Search Results

Search found 23103 results on 925 pages for 'performance issues and ha'.

Page 250/925 | < Previous Page | 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257  | Next Page >

• Why is the server performance so poor? What can be done to improve the speed of the server?

  - by fslsyed

  Very slow processing using Windows Server2008 R2 Standard with Service Pack One. Situation: Read a text file using the text data to populate a series of MS Sql tables. The converted data is used to generate monthly PDF invoice files; the PDF files are saved directly to the hard drive. The application is multi-threading with one thread used for the text conversion and three threads for PDF invoice generation. The text conversion is occurring concurrently with the invoice generation. Application Software: C# using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate. Crystal Report Writer 2011 with runtime 13_0_3 64 bit version. Targeted platform is x64; also tested as x86, and Any CPU with similar results. Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0. Microsoft Sql 2008 Issue: The software is running very slowly. The conversion of the text file is approximately six hundred fifty records per second and generation of the PDF files is approximately twelve invoices per minute. The text file to be converted is six hundred Meg with seven thousand invoices to be generated. The software was installed on three different machines from the same distribution files. The same text file was converted on each machine. The user executing the application was an administrator on each machine. The only variances were the machine and operating system. The configurations are as follows: Server: Operating System: Windows Server2008 R2 Standard 64-bit (6.1, Build7601) SP1 Service Pack: System Manufacturer: IBM System Model: System x3550 M3-[7944AC1]- BIOS: Default System BIOS Processor: Intel® Xeon® CPU E5620@ 2.4GHz (16 CPUs) Memory: 16384MB Notebook: Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium Standard 64-bit (6.1, Build7601) System Manufacturer: Hewlett-Packard System Model: HP Pavilion dv7 Notebook PC BIOS: Default System BIOS Processor: AMD Phenom II N640 Dual-Core Processor 2.9GHz (2 CPUs) Memory: 6144MB Desktop: Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build7601) SP1 System Manufacturer: Dell Inc. System Model: OptiPlex 960 BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A11 Processor: Intel Core™2 Quad CPU Q9650 @3.00GHZ (4 CPUs) Memory: 16384MB Processing results per machine: The applications were executed seven times with the averages being displayed below. Machine Text Records Invoices Generated Converted Per Minute Per Minute Server (1) 650 12 Notebook 980 17 Desktop 2,100 45 (1) The server is dedicated to execution of this application; no additional applications are being executed. Question: Why is the server performance so poor? What can be done to improve the speed of the server?

  Read the article

• JDK bug migration milestone: JIRA now the system of record

  - by darcy

  I'm pleased to announce the OpenJDK bug database migration project has reached a significant milestone: the JDK has switched from the legacy Sun "bugtraq" system to a new internal JIRA instance as the system of record for our bug tracking. This completes the initial phase of the previously described plan of getting OpenJDK onto an externally visible and writable bug tracker. The identities contained in the current system include recognized OpenJDK contributors. The bug migration effort to date has been sizable in multiple dimensions. There are around 140,000 distinct issues imported into the JDK project of the JIRA instance, nearly 165,000 if backport issues to track multiple-release information are included. Separately, the Code Tools OpenJDK project has its own JIRA project populated with several thousands existing bugs. Once the OpenJDK JIRA instance is externalized, approved OpenJDK projects will be able to request the creation of a JIRA project for issue tracking. There are many differences in the schema used to model bugs between the legacy bug system and the schema for the new JIRA projects. We've favored simplifications to the existing system where possible and, after much discussion, we've settled on five main states for the OpenJDK JIRA projects: New Open In progress Resolved Closed The Open and In-progress states can have a substate Understanding field set to track whether the issues has its "Cause Known" or "Fix understood". In the closed state, a Verification field can indicate whether a fix has been verified, unverified, or if the fix has failed. At the moment, there will be very little externally visible difference between JIRA for OpenJDK and the legacy system it replaces. One difference is that bug numbers for newly filed issues in the JIRA JDK project will be 8000000 and above. If you are working with JDK Hg repositories, update any local copies of jcheck to the latest version which recognizes this expanded bug range. (The bug numbers of existing issues have been preserved on the import into JIRA). Relatively soon, we plan for the pages published on bugs.sun.com to be generated from information in JIRA rather than in the legacy system. When this occurs, there will be some differences in the page display and the terminology used will be revised to reflect JIRA usage, such as referring to the "component/subcomponent" of an issue rather than its "category". The exact timing of this transition will be announced when it is known. We don't currently have a firm timeline for externalization of the JIRA system. Updates will be provided as they become available. However, that is unlikely to happen before JavaOne next week!

  Read the article

• Enterprise Manager 12c: New DSS Demos Available

  - by Javier Puerta

  Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c Application Replay Demo Now Available! User Experience Monitoring with Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c and Real User Experience Insight 12R1 Now Available! Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c: Database Management Packs demo upgrade     Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c Application Replay Demo Now Available! We are pleased to announce the availability of the Oracle Application Replay demo that showcases some of the key capabilities of performing realistic, production scale testing of your web and packaged Oracle applications. This demo specifically focuses on capturing production web traffic from an E-Business Suite application and replaying the captured workload on a test E-Business Suite application to assess the impact of an application infrastructure change on the workload. The target audiences are application developers, quality assurance teams, IT managers and production control staff that deal in day-to-day change management activities and trouble shooting of production environments. Demo Highlights: Enterprise Manager 12c workflows for capturing application workload Seamless integration of Application Replay with Real User Experience Insight for application workload capture Enterprise Manager 12c centralized workflows for replaying captured application workloads in a test environment Demonstrates how to minimize risk when deploying a complex EBusiness Suite application infrastructure change. Rich reporting capability for performance analysis and problem detection User Experience Monitoring with Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c and Real User Experience Insight 12R1 Now Available! We are pleased to announce the availability of the Oracle Real User Experience Insight demo that showcases some of the key capabilities of user experience monitoring. This demo specifically focuses on business reporting, integrated performance diagnostics, tracking of customer journey’s through RUEI’s userflow tracking capabilities and it’s Key Performance Indicators tracking and configuration. Demo Highlights: Application-centric dashboard Integration with Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c – JVMD, ADP and BTM Session diagnostics and user session replay Monitoring through “Key Performance Indicators” (KPI) --- create alerts/incidents FUSION Application centric dashboards & integrated BI Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c: Database Management Packs demo upgrade DSS is pleased to announce an upgrade to the Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c: Database Management Packs demo. While retaining the content from the initial release of the demo—Diagnostic and Tuning Packs, Test Data Management and Data Masking, and Real Application Testing—the demo now includes a new Data Masking for Real Application Testing scenario. Demo Features: Diagnostic and Tuning Packs SQL Performance Analyzer Database Replay Data Masking Masking Real Application Testing workloads Testing pending Optimizer statistics Test Data Management

