Search Results

Search found 13403 results on 537 pages for 'epm performance tuning'.

Page 274/537 | < Previous Page | 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281  | Next Page >

• Slow Local Network, Windows 7, Snow Leopard, WiFi/Wired

  - by WerkkreW

  I am experiencing really poor local network performance in my home. I was recently using a Linksys WRT54G Router with DD-WRT on it, and a couple comparable Linksys-G PCI cards for connectivity but decided to upgrade hoping it would help with my performance issues. The computers in my house are connected as follows: Comcast Business Class Commercial 25mbps/10mbps (Verified) D-Link DGL-4500 Wireless N Router Windows 7x64 - D-Link DWA-552 Wireless-N Windows 7x64 - D-Link DWA-552 Wireless-N Mac Mini 10.6.2 - AirPort Extreme N Playstation 3, Hard Wired Xbox 360, Hard Wired Essentially the problem is very specific. Web browsing and uploading/downloading files from the internet is fine, more than fine. But if I want to say, Stream a video from one of my Windows 7 computers to my PS3, or copy a large video file between either of the PC's or the Mac, I get a consistent 500-900Kbps throughput at the high end. If I open my network browser, or try to browse my homegroup the response time is horrible. Both of my Windows computers are showing Strong wireless signals with a connection speed of 300Mbps. I know I can never expect to achieve anything near those speeds, but 500Kbps? Here is what I have tried so far: Enabled Single mode N-only and N/G Only on router WPA2 with AES Encrpytion Disabled "Remote Differential Compression" in Windows 7 Disabled TCP "Auto-Tuning" Used other software for file copies such as "Teracopy" I am at the end of my rope. Unfortunately I live in a 75 year old home with plaster walls, so hard-wiring my entire house isn't really an option I can handle right now. Any ideas to help me get decent speed when transferring files across my network would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Value of Itanium or Sparc over x86_64 for Oracle Deployment

  - by Antitribu

  We are looking at a new environment to run our Oracle Database running on SUSE (potentially migrating to RedHat). Our database is approximately 100GB and performs adequately on our current hardware (x86_64) with approximately 6GB of ram allocated to it. We are growing quickly however and will require more performance shortly. Given the cost of Oracle licenses we would like to maximize the value from each license by choosing the most appropriate CPU to run the software on. The questions are: Are there substantial benefits to looking at Itanium or Sparc hardware, are there any drawbacks? Is there a point where one starts to scale out better? What are the long term support options for Itanium? Given the dominance of x86 would it be safer long term to stick with x86? On average what would be the performance benefit of implementing an Oracle database on Itanium or Sparc over x86_64? Is this an issue at all or will other factors (IO/RAM) cap out first? If anyone can point me towards some solid documentation on comparisons between the platforms that provides good case analysis of when to choose which I'm more than happy to accept that as an answer. Edit:- Added Sparc as an Option as it was previously not considered however with the recent Oracle Sun aquisition seems very relevant.

  Read the article

• Parallels 6 - Is It Just Me or Does It Run Really Slowly?

  - by 5arx

  I've been running Parallels since version 2 with great success. I use it as my .Net development environment and over the last few years have converted so many others to the Parallels/Mac way of doing Windows/.Net development that I feel I should be getting perks/gifts and/or freebies from Parallels Corporation ;-) A month or so ago I upgraded to version 6 and ... immediately wished I hadn't. I'm currently running it on a laptop - a 2009 MacBook Pro (13"/2.53Ghz/4GB) while my MacPros at work and home are still running v5. I have seen nothing in v6 that makes me want to upgrade the install on those. The general problem is performance - upon starting or suspending a vm (always Windows 7 Ultimate), OS X slows down, quite often freezing for a minute or two at a time. The performance of the vms themselves are fine, but for me the point of this set-up is to be able to do web-browsing, email checking etc. on the OS X side of things while doing the stuff that can only be done on Windows (Visual Studio, SQL Server tools) on Windows. I have been using Parallels for a while so at least feel like I know what I'm doing so at the moment I am heading towards forming an opinion that its Parallels thats to blame. I've tweaked and tweaked all the vm configuration properties but to no avail. Support emails to the company have all received replies - there are no documented case of the issue you mention. Has anyone else seen this problem and if so, have you found a fix?

