switch to a server etc... Is this switch good enough?

    Read the article

  • CPU and HD degradation on sourced based Linux distribution

    - by danilo2
    I was wondering for a long time if source based Linux distributions, like Gentoo or Funtoo are "destroying" your system faster than binary ones (like Fedora or Debian). I'm talking about CPU and hard drive degradation. Of course, when you're updating your system, it has to compile everything from source, so it takes longer and your CPU is used at hard conditions (it is warmer and more loaded). Such systems compile hundreds of packages weekly, so does it really matter? Does such a system degrade faster than binary based ones?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199  | Next Page >