  Read the article

• Software Tuned to Humanity

  - by Phil Factor

  I learned a great deal from a cynical old programmer who once told me that the ideal length of time for a compiler to do its work was the same time it took to roll a cigarette. For development work, this is oh so true. After intently looking at the editing window for an hour or so, it was a relief to look up, stretch, focus the eyes on something else, and roll the possibly-metaphorical cigarette. This was software tuned to humanity. Likewise, a user’s perception of the “ideal” time that an application will take to move from frame to frame, to retrieve information, or to process their input has remained remarkably static for about thirty years, at around 200 ms. Anything else appears, and always has, to be either fast or slow. This could explain why commercial applications, unlike games, simulations and communications, aren’t noticeably faster now than they were when I started programming in the Seventies. Sure, they do a great deal more, but the SLAs that I negotiated in the 1980s for application performance are very similar to what they are nowadays. To prove to myself that this wasn’t just some rose-tinted misperception on my part, I cranked up a Z80-based Jonos CP/M machine (1985) in the roof-space. Within 20 seconds from cold, it had loaded Wordstar and I was ready to write. OK, I got it wrong: some things were faster 30 years ago. Sure, I’d now have had all sorts of animations, wizzy graphics, and other comforting features, but it seems a pity that we have used all that extra CPU and memory to increase the scope of what we develop, and the graphical prettiness, but not to speed the processes needed to complete a business procedure. Never mind the weight, the response time’s great! To achieve 200 ms response times on a Z80, or similar, performance considerations influenced everything one did as a developer. If it meant writing an entire application in assembly code, applying every smart algorithm, and shortcut imaginable to get the application to perform to spec, then so be it. As a result, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool performance freak and find it difficult to change my habits. Conversely, many developers now seem to feel quite differently. While all will acknowledge that performance is important, it’s no longer the virtue is once was, and other factors such as user-experience now take precedence. Am I wrong? If not, then perhaps we need a new school of development technique to rival Agile, dedicated once again to producing applications that smoke the rear wheels rather than pootle elegantly to the shops; that forgo skeuomorphism, cute animation, or architectural elegance in favor of the smell of hot rubber. I struggle to name an application I use that is truly notable for its blistering performance, and would dearly love one to do my everyday work – just as long as it doesn’t go faster than my brain.

  Read the article

• lwjgl custom icon

  - by melchor629

  I have a little problem with the icon in lwjgl, it doesn't work. I google about it, but i haven't found anything that works for me yet. This is my code for now: PNGDecoder imageDecoder = new PNGDecoder(new FileInputStream("res/images/Icon.png")); ByteBuffer imageData = BufferUtils.createByteBuffer(4 * imageDecoder.getWidth() * imageDecoder.getHeight()); imageDecoder.decode(imageData, imageDecoder.getWidth() * 4, PNGDecoder.Format.RGBA); imageData.flip(); System.err.println(Display.setIcon(new ByteBuffer[]{imageData}) == 0 ? "No se ha creado el icono" : "Se ha creado el icono"); The png file is a 128x128px with transparency. PNGDecoder is from the matthiasmann utility (de.matthiasmann.twl.utils). I'm using Mac OS, 10.8.4 with lwjgl 2.9.0. Thanks :)

  Read the article

• New Solaris Cluster!

  - by Jeff Victor

  We released Oracle Solaris Cluster 4.1 recently. OSC offers both High Availability (HA) and also Scalable Services capabilities. HA delivers automatic restart of software on the same cluster node and/or automatic failover from a failed node to a working cluster node. Software and support is available for both x86 and SPARC systems. The Scalable Services features manage multiple cluster nodes all providing a load-balanced service such as web servers or app serves. OSC 4.1 includes the ability to recover services from software failures, failure of hardware components such as DIMMs, CPUs, and I/O cards, a global file system, rolling upgrades, and much more. Oracle Availability Engineering posted a brief description and links to details. Or, you can just download it now!

  Read the article

• Are we queueing and serializing properly?

  - by insta

  We process messages through a variety of services (one message will touch probably 9 services before it's done, each doing a specific IO-related function). Right now we have a combination of the worst-case (XML data contract serialization) and best-case (in-memory MSMQ) for performance. The nature of the message means that our serialized data ends up about 12-15 kilobytes, and we process about 4 million messages per week. Persistent messages in MSMQ were too slow for us, and as the data grows we are feeling the pressure from MSMQ's memory-mapped files. The server is at 16GB of memory usage and growing, just for queueing. Performance also suffers when the memory usage is high, as the machine starts swapping. We're already doing the MSMQ self-cleanup behavior. I feel like there's a part we're doing wrong here. I tried using RavenDB to persist the messages and just queueing an identifier, but the performance there was very slow (1000 messages per minute, at best). I'm not sure if that's a result of using the development version or what, but we definitely need a higher throughput[1]. The concept worked very well in theory but performance was not up to the task. The usage pattern has one service acting as a router, which does all reads. The other services will attach information based on their 3rd party hook, and forward back to the router. Most objects are touched 9-12 times, although about 10% are forced to loop around in this system for awhile until the 3rd parties respond appropriately. The services right now account for this and have appropriate sleeping behaviors, as we utilize the priority field of the message for this reason. So, my question, is what is an ideal stack for message passing between discrete-but-LAN'ed machines in a C#/Windows environment? I would normally start with BinaryFormatter instead of XML serialization, but that's a rabbit hole if a better way is to offload serialization to a document store. Hence, my question. [1]: The nature of our business means the sooner we process messages, the more money we make. We've empirically proven that processing a message later in the week means we are less likely to make that money. While performance of "1000 per minute" sounds plenty fast, we really need that number upwards of 10k/minute. Just because I'm giving numbers in messages per week doesn't mean we have a whole week to process those messages.

  Read the article

• ???????/???Windows?RAC??!??????????