  Read the article

• Is there any way to limit the turbo boost speed / intensity on i7 lap?

  - by Anonymous

  I've just got a used i7 laptop, one of these overheating pavilions from HP with quad cores. And I really want to find a compromise between the temp and performance. If I use linpack, or some other heavy benchmark, the temp easily gets to 95+, and having a TJ of 100 Degrees, for a 2630QM model, it really gets me throttling, that no cooling pad or even an industrial fan could solve. I figured later that it is due to turbo boost, and if I set my power settings to use 99% of the CPU instead of 100%, and it seems to disable the turbo boost, so the temp gets better. But then again it loses quite a bit of performance. The regular clock is 2GHz, and in turbo boost it gets to 2.6Ghz, but I just wonder if I could limit it to around 2.3Ghz, that would be a real nice thing. Also there is another question I've hard time getting answer to. It seems to me that clocks are very quickly boosting up to max even when not needed, eg, it's ok if the CPU has 0% load, the clocks get to their 800MHz, but even if it gets to about 5% it quickly jumps to a max and even popping up turbo, which seems very strange to me. So I wonder if there is any way to adjust the sensitivity of the Speed Step feature. I believe it would be more logical to demand increased clock if it hits let's say 50% load. I do understand that most of these features are probably hardwired somewhere in the CPU itself or the MB, which has no tuning options just like on many laptops. But I would appreciate if you could recommend some thing, or some software. Thanks

  Read the article

• Accessing clearcase view drive from virtual machine is slow

  - by PermanentGuest

  I have a windows XP virtual machine running under a Windows XP host. On the host : On the host clearcase 7.1.1.2 is installed. I have a dynamic view mapped onto some drive. The view has certain VOB/directory structure where my application DLLs from the nightly build and config files are stored. I run my application on the host machine which uses the DLLs and config files from the VOB and everything runs smooth. Now I want to move this set-up to a virtual machine. On the guest : I'm running the guest with a vm-player. I don't want to install clear-case on this as I don't want to expose this machine onto the network. The network setting in the guest is 'host-only'. I have mapped the host's clearcase view drive as a shared folder and I'm able to access this drive from the virtual machine. Also, the application is running. However, the problem is that the access of the clearcase drive from the virtual machine is very slow. I can experience this from the windows explorer. Due to this, the starting of my application takes several seconds in the virtual machine while on the guest it comes up pretty fast. My question is : Is there any way to speed up the performance? I have managed to copy some of the DLLs which don't change frequently to the virtual machine to improve the performance. However, there are still lot of DLLs which have to be taken from the clearcase drive as they change frequently. VMplayer version is : VM Player 3.0.1 build-227600 Both guest and host is : Windows XP service pack 3 Host clearcase is : clearcase 7.1.1.2

  Read the article

• Switching from Onboard intel to Nvidia Dedicated GPU

  - by Anarkie

  How can I switch from Intel onboard grpahics to Nvidia Dedicated GPU? When I go to windows screen resolution I see intel. I cant change it. I go to Device Manager, I see both Adapters are there and Nvidia is known.I disabled intel, I didnt see any option to set one as primary so I disabled intel, black screen!Reboot and re-enable intel. I right click on the desktop, choose "Nvidia Control Panel" and on 3D options I chose the desired game I want to play, High performance Nvidia, but it didnt switch when I started the game. Then I made preferred GPU in the global settings High performance Nvidia for everything it still didnt change.I understand to save the battery etc. there is a switch option between these two but I dont see this switch when it is necessary, I cant also switch manually?Is there a manual switch FN key?I looked but couldnt find. Why I want to do this? 1) Better game peformance. 2) I want to play an old game from 2002(Diablo 2 LOD), when I start the game there are black bars on the sides, so screen becomes just smaller which I dislike!I heard this is intel's specification to center the display.But instead I would like to scale or expand it to fit widescreen(fullscreen).Which should be possible with Nvidia. My Notebook Specs: Fujitsu Lifebook AH531, Win7 , 64 bit, i5, intel HD graphics onboard, Nvidia GT 525. I didnt install Nvidia later, it was always installed and ready from the moment I turned on the computer first time. How I determined that the cards werent switched when I am playing the game: with the windows key I exited from the game, then looked at screen resolutions menu, still saw intel, also the game was still with black bars.I know intel GPU should enough for Diablo 2 but I am interested in this answer for further games, I dont always play Diablo, what if I install an up to date game for example?Then Intel will not be sufficient.I would like to learn the switch option.