  - by Yusuke.Yamamoto

  ????? ??:2010/09/01 ??:??????/?? Windows ? RAC ????????????MSCS ???HA????????Oracle Database 11g R2 ?? RAC ???·??????????? Windows Server?Oracle Database????/ Windows ???????? Oracle DatabaseMSCS/MSFC + OFS???HA??????/ OFS ???MSCS/MSFC vs. RACRAC on Windows ?????/ Oracle Database 11g R2 ?? RAC ????11g R2 RAC ???·??TIPS?.NET ?????? RAC ?? ????????? ????????????????? http://otndnld.oracle.co.jp/ondemand/otn-seminar/movie/RAConWin_09011500.wmv http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/jp/content/20100901-raconwindows-251670-ja.pdf

  Read the article

• VS 2012 Code Review &ndash; Before Check In OR After Check In?

  - by Tarun Arora

  “Is Code Review Important and Effective?” There is a consensus across the industry that code review is an effective and practical way to collar code inconsistency and possible defects early in the software development life cycle. Among others some of the advantages of code reviews are, Bugs are found faster Forces developers to write readable code (code that can be read without explanation or introduction!) Optimization methods/tricks/productive programs spread faster Programmers as specialists "evolve" faster It's fun “Code review is systematic examination (often known as peer review) of computer source code. It is intended to find and fix mistakes overlooked in the initial development phase, improving both the overall quality of software and the developers' skills. Reviews are done in various forms such as pair programming, informal walkthroughs, and formal inspections.” Wikipedia No where does the definition mention whether its better to review code before the code has been committed to version control or after the commit has been performed. No matter which side you favour, Visual Studio 2012 allows you to request for a code review both before check in and also request for a review after check in. Let’s weigh the pros and cons of the approaches independently. Code Review Before Check In or Code Review After Check In? Approach 1 – Code Review before Check in Developer completes the code and feels the code quality is appropriate for check in to TFS. The developer raises a code review request to have a second pair of eyes validate if the code abides to the recommended best practices, will not result in any defects due to common coding mistakes and whether any optimizations can be made to improve the code quality.                                             Image 1 – code review before check in Pros Everything that gets committed to source control is reviewed. Minimizes the chances of smelly code making its way into the code base. Decreases the cost of fixing bugs, remember, the earlier you find them, the lesser the pain in fixing them. Cons Development Code Freeze – Since the changes aren’t in the source control yet. Further development can only be done off-line. The changes have not been through a CI build, hard to say whether the code abides to all build quality standards. Inconsistent! Cumbersome to track the actual code review process.  Not every change to the code base is worth reviewing, a lot of effort is invested for very little gain. Approach 2 – Code Review after Check in Developer checks in, random code reviews are performed on the checked in code.                                                      Image 2 – Code review after check in Pros The code has already passed the CI build and run through any code analysis plug ins you may have running on the build server. Instruct the developer to ensure ZERO fx cop, style cop and static code analysis before check in. Code is cleaner and smell free even before the code review. No Offline development, developers can continue to develop against the source control. Cons Bad code can easily make its way into the code base. Since the review take place much later in the cycle, the cost of fixing issues can prove to be much higher. Approach 3 – Hybrid Approach The community advocates a more hybrid approach, a blend of tooling and human accountability quotient.                                                               Image 3 – Hybrid Approach 1. Code review high impact check ins. It is not possible to review everything, by setting up code review check in policies you can end up slowing your team. More over, the code that you are reviewing before check in hasn't even been through a green CI build either. 2. Tooling. Let the tooling work for you. By running static analysis, fx cop, style cop and other plug ins on the build agent, you can identify the real issues that in my opinion can't possibly be identified using human reviews. Configure the tooling to report back top 10 issues every day. Mandate the manual code review of individuals who keep making it to this list of shame more often. 3. During Merge. I would prefer eliminating some of the other code issues during merge from Main branch to the release branch. In a scrum project this is still easier because cheery picking the merges is a possibility and the size of code being reviewed is still limited. Let the tooling work for you, if some one breaks the CI build often, put them on a gated check in build course until you see improvement. If some one appears on the top 10 list of shame generated via the build then ensure that all their code is reviewed till you see improvement. At the end of the day, the goal is to ensure that the code being delivered is top quality. By enforcing a code review before any check in, you force the developer to work offline or stay put till the review is complete. What do the experts say? So I asked a few expects what they thought of “Code Review quality gate before Checking in code?" Terje Sandstrom | Microsoft ALM MVP You mean a review quality gate BEFORE checking in code????? That would mean a lot of code staying either local or in shelvesets, and not even been through a CI build, and a green CI build being the main criteria for going further, f.e. to the review state. I would not like code laying around with no checkin’s. Having a requirement that code is checked in small pieces, 4-8 hours work max, and AT LEAST daily checkins, a manual code review comes second down the lane. I would expect review quality gates to happen before merging back to main, or before merging to release.  But that would all be on checked-in code.  Branching is absolutely one way to ease the pain.   Another way we are using is automatic quality builds, running metrics, coverage, static code analysis.  Unfortunately it takes some time, would be great to be on CI’s – but…., so it’s done scheduled every night. Based on this we get, among other stuff,  top 10 lists of suspicious code, which is then subjected to reviews.  If a person seems to be very popular on these top 10 lists, we subject every check in from that person to a review for a period. That normally helps.   None of the clients I have can afford to have every checkin reviewed, so we need to find ways around it. I don’t disagree with the nicety of having all the code reviewed, but I find it hard to find those resources in today’s enterprises. David V. Corbin | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I tend to agree with both sides. I hate having code that is not checked in, but at the same time hate having “bad” code in the repository. I have found that branching is one approach to solving this dilemma. Code is checked into the private/feature branch before the review, but is not merged over to the “official” branch until after the review. I advocate both, depending on circumstance (especially team dynamics)   - The “pre-checkin” is usually for elements that may impact the project as a whole. Think of it as another “gate” along with passing unit tests. - The “post-checkin” may very well not be at the changeset level, but correlates to a review at the “user story” level.   Again, this depends on team dynamics in play…. Robert MacLean | Microsoft ALM MVP I do not think there is no right answer for the industry as a whole. In short the question is why do you do reviews? Your question implies risk mitigation, so in low risk areas you can get away with it after check in while in high risk you need to do it before check in. An example is those new to a team or juniors need it much earlier (maybe that is before checkin, maybe that is soon after) than seniors who have shipped twenty sprints on the team. Abhimanyu Singhal | Visual Studio ALM Ranger Depends on per scenario basis. We recommend post check-in reviews when: 1. We don't want to block other checks and processes on manual code reviews. Manual reviews take time, and some pieces may not require manual reviews at all. 2. We need to trace all changes and track history. 3. We have a code promotion strategy/process in place. For risk mitigation, post checkin code can be promoted to Accepted branches. Or can be rejected. Pre Checkin Reviews are used when 1. There is a high risk factor associated 2. Reviewers are generally (most of times) have immediate availability. 3. Team does not have strict tracking needs. Simply speaking, no single process fits all scenarios. You need to select what works best for your team/project. Thomas Schissler | Visual Studio ALM Ranger This is an interesting discussion, I’m right now discussing details about executing code reviews with my teams. I see and understand the aspects you brought in, but there is another side as well, I’d like to point out. 1.) If you do reviews per check in this is not very practical as a hard rule because this will disturb the flow of the team very often or it will lead to reduce the checkin frequency of the devs which I would not accept. 2.) If you do later reviews, for example if you review PBIs, it is not easy to find out which code you should review. Either you review all changesets associate with the PBI, but then you might review code which has been changed with a later checkin and the dev maybe has already fixed the issue. Or you review the diff of the latest changeset of the PBI with the first but then you might also review changes of other PBIs. Jakob Leander | Sr. Director, Avanade In my experience, manual code review: 1. Does not get done and at the very least does not get redone after changes (regardless of intentions at start of project) 2. When a project actually do it, they often do not do it right away = errors pile up 3. Requires a lot of time discussing/defining the standard and for the team to learn it However code review is very important since e.g. even small memory leaks in a high volume web solution have big consequences In the last years I have advocated following approach for code review - Architects up front do “at least one best practice example” of each type of component and tell the team. Copy from this one. This should include error handling, logging, security etc. - Dev lead on project continuously browse code to validate that the best practices are used. Especially that patterns etc. are not broken. You can do this formally after each sprint/iteration if you want. Once this is validated it is unlikely to “go bad” even during later code changes Agree with customer to rely on static code analysis from Visual Studio as the one and only coding standard. This has HUUGE benefits - You can easily tweak to reach the level you desire together with customer - It is easy to measure for both developers/management - It is 100% consistent across code base - It gets validated all the time so you never end up getting hammered by a customer review in the end - It is easy to tell the developer that you do not want code back unless it has zero errors = minimize communication You need to track this at least during nightly builds and make sure team sees total # issues. Do not allow #issues it to grow uncontrolled. On the project I run I require code analysis to have run on code before checkin (checkin rule). This means -  You have to have clean compile (or CA wont run) so this is extra benefit = very few broken builds - You can change a few of the rules to compile as errors instead of warnings. I often do this for “missing dispose” issues which you REALLY do not want in your app Tip: Place your custom CA rules files as part of solution. That  way it works when you do branching etc. (path to CA file is relative in VS) Some may argue that CA is not as good as manual inspection. But since manual inspection in reality suffers from the 3 issues in start it is IMO a MUCH better (and much cheaper) approach from helicopter perspective Tirthankar Dutta | Director, Avanade I think code review should be run both before and after check ins. There are some code metrics that are meant to be run on the entire codebase … Also, especially on multi-site projects, one should strive to architect in a way that lets men manage the framework while boys write the repetitive code… scales very well with the need to review less by containment and imposing architectural restrictions to emphasise the design. Bruno Capuano | Microsoft ALM MVP For code reviews (means peer reviews) in distributed team I use http://www.vsanywhere.com/default.aspx  David Jobling | Global Sr. Director, Avanade Peer review is the only way to scale and its a great practice for all in the team to learn to perform and accept. In my experience you soon learn who's code to watch more than others and tune the attention. Mikkel Toudal Kristiansen | Manager, Avanade If you have several branches in your code base, you will need to merge often. This requires manual merging, when a file has been changed in both branches. It offers a good opportunity to actually review to changed code. So my advice is: Merging between branches should be done as often as possible, it should be done by a senior developer, and he/she should perform a full code review of the code being merged. As for detecting architectural smells and code smells creeping into the code base, one really good third party tools exist: Ndepend (http://www.ndepend.com/, for static code analysis of the current state of the code base). You could also consider adding StyleCop to the solution. Jesse Houwing | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I gave a presentation on this subject on the TechDays conference in NL last year. See my presentation and slides here (talk in Dutch, but English presentation): http://blog.jessehouwing.nl/2012/03/did-you-miss-my-techdaysnl-talk-on-code.html  I’d like to add a few more points: - Before/After checking is mostly a trust issue. If you have a team that does diligent peer reviews and regularly talk/sit together or peer review, there’s no need to enforce a before-checkin policy. The peer peer-programming and regular feedback during development can take care of most of the review requirements as long as the team isn’t under stress. - Under stress, enforce pre-checkin reviews, it might sound strange, if you’re already under time or budgetary constraints, but it is under such conditions most real issues start to be created or pile up. - Use tools to catch most common errors, Code Analysis/FxCop was already mentioned. HP Fortify, Resharper, Coderush etc can help you there. There are also a lot of 3rd party rules you can add to Code Analysis. I’ve written a few myself (http://fccopcontrib.codeplex.com) and various teams from Microsoft have added their own rules (MSOCAF for SharePoint, WSSF for WCF). For common errors that keep cropping up, see if you can define a rule. It’s much easier. But more importantly make sure you have a good help page explaining *WHY* it's wrong. If you have small feature or developer branches/shelvesets, you might want to review pre-merge. It’s still better to do peer reviews and peer programming, but the most important thing is that bad quality code doesn’t make it into the important branch. So my philosophy: - Use tooling as much as possible. - Make sure the team understands the tooling and the importance of the things it flags. It’s too easy to just click suppress all to ignore the warnings. - Under stress, tighten process, it’s under stress that the problems of late reviews will really surface - Most importantly if you do reviews do them as early as possible, but never later than needed. In other words, pre-checkin/post checking doesn’t really matter, as long as the review is done before the code is released. It’ll just be much more expensive to fix any review outcomes the later you find them. --- I would love to hear what you think!