  Read the article

• UW-IMAP server, high load for one user

  - by Bruce Garlock

  We have been experiencing a very strange anomaly, with one specific user with our UW-IMAP server. We have about 75 users using the server, and one particular user, who is in about the middle as far as used storage keeps having issues with slow speed. Most of our users all use Thunderbird 2, or Thunderbird 3. Mostly 2, because of the performance issues we have had with 3. This user was on 3, and I downgraded him to 2. The performance has gotten better, but according to the imapd processes on the server, his username is using the most CPU % and CPU time. I've already done all the usual T/S'ing: Started profile from scratch, compacted folders, re-indexed, newer faster computer, etc.. Still, this users' imapd process is always using the most CPU on the server. For troubleshooting, we setup another user which has more usage, folders, etc.. than he does, but we don't see the users process taking up most of the CPU with the imapd process. So, it almost sounds like a particular email may be the culprit, but how can we find it, if thats the problem? This has been going on for a while, and he is a management person, so his patience is about to end. Does anyone have any ideas?

  Read the article

• VMWare Workstation 8 Disk I/O & Hard Faults

  - by Scott

  I have VMWare Workstation 8 installed on a host machine with the following specs: Intel i5 2500k CPU 16GB DDR3 1600 ram 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black HD I have two Windows 7 virtual machines configured (currently running one at a time but will be operating both at once when my 32GB RAM kit arrives in a couple days). Each one is configured with 8GB of RAM and no tweaks/performance customizations or anything done. All of the VMWare settings are the defaults. When I boot into these machines and run various programs (Visual Studio, Outlook, etc), I can hear the disk thrashing quite a bit and checking Resource Monitor, I can see that I'm getting anywhere between 300-800 hard faults per second. From the host machine, it shows they're coming from the VMWare image. If I go to the virtual machine, whatever app I'm currently loading is the image that's causing the hard faults. As I understand it, hard faults are (simply) when an address in memory has been swapped out to the page file and has to be read from the page file instead of from memory. I don't understand why this is happening though. With 8GB of ram on the guest machine and 6.5GB available, what could be causing this? I know Windows 7 supposedly improved on page file management over XP but it seems excessive for this kind of slowdown, disk thrashing and high hard fault count when I have that much free RAM. Is there anything I can to to improve the performance in my guest machines? On the host machine, I can open/run any applications at all and hard faults stays around 0 with low disk I/O.

  Read the article

• How to verify system using right GPU, after system reset [duplicate]

  - by Antoros

  This question already has an answer here: Is my mobile AMD card being used? 2 answers OS: Windows 8 CPU: Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 3635QM GPU 1 : Intel HD Graphics 4000 GPU 2 : AMD Radeon™ HD 8870M other info: System Spects Problem: im unsure that CCC is using AMD card instead of Intel's, i have encountered several issues since updating to 8.1 and i don't know what to do What happened: Installed 8.1 patch first day After 1 minute of use, BBSOD, windows never loaded again System restore wouldnt recognize 8.0 restore points i did a system reset to windows 8 since the laptop was only 3 weeks old System Broke, it did restore to factory BUT kept the registry almost intact, i had to install almost everything again, since the factory drivers where working with the updated one's registry and several problems CCC Broke too <- What i've already done Installing new drivers on top of old ones didnt work, so i used AMD uninstaller first Uninstalled and Re-installed Intel's HD Graphics Driver Tried to install mobile center, but AMD told me that it wasnt compatible (even if thats the only driver that they provide via their page as seen Here) Tried to use Auto-Detect, couldnt install driver because card was disabled because it didnt have the drivers... (see what they did here?) Had to use a workaround with Samsung Update, the driver didnt appear as download so had to use search and downloaded the driver manually. Now the graphic card appears on device manager and catalyst but as 8800 series (not exact model), and cant check the card with neither dxdiag/GPU-z/HWMonitor when right-clicking on CCC only Intel card appears launching a game and using as "high performance" would speed it up a little but i cant be sure How to verify its working properly? HWMonitor wont show AMD card even when set to high performance Latest GPU-Z wont work because a problem with Intel's, and legacy ones wont either what can I do now? I don't even know if I fixed my problem or not, and i also want to to use Adobe Premier with it, and its locked (the option to run it with the amd card not intels) Edit: now it seems to work, but cant change the setting for adobe Premiere and other programs that i Need to