  Read the article

• Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

  - by TedMcLaughlan

  Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture A taxonomy of subject areas, from which to develop a prioritized marketing and communications plan to evangelize EA activities within and among US Federal Government organizations and constituents. Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly in developing and extending this discussion as a tool for use – more information and details are also available. "Selling" the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Federal Government (particularly in non-DoD agencies) is difficult, notwithstanding the general availability and use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) for some time now, and the relatively mature use of the reference models in the OMB Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) cycles. EA in the Federal Government also tends to be a very esoteric and hard to decipher conversation – early apologies to those who agree to continue reading this somewhat lengthy article. Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. "EA isn't getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.", verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC. Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can't be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D "Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments" and the information required for "Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation" (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, "Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio"). Therefore, EA must be "sold" directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration. Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren't likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there's probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an "unfunded mandate". Also, the concept of "Enterprise" in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that "...organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we're trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you're going to be touching them...there's always that fear factor," Spires said. It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO's recent report "Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported". What's not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO "Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)", a.k.a. the "EAMMF", does not include words like "sell", "persuade", "market", etc., except in reference ("within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development") to a brief section in the CIO Council's 2001 "Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", entitled "3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan." Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in "Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions". This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1. So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold? Following is a brief taxonomy (it's a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial "engagement plan" for evangelizing EA "from within". An EA "Sales Taxonomy" of sorts. We're not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape. Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, "Fit-for-Purpose" (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF). The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet - as in: "Let's talk to (1: Community Member) about how and why (3: EA Facet) the EA program can help with (2: Benefit/Value)". Once the initial discussion targets and subjects are approved (that can be measured and reported), a "marketing and communications plan" can be created. A working example follows the Taxonomy. Enterprise Architecture Sales Taxonomy Draft, Summary Version 1. Community 1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios Communities of Purpose (CoPR) 1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans 1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change 1.1.2.1. Mandated 1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated 1.1.3. Program Managers - Creating Employee Performance Plans 1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) 1.2. Governance & Communications Communities of Practice (CoP) 1.2.1. Policy Owners 1.2.1.1. OCFO 1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office 1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning 1.2.1.2. OCIO 1.2.1.2.1. IT Management 1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations 1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security) 1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation 1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements) 1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an "Architects Council") 1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren't buried solely within the CIO shop) 1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a "shared services" EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended 1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints 1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal 1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards 1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response 1.2.3. Mission Constituents Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI) 1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users 1.2.3.2. Public Constituents 1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders 1.2.3.4. Media 2. Benefit/Value (Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.) 2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding... 2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme 2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery 2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality 2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via... 2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral 2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication 2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage 2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing... 2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context 2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT 2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined 2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways 2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures 2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding... 2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization 2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime 2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission 2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only "Outputs" 2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints 2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome 2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of... 2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked 2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government 2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively 2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles 2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues 2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to "future-proof" 2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters 3. EA Program Facet (What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?) 3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used 3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels 3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What's the relationship of these models, with existing system models? 3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful? 3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools 3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it? 3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome? 3.3. Governance – what's the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used? 3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts? 3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?  Taxonomy Usage Example:   1. To speak with: a. ...a particular set of System Owners Facing Strategic Change, via mandate (like the "Cloud First" mandate); about... b. ...how the EA program's visible and easily accessible Infrastructure Reference Model (i.e. "IRM" or "TRM"), if updated more completely with current system data, can... c. ...help shed light on ways to mitigate risks and avoid future costs associated with NOT leveraging potentially-available shared services across the enterprise... 2. ....the following Marketing & Communications (Sales) Plan can be constructed: a. Create an easy-to-read "Consequence Model" that illustrates how adoption of a cloud capability (like elastic operational storage) can enable rapid and durable compliance with the mandate – using EA traceability. Traceability might be from the IRM to the ARM (that identifies reusable services invoking the elastic storage), and then to the PRM with performance measures (such as % utilization of purchased storage allocation) included in the OMB Exhibits; and b. Schedule a meeting with the Program Owners, timed during their Acquisition Strategy meetings in response to the mandate, to use the "Consequence Model" for advising them to organize a rapid and relevant RFI solicitation for this cloud capability (regarding alternatives for sourcing elastic operational storage); and c. Schedule a series of short "Discovery" meetings with the system architecture leads (as agreed by the Program Owners), to further populate/validate the "As-Is" models and frame the "To Be" models (via scenarios), to better inform the RFI, obtain the best feedback from the vendor community, and provide potential value for and avoid impact to all other programs and systems. --end example -- Note that communications with the intended audience should take a page out of the standard "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) playbook, using keywords and phrases relating to "value" and "outcome" vs. "compliance" and "output". Searches in email boxes, internal and external search engines for phrases like "cost avoidance strategies", "mission performance metrics" and "innovation funding" should yield messages and content from the EA team. This targeted, informed, practical sales approach should result in additional buy-in and participation, additional EA information contribution and model validation, development of more SMEs and quick "proof points" (with real-life testing) to bolster the case for EA. The proof point here is a successful, timely procurement that satisfies not only the external mandate and external oversight review, but also meets internal EA compliance/conformance goals and therefore is more transparently useful across the community. In short, if sold effectively, the EA will perform and be recognized. EA won’t therefore be used only for compliance, but also (according to a validated, stated purpose) to directly influence decisions and outcomes. The opinions, views and analysis expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.

  Read the article

• Add a small RAID card? Will it help overall stability and performance of my nine hard drives?

  - by Ray

  Hi, Will I get any extra genuine added performance and RAID stability if I insert a basic RAID card into a PCI-E x1 slot? I am considering the Adaptec 1220SA - 2 port SATA , pci-express (1x) , raid 0/1. Ok it only supports two SATA drives. Purpose is to help support the eight internal hard drives (1TB each), a DVD drive and an external e-SATA connected 2TB hard drive - by dealing with two of the internal hard drives. My current configuration of eight internal 1TB Barracuda (7200.12) SATA hard drives, one external 2TB SATA Western Digital Green Drive (e-SATA) and one DVD drive can already be supported by the Intel P55 & JMicron controllers on the ASUS motherboard : the Intel P55 (controls six HDD; configured as three x RAID 1), and the JMicron (controls two HDD as one RAID 1, as well as the DVD drive and the external SATA drive via the motherboard's e-SATA port (controlled by the JMicron)). Bigger picture details : I have an ASUS motherboard designed for the LGA1156 type processor and it includes the Intel P55 Express Chipset and JMicron. I am using the Intel Core i7-870 processor, and have 8GB DDR3 (1333) memory (four x 2GB Corsair DIMMs). Enough overall power. The power supply is more than sufficicient for the system. Corsair AX850. The system will never need the full 850 watts (future : second graphics card). The RAID card would provide hardware RAID 1 for two of the eight intrnal drives. It would either reduce the load on : the Intel P55 firmware RAID support, or replace the JMicron controller's RAID 1 set. I am busy installing the above configuration using Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit as the OS. The RAID card is a last minute addition to the plan. Is it worth spending the extra R700 - R900 on the Adaptec 1220SA, or equivalent RAID card? I cannot afford to spend yet another R2000 - R3000 on a RAID card that would support many SATA2 hard drives, with a better RAID, example the RAID 5. My Issue & assumption : I am trusting that the Intel P55 chipset can properly handle six drives, configured as three * RAID 1. I am assuming that the JMicron can handle, using its RED SATA ports, one RAID-1 (two HDDs). The DVD drive connects to the JMicron optical SATA port 1 (white port 1). White port 2 is not used. The e-SATA connection is from the JMicron straight to, and through the motherboard - to an on-board (rear panel) e-SATA port. Am I being a little hopeful in only using the on-board Intel P55 and the JMicron? Is it a waste of money to install a RAID card that handles two SATA2 drives? OR Is it wisdom to take the pressure a little off the Intel P55? Obviously I am interested in data security, hence RAID 1, not RAID Zero. RAID 5 would be nice. The CPU, Intel Core i7-870 will provide the clout. Context to nine drives : I am using virtualisation with Windows 7 Ultimate. Bootable VMs. The operating system gets a mirror. Loaded apps gets a mirror. The current design data is kept in another mirror and Another mirror is back-up one and / or VM territory. Then the external 2TB drive (via e-SATA) is the next layer of data security and then finally, I use off-site data security. Thanks.

  Read the article

• WMI permissions: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process returns no data for CommandLine

  - by user57935

  Hi all, I am gathering performance data via WMI and would like to avoid having to use an account in the Administrators group for this purpose. The target machine is running Windows Server 2003 with the latest SP/updates. I've done what I believe to be the appropriate configuration to allow our user access to WMI (similar to what is described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa393266.aspx). Here are the specific steps that were followed: Open Administrative Tools - Computer Management: Under Computer Management (Local) Expand Services and Applications, right click WMI Control and select properties. In the Security tab, expand Root, highlight CIMV2, click Security (near bottom of window); add Performance Monitor Users and enable the options : Enable Account and Remote Enable. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - Right click My Computer and select properties, select the COM security tab, in “Access Permissions” click "Edit Default" select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow local access and remote access and click ok. In “Launch and Activation Permissions” click “Edit Default” select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow Local and Remote Launch and Activation Permissions. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - My Computer - DCOM Config - highlight “Windows Management and Instrumentation” right click and select properties, Select the Security tab, Under “Launch and Activation Permissions” select Customize, then click edit, add the “Performance Users Group” and allow local and remote Remote Launch and Remote Activation privileges. I am able to connect remotely via WMI Explorer but when I perform this query: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process I get a valid result but every row has an empty CommandLine. If I add the user to the Administrators group and re-run the query, the CommandLine column contains the expected data. It seems there is a permission I am missing somewhere but I am not having much luck tracking it down. Many thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• WMI permissions: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process returns no data for CommandLine

  - by user57935

  I am gathering performance data via WMI and would like to avoid having to use an account in the Administrators group for this purpose. The target machine is running Windows Server 2003 with the latest SP/updates. I've done what I believe to be the appropriate configuration to allow our user access to WMI (similar to what is described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa393266.aspx). Here are the specific steps that were followed: Open Administrative Tools - Computer Management: Under Computer Management (Local) Expand Services and Applications, right click WMI Control and select properties. In the Security tab, expand Root, highlight CIMV2, click Security (near bottom of window); add Performance Monitor Users and enable the options : Enable Account and Remote Enable. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - Right click My Computer and select properties, select the COM security tab, in “Access Permissions” click "Edit Default" select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow local access and remote access and click ok. In “Launch and Activation Permissions” click “Edit Default” select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow Local and Remote Launch and Activation Permissions. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - My Computer - DCOM Config - highlight “Windows Management and Instrumentation” right click and select properties, Select the Security tab, Under “Launch and Activation Permissions” select Customize, then click edit, add the “Performance Users Group” and allow local and remote Remote Launch and Remote Activation privileges. I am able to connect remotely via WMI Explorer but when I perform this query: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process I get a valid result but every row has an empty CommandLine. If I add the user to the Administrators group and re-run the query, the CommandLine column contains the expected data. It seems there is a permission I am missing somewhere but I am not having much luck tracking it down. Many thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• How to change cpufreq settings in Kubuntu

  - by Mr Woody

  I have been using Kubuntu, and I would like to change the cpufreq settings. My understanding is that there is no applet for that, and I would have to do it with a script. So I run a command like this: sudo cpufreq-set -g userspace -c 0 -d 800Mhz -u 1200Mhz and when I type cpufreq-info, I get cpufrequtils 007: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009 Report errors and bugs to [email protected], please. analyzing CPU 0: driver: acpi-cpufreq CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 10.0 us. hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.50 GHz available frequency steps: 2.50 GHz, 2.50 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 800 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 1.20 GHz. The governor "userspace" may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 1.20 GHz. cpufreq stats: 2.50 GHz:70.06%, 2.50 GHz:0.97%, 2.00 GHz:4.85%, 1.60 GHz:0.35%, 1.20 GHz:2.89%, 800 MHz:20.88% (193873) analyzing CPU 1: driver: acpi-cpufreq CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1 maximum transition latency: 10.0 us. hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.50 GHz available frequency steps: 2.50 GHz, 2.50 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 800 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance current policy: frequency should be within 2.00 GHz and 2.00 GHz. The governor "performance" may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 2.00 GHz. cpufreq stats: 2.50 GHz:83.43%, 2.50 GHz:1.03%, 2.00 GHz:4.28%, 1.60 GHz:0.01%, 1.20 GHz:1.74%, 800 MHz:9.50% (3208) which shows that everything worked well (on cpu 0). The problem is that if I run cpufreq-info again after few minutes I get cpufrequtils 007: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009 Report errors and bugs to [email protected], please. analyzing CPU 0: driver: acpi-cpufreq CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 10.0 us. hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.50 GHz available frequency steps: 2.50 GHz, 2.50 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 800 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 800 MHz. The governor "performance" may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 800 MHz. cpufreq stats: 2.50 GHz:69.73%, 2.50 GHz:0.97%, 2.00 GHz:4.83%, 1.60 GHz:0.35%, 1.20 GHz:2.92%, 800 MHz:21.20% (193880) analyzing CPU 1: driver: acpi-cpufreq CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1 maximum transition latency: 10.0 us. hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.50 GHz available frequency steps: 2.50 GHz, 2.50 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 800 MHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 800 MHz. The governor "performance" may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 800 MHz. cpufreq stats: 2.50 GHz:82.94%, 2.50 GHz:1.03%, 2.00 GHz:4.33%, 1.60 GHz:0.01%, 1.20 GHz:1.73%, 800 MHz:9.96% (3215) so it looks like some other process changed the settings. Does anyone know how to fix this? I also tried many different settings, but I get similar behavior.