  Read the article

• High memory utilization with firebird + windows server 2008 r2

  - by chesterman

  i have a Windows Server 2008 R2 (64bit) running a 64bit installation of Firebird 2.1.4.18393_0 in a 4GB phisical server. After a while, the task manager show that all memory is used, but the sum of the memory of all process does not stack to the half of the memory. Unfortunally, it's start swapping. Using RAMMAP, i can see that my entire database file is mapped into the memory. This only occours in windows server 2008 r2 and windows 7 64 bit. i can use firebird 32 or 64bit installations, doesn't matter. How can i prevent this? Why this only occours in w2k8r2 and w7? tks in advance ** UPDATE Aparently, this occours by the use of all memory by the file system cache. The microsoft documentations explain that this WAS a issue in windows xp, 2k3, vista and 2k8, but it was solved in 7 and 2k8r2. also adds that this issue is more common in 64bit hosts. (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/976618) there are some tools (DynCache, setcache and the Get/SetSystemFileCacheSize system calls from windows API) that allows me to fix a upper limit to the memory usage by the fscache, but the documentation argues that i should not do this in w2k8r2 because it will severely impact on the overall system performance. anyway, i tried, the performance remained the same shit and the use of the page file remained, although there is now more the 1gb of free memory.

  Read the article

• Array on servers which receive several hundred GB of data a day

  - by Matthew

  This is hopefully a simple question. Right now we are deploying servers which will serve as data warehouses. I know with raid 5 the best practice is 6 disks per raid 5. However, our plan is to use RAID 10 (both for performance and safety). We have a total of 14 disks (16 actually, but two are being used for OS). Keeping in mind that performance is very much an issue, which is better - doing several raid 1's? Do one large raid 10? One large raid 10 had been our original plan, but I want to see if anyone has any opinions I haven't thought of. Please note: This system was designed for using Raid 1+0, so losing half of the raw storage capacity is not an issue. Sorry i hadn't mentioned that initially. The concern is more whether or not we want to use one large Raid 1+0 containing all 14 disks, or several smaller raid 1+0's and then stripe across them using LVM. I know the best practice for higher raid levels is to never use more than 6 disks in an array.

  Read the article

• explanation of RAM specs, and what do I need for a Gaming rig

  - by ewok

  I am looking into upgrading my custom built PC's RAM. I use the machine mostly for gaming, but I don't really know a ton about RAM, so I wanted to ask a few questions. The research I've done tells me there is a negligible increase in speed for anything above 1600 MHz. is this true or is it worth the extra money to go higher? Other than drawing more power from the PSU, is there any real difference in performance with different voltages (1.5V vs 1.65V)? most of the kits I've found in the 2x4 1600 range have a CAS latency of 9 and timing of 9-9-9-24. For a significant increase in price (usually about 1.5x), I can get either 8 or 7 and lower timing. Is it worth the cost? What I am looking for here is someone to give a good explanation of what the different specs represent, and how that relates to the performance of the machine. Specifically, I'm looking for what specs I need to focus on for a good gaming rig. I am NOT looking for a "buy this, it's the best RAM" without an explanation of why. The information will be much more valuable as it will allow me to make my own informed decision. As they say, give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his life.

  Read the article

• Capabilities of business and SOHO routers

  - by Q8Y

  I'm currently studying for the CCNA certifications (especially for Cisco routers and configuration). I know that business routers provide more features than SOHO routers, the processing speed and RAM can be enough. Assume I need to connect a number of users through a network (accessing internet, share files, printers, ...). I have a high speed connection to the internet and I already applied QoS. How can I find out how many users such a single (SOHO) router could handle? In my case I'd attach to it multiple switches until I have the number of ports needed. Would everything work well and smoothly with 50 users? What about 300? At which point would I need a business router instead? If I implemented VLAN here, would it make any difference in the performance? When do I really need to use more than one router? (Both SOHO and business) I'm thinking that I may need them only if I want to increase the performance (instead of replacing the existing one) and if I have multiple locations, so in this situation I need to have multiple routers, right? Put differently: Is there is a need to have another router if my business all in one place?