  Read the article

• ubuntu hardrive repartition without uninstalling ubuntu or windows 7 and losing data of hardrive

  - by user141692

  I have and asus r500v with 750 gb gpt system uefi motherboard core i7 3610qm, nvidia geforce gt, with ubuntu and w7 dual boot, I had problems installing ubuntu because of the grub but I fix it with https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/807801, but I still have the problem of "warning: the partition is misaligned by 3072 bytes. this may result iin very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested" in every linux partitioin I made and my 750 gb is not being used at the maximun capacity it only uses 698 gb. I want to make partitions so that the warning doesnt show up and I can use the maximum capacity of the HDD, as I did with another dual boot laptop (compaq presario cq40). I have the following partitions: unknown 1.0Mb: partition type: lynux Basic DAta partition, device: /dev/sda2 Usage: --, Partition flags: --, partition label:-- warning: the partition is misaligned by 3072 bytes. this may result in very poor performance. repartitioning is suggested. -system 210 Mb FAt, usage: Filesystem, partition type: EFI system Partition, Partition Flags:--, Label: system, Device: /dev/sda1, partition label: EFI system partition, Capacity 210MB, avilable:--, Mount Point: mounted at /boot/efi -134 Mb NTFS, usage: filesystem, partition type: linux basic data partition, partition flags:.--, device: /dev/sda7, partition label: --, capacity: 134MB,available:--, mount point: not mounted -OS 250 GB NTFS, usage: file system, partititon type: linux basic data partition, partition flags: --, type: NTFS, label: OS, device: /dev/sda3, partition label: basic data partition, capacity: 250 GB, available:-, mount point: not mounted -10GB FAT 32, usage: filesystem, partition type: EFI system partition, partition flags:--, type: FAT 32, label: --, device: /dev/sda4, partition label: --, capacity: 10GB, available:--, mount point: not mounted warning: the partition is misaligned by 3072 bytes. this may result in very poor performance. repartitioning is suggested. -10gb ext 4, usage: file system, partition type: linux basic data partition, partition flags:--, type: EXT4(version1) label:--, device: /dev/sda9, partition label:--, capacity: 10 GB, available:--, mount point at / warning: the partition is misaligned by 1536 bytes. this may result in very poor performance. repartitioning is suggested. -478GB ext4, usage: filesystem, partition type: linux basic data partition, partition flags:--, type: EXT4, label:--, device: /dev/sda5, partition label:--, capacity: 478gb, available:--, mount point: mounted at /home warning: the partition is misaligned by 512 bytes. this may result in very poor performance. repartitioning is suggested. -2.0gb Swap 2.0Gb, usage: swap space, partition type: linux swap partitioin, partition flags:-, device: /dev/sda6, partition label: capacity: 2.0gb warning: the partition is misaligned by 512 bytes. this may result in very poor performance. repartitioning is suggested. and as you can see it is not well organized so please help me to organize the partitions witahout uninstalling the w7, and if possible the grub2

  Read the article

• Viruses in Android

  - by Prashant

  Hello, Is there any virus issues found on Android OS. Thanks Prashant,

  Read the article

• Deleted items on Deleted Items folder are not shown

  - by Ken

  When I run this cmdlet, I get the following result: [PS] C:\Windows\system32Get-MailboxFolderStatistics user | ft FolderPath, FolderSize -autosize FolderPath FolderSize ---------- ---------- /Top of Information Store 156 B (156 bytes) /Calendar 244.2 KB (250,025 bytes) /Contacts 1.223 MB (1,282,252 bytes) /Contacts/SenderPhotoContacts 30.41 KB (31,139 bytes) /Conversation Action Settings 0 B (0 bytes) /Conversation History 206.2 KB (211,147 bytes) /Deleted Items 1.449 MB (1,519,602 bytes) /Drafts 472 B (472 bytes) /Inbox 618 MB (648,025,798 bytes) /Journal 144 B (144 bytes) /Junk E-Mail 131.9 KB (135,089 bytes) /News Feed 0 B (0 bytes) /Notes 1.847 KB (1,891 bytes) /Outbox 0 B (0 bytes) /Quick Step Settings 0 B (0 bytes) /RSS Feeds 0 B (0 bytes) /Sent Items 6.754 KB (6,916 bytes) /Suggested Contacts 9.316 KB (9,540 bytes) /Sync Issues 0 B (0 bytes) /Sync Issues/Conflicts 0 B (0 bytes) /Sync Issues/Local Failures 0 B (0 bytes) /Sync Issues/Server Failures 0 B (0 bytes) /Tasks 7.994 KB (8,186 bytes) /Recoverable Items 12.16 MB (12,748,519 bytes) /Deletions 0 B (0 bytes) /Purges 0 B (0 bytes) /Versions 0 B (0 bytes) But when I open the mailbox using both Outlook and OWA, the deleted items folder is empty. I'm guessing it's corrupted or something like that. Is it possible to recover it somehow? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Implications of using many USB web cameras

  - by Martin

  I'm looking into connecting multiple low resolution USB webcams to a single computer. What implications might this have on performance? How does, for example, four 320x240 cameras fare against a single 640x480 camera? I'm not well versed in the architecture of the USB interface, what are the performance caveats? By performance I mean how would it affect the time to read the image data from multiple cameras compared to a single one.

  Read the article

• Deleted items on Deleted Items folder are not shown

  - by Ken

  When I run this cmdlet, I get the following result: Get-MailboxFolderStatistics user | ft FolderPath, FolderSize -autosize FolderPath FolderSize ---------- ---------- /Top of Information Store 156 B (156 bytes) /Calendar 244.2 KB (250,025 bytes) /Contacts 1.223 MB (1,282,252 bytes) /Contacts/SenderPhotoContacts 30.41 KB (31,139 bytes) /Conversation Action Settings 0 B (0 bytes) /Conversation History 206.2 KB (211,147 bytes) /Deleted Items 1.449 MB (1,519,602 bytes) /Drafts 472 B (472 bytes) /Inbox 618 MB (648,025,798 bytes) /Journal 144 B (144 bytes) /Junk E-Mail 131.9 KB (135,089 bytes) /News Feed 0 B (0 bytes) /Notes 1.847 KB (1,891 bytes) /Outbox 0 B (0 bytes) /Quick Step Settings 0 B (0 bytes) /RSS Feeds 0 B (0 bytes) /Sent Items 6.754 KB (6,916 bytes) /Suggested Contacts 9.316 KB (9,540 bytes) /Sync Issues 0 B (0 bytes) /Sync Issues/Conflicts 0 B (0 bytes) /Sync Issues/Local Failures 0 B (0 bytes) /Sync Issues/Server Failures 0 B (0 bytes) /Tasks 7.994 KB (8,186 bytes) /Recoverable Items 12.16 MB (12,748,519 bytes) /Deletions 0 B (0 bytes) /Purges 0 B (0 bytes) /Versions 0 B (0 bytes) But when I open the mailbox using both Outlook and OWA, the deleted items folder is empty. I'm guessing it's corrupted or something like that. Is it possible to recover it somehow? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to get Windows Server 2008 VM to use multiple cores

  - by David Fraser

  I have a Windows Server 2008 machine running in VirtualBox. On initial installation, only one processor was made available, but now I want to run it as a multiprocessor machine. I have made all four cores available in the VirtualBox settings (as well as enabling VT-x/AMD-V and Nested Paging), but Task Manager still only shows one CPU. However, the four CPU cores are visible in Device Manager under Processors. In the event log on startup, I can see the following relevant events: EventLog.6009 Microsoft (R) Windows (R) 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 Multiprocessor Free Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 0 exposes the following: 1 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) How can I make this system actually boot up as a multiprocessor machine?

  Read the article

• Will running a site in Integrated Mode (IIS7 application pool) perform better?

  - by Lieven Cardoen

  Will it affect performance?

  Read the article

• How to get Windows Server 2008 VM to use multiple cores

  - by David Fraser

  I have a Windows Server 2008 machine running in VirtualBox. On initial installation, only one processor was made available, but now I want to run it as a multiprocessor machine. I have made all four cores available in the VirtualBox settings (as well as enabling VT-x/AMD-V and Nested Paging), but Task Manager still only shows one CPU. However, the four CPU cores are visible in Device Manager under Processors. In the event log on startup, I can see the following relevant events: EventLog.6009 Microsoft (R) Windows (R) 6.00.6002 Service Pack 2 Multiprocessor Free Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 0 exposes the following: 1 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) Kernel-Processor-Power.4 Processor 255 exposes the following: 0 idle state(s), 0 performance state(s), 0 throttle state(s) How can I make this system actually boot up as a multiprocessor machine?

  Read the article

• Record everything on command line centos /fedora/ ubuntu

  - by neolix

  Hello all, we are 100% Linux user across the network and we do work round clock, what happens shift change next admin come to his shift on that time what all issues comes he get resolve the issues but they just clear history from terminal. If we want record every at terminal what they have done to resolve the same issues or we can monitor as well, for trouble ticket we have internal OTRS which they update for reporting. Thanks ton

  Read the article

• Network speed between a VM and another machine which is not residing on the same host, is 11MB/s at most

  - by Henno

  Problem Network speed between a VM and another machine which is not residing on the same host, is 11MB/s at most. Topology Facts ESXi5 version is 5.0.0.504890 VM has the latest Vmware Tools installed VM is using E1000 network driver Physical box has Win Srv 2008 R2 as the OS CrystalDiskMark says the drive on physical box can read/write 100MB/s vCenter is another vm on esx both vm and physical box are showing 1Gbps link speed Configuration Networking shows vmnic0 as 1000 Full NTttcp is a client/server tool from Microsoft for measuring pure network throughput Here's what I've done so far: Test1: VM is running Filezilla FTP Server (default settings, one user account made) Physical box is running Filezilla FTP Client (default settings) Physical box is uploading a big file to FTP server Transfer speed (as observed by Windows Task Manager on both machines): ~11MB/s (bad) Physical box is downloading that file from FTP server Transfer speed (as observed by Windows Task Manager on both machines): still ~11MB/s (bad) Could it be disk performance issue? Test2: Physical box is running ntttcpr.exe -a 6 -m 6,0,VM_IP_ADDRESS VM is running ntttcps.exe -a 6 -m 6,0,PHY_BOX_IP_ADDRESS Transfer speed (as observed by Windows Task Manager on both machines): ~11MB/s (bad) Could it be switch performance issue? Test3: physical box is running vSphere Client I open Summary Storage datastore Browse Datastore... from physical box and upload a file to datastore Transfer speed (as observed by Windows Task Manager on physical box): ~26-36MB/s (good) Could it be a vm specific issue? Test4: Installed ntttcp to another vm on the same esx server Measured network performance between vms on the same esx server with NTttcp Transfer speed (as observed by Windows Task Manager on physical box): ~90-120MB/s (excellent :) Test5: I have another esx server on the same site, connecting to the same datastore and same switch. Those two ESX servers have both 2 NICs. One NIC goes to switch while the other goes directly to the other ESX server. vMotioned one of the testing vms off to the other ESX host Measured network performance between vms on different esx servers with NTttcp Transfer speed (as observed by Windows Task Manager on physical box): ~11MB/s (bad) While I'm aware of these: ESXi 4.1 slow file transfer ESXi 5 network performance is slow Debian Etch and ESXi slow network speeds VMWare ESXi slow file copy to guest they did not help (or I must have been missed something)

  Read the article

• Using MRTG's threshold feature to execute a php script

  - by Dan Fried

  I've set up mrtg using the online manual and the only online tutorial I found on the subject of thresholds, and the threshold just isn't firing. In my mrtg.cfg file, the relevant lines are ThreshDir: /path/to/mrtg/thresh ThreshMaxI[performance]: 1 ThreshMaxO[performance]: 1 ThreshProgI[performance]: /path/to/mrtg/scripts/alert.php ThreshProgO[performance]: /path/to/mrtg/scripts/alert.php The paths are right, because if I enter the paths wrong I get an error on executing mrtg. websitePerformance checks how long it takes to download the homepage, in milliseconds, so it should be exceeding the max every time. Alert.php is working fine when invoked directly from the shell, and when I point to a nonexistent script it tells me the script is not executable. No error messages are being generated, that I can find. The thresh directory is always empty. Why isn't the threshold being triggered by results that are greater than 1? Anyone have any suggestions?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257  | Next Page >