  Read the article

• Serious 64-bit laptop

  - by Daniel Gehriger

  For the past couple of years, I have been using an IBM Thinkpad T60p for daily work (software development, desktop & embedded). I am extremely satisfied with this machine, due to its robustness. It also has a few features I depend on: a high resolution display: 15.0" TFT FlexView display with 1600x1200 (UXGA); excellent keyboard; decent graphics and CPU performance. Some of the software I develop benefits from larger amounts of RAM, and 3GB (Windows 7 32-bit) or 4GB (Windows 7 64-bit on T60p) are no longer sufficient. My customers run desktop computers with 20GB and more, and I need to have at least 8GB to at least be able to run reasonable test cases. So I'm shopping around for a new laptop, but I'm struggling to find anything that matches my requirements: must run Windows 7 64-bit Pro or higher; must support at least 8GB of RAM (more is better) high screen resolution! While I prefer 4:3 I can live with wide screen. But I really hope to find something with a vertical screen resolution similar to what I have now... portable, so < 16" but = 14" I realize that FlexView isn't available anymore, but I'd like to avoid a glossy screen if possible. decent (not more) graphics performance, ideally hybrid (I'm doing a lot of CAD, never games). good keyboard reasonable CPU -- but I'm still fine with my current Core 2 Duo, so that shouldn't be too complicated. The T60p fits all those requirements, except the 8GB of RAM. Can you help me find a current notebook that would match most of them? I don't mind changing brand. Thanks!

  Read the article

• What should the memory configuration be?

  - by AngryHacker

  We have a server (ProLiant DL585 G1 by HP), which hosts Windows 2003 x64 R2 with SQL Server 2005 x64 and a host of other apps. It currently has 6GB of RAM. We are currently very memory constrained and it's clear that we need to get more memory. 8GB will probably do the trick, however, we are not sure as to what memory configuration will give us the biggest performance buck. Currently all 8 memory slots are filled (4 slots have 1GB chip, while the other 4 slots have 512MB chips). Should we throw the 512MB sticks away and just replace them all with 1GB sticks? If we decided to go with a higher memory configuration (e.g. 10GB or 12GB or 16GB), is it advisable to keep all the sticks of the same size or it does not matter? I was once told that interleaved memory requires (for better performance) that memory should be in multiples (e.g. 2 or 4 or 8 or 16, etc...). I am not even sure that the server has an interleaved configuration (and don't know how to find out), but is this true? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Is there a utility to visualise / isolate and watch application calls

  - by MyStream

  Note: I'm not sure what to search for so guidance on that may be just as valuable as an answer. I'm looking for a way to visually compare activity of two applications (in this case a webserver with php communicating with the system or mysql or network devices, etc) such that I can compare the performance at a glance. I know there are tools to generate data dumps from benchmarks for apache and some available for php for tracing that you can dump and analyse but what I'm looking for is something that can report performance metrics visually from data on calls (what called what, how long did it take, how much memory did it consume, how can that be represented visually in a call stack) and present it graphically as if it were a topology or layered visual with different elements of system calls occupying different layers. A typical visual may consist of (e.g. using swim diagrams as just one analogy): Network (details here relevant to network diagnostics) | ^ back out v | Linux (details here related to firewall/routing diagnostics) ^ back to network | | V ^ back to system Apache (details here related to web request) | | ^ response to V | apache PHP (etc) PHP---------->other accesses to php files/resources----- | ^ v | MySQL (total time) MySQL | ^ V | Each call listed + time + tables hit/record returned My aim would be to be able to 'inspect' a request/range of requests over a period of time to see what constituted the activity at that point in time and trace it from beginning to end as a diagnostic tool. Is there any such work in this direction? I realise it would be intensive on the server, but the intention is to benchmark and analyse processes against each other for both educational and professional reasons and a visual aid is a great eye-opener compared to raw statistics or dozens of discrete activity vs time graphs. It's hard to show the full cycle. Any pointers welcome. Thanks! FROM COMMENTS: > XHProf in conjunction with other programs such as Perconna toolkit > (percona.com/doc/percona-toolkit/2.0/pt-pmp.html) for mySQL run apache > with httpd -X & (Single threaded debug mode and background) then > attach with strace -> kcache grind

  Read the article

• Weird glitches on Intel iGPU

  - by FrederikVds

  I have a weird problem that I can't manage to describe in one word, so I'm having trouble searching for a solution. My monitors sometimes go black for a tenth of a second. Other times, they show the image shifted a few centimeters to the left or to the right. This happens on both of my monitors, but not necessarily at the same time. I would say it happens about once a minute, unless under heavy load, in which case it can happen every second or so. Interestingly, heavy CPU/memory usage can also cause this, not just heavy GPU usage. This only happens when they are both at 1920x1080, not when one of them, or both, are at a lower resolution. It also happens when they are in mirrored mode instead of extended desktop mode. My GPU is obviously not at full clock speed most of the time: this happens at 350 MHz as well as at 1200 MHz. So it doesn't seem like a matter of too little performance. I'm not seeing any traditional artefacts, even when I use MSI Kombustor, only this kind of full-screen glitches. CPU stressing software isn't reporting any issues either. I'm thinking maybe the connection between my CPU and my PCH isn't fast enough, but I can't find anyone with the same problem to confirm that. I'd rather not invest in a discrete GPU without being certain it will fix something. Does anyone know how to search for this, or even better, does anyone have a solution? My full specs are below. Thanks in advance! Specs: ASUS P8Z77-M Intel Core i5-3570K (with Intel HD 4000 Graphics) 2x4 GB AMD Performance Edition memory Corsair Force 3 Series Rev. B 120GB SSD Maxtor 200GB HD Lite-On DVD-RW Antec 350 Watt PSU 64-bit Windows 7 Professional 2x Iiyama ProLite E2208HDS display

  Read the article

• Ruby installed on Ubuntu 10.10 slow on one machine but not other

  - by Aaron Jensen

  I have a machine that was provisioned several months ago. RVM was used to install ruby 1.9.3-p125 as well as 1.9.3-p125-perf. When I compared raw ruby performance to another identical machine the older machine smoked them. For example: ================================================================================ With in-block needle calculation ================================================================================ Rehearsal ---------------------------------------------- detect 3.790000 0.000000 3.790000 ( 3.800895) each 2.410000 0.000000 2.410000 ( 2.420860) any 3.960000 0.000000 3.960000 ( 3.972099) include 1.440000 0.000000 1.440000 ( 1.442862) ------------------------------------ total: 11.600000sec vs ================================================================================ With in-block needle calculation ================================================================================ Rehearsal ---------------------------------------------- detect 10.740000 0.000000 10.740000 ( 10.769366) each 6.080000 0.010000 6.090000 ( 6.106323) any 10.600000 0.000000 10.600000 ( 10.641606) include 4.160000 0.000000 4.160000 ( 4.171530) ------------------------------------ total: 31.590000sec I attempted to reinstall 1.9.3-p125 with rvm on the fast machine and that ruby is now slow. It's as if something changed in RVM, or I installed some package that made compiled versions of ruby perform significantly worse. I know this is a tough question to answer, but what things should I look into in order to track down why the performance has suffered so much? edit I just attempted to install with ruby-build and the version installed was fast. Something rvm is doing to build it in my environment is slow.

  Read the article

• Memory overcommitment on VmWare ESXi 5.0

  - by Tibor

  I would like to understand better the possibilities of VmWare ESXi memory overcommitment. I've read this paper from VmWare, so I am familiar with general concepts, such as hypervisor swapping, memory balooning and page sharing. It seems that a combination of these techniques allows for quite a large degree of overcommitment. However, I am not sure. I am deploying a virtual test lab comprising of 4 identical sets of virtual servers and workstations and a couple of virtual router instances. Overall, I expect to be running around 20 virtual machines with Windows XP, Windows 7 and Ubuntu for workstation hosts as well as CentOS and Windows 2008 Server instances for servers. The problem is, however, that the host machine only has 12GB of RAM and I don't have an option to stuff in some more. I would like to know what is the best option to configure hosts in order to achieve reasonable performance within the constrains. I have these two options: Allocate as little as possible of RAM to each virtual machine. Allocate an extraordinary amount (such as 4 GB per instance) and let the baloon driver do the rest. Something else? Which would work better? Machines will mostly be idle, so I don't have any major performance expectations, but they should run reasonably smoothly nevertheless.

  Read the article

• Firefox: Clear History Is SUPER EFFECTIVE?

  - by acidzombie24

  I'm seeing a performance problem on certain sites (like gmail) which clearing the history should not affect. Is this a website problem or a firefox problem and what can i do to fix it w/o clearing my history? Also as a webdeveloper i am interested in how to make this happen (or not happen). I'm using firefox 8 and i confirmed the problem by copying my profile to firefox 11 (portable). To reproduce go to gmail.com and sign in. Have your task manager open. Once you click signin or hit enter gmail will bring up your emails. Keep your eye on the CPU usage. I checked and right now on this machine its using all my CPU for 22seconds!!!! Yes. 22 seconds. Once i cleared my "browser & download history" Its <6seconds. WTF. I have no idea why or how the size of history and CPU usage when loading up gmail are correlated. I have firefox setup so it never clears the history. But... 22seconds is a disaster. Can someone explain why this is happening or a fix that isnt clearing my history? I tried visiting a few websites and only gmail eats up that much CPU. Most websites only take <5sec of max CPU. So maybe this is a gmail problem? Or a firefox problem that gmail happens to hit? I still dont understand why it happens. -edit- I forgot to mention places.sqlite is 90mb. I dont think that matters. I have a sqlite file 400mb which is pretty much 2 large tables. It has no performance issues

  Read the article

• Cisco configuration for public library internet

  - by AlternateZ

  I'm a C/C++ computer programmer turned IT support guy working for a public library. My day is usually spent helping random grandparents learn how to use email, so my networking knowledge is limited to what I can glean from google. Here's the situation. We have a public library with 20 PCs on a LAN and also public wifi access. Previously we were running all of this on 1 ADSL connection and people complained about low speeds. We hired a networking company to set up a Cisco dual-WAN router for us, and purchased an additional ADSL connection. The intention was to give the LAN PCs a guaranteed amount of bandwidth each, and then let the wifi users split the rest. The results were far worse than what we expected, and all we got from the company was excuses and they've since washed their hands of us. During busy periods, net performance on the LAN PCs are so poor that attaching files to gmail etc often times out and fails - far from the "guaranteed amount of bandwidth each" that we hope for! Sometimes it feels like performance is worse than before when we had 1 ADSL link and an unconfigured router? Anyways, surely this is a problem encountered a million times over across the world? (Sharing internet across many users effectively.) What are standard solutions for something like this? I admit to not even knowing the right jargon to google for (load balancing?) I'd appreciate any links to resources/guides that might help me get a better understanding of the problem/solutions, and perhaps some stories of your own experience in solving similar problems. This will help us evaluate and negotiate with network consultants in the future. If its relevant, our router config contains a section "policy-map" with "bandwidth percent" for each class of user (LAN, wifi), and "fair queue".

  Read the article

• Would a PHP application benefit from being served from a RAM drive?

  - by Tom Marthenal

  I am in charge of hosting a PHP application that is large and slow, but easy to scale. The application is entirely static, with writable disk storage needed. We've profiled the application, and the main bottleneck appears to come from loading the application and not the work the application does. The application is not CPU-intensive, although it does use a fair amount of memory (think Magento). Currently we distribute it by having a series of servers with the same PHP files on their hard drive and a load balancer in front of them. Easy but expensive. I've been reading about RAM disks and the IO benefits they offer, and was wondering if they would be well-suited to PHP applications. Since PHP applications are loaded from disk for every request and often involve lots of different files (as opposed to being kept in memory like with a Java application), I would figure that disk performance can be a severe bottleneck. Would placing the PHP files on a RAM disk and using the mount point as Apache's document root offer performance benefits? A startup script could create the RAM drive and then copy the files (which are plain-text and small) from a permanent location to the temporary RAM drive. Does this make sense, or should I just trust the linux kernel to cache the appropriate files in memory by itself?

  Read the article

• Network switches for LAN party

  - by guywhoneedsahand

  I am working on setting up the network for a small LAN party (less than 16 people). Most of them do not have wireless cards in their rigs, so I need to set up some way for everyone to a) play LAN games and b) access the internet. The LAN party will probably take place in my basement, where I have enough space. However, the basement is not wired up with the router which is actually on the floor above. I make a cantenna a while back that can boost the wireless performance of my computer significantly. How can I use this to provide internet and LAN to guests? My hope was that I could use a switch like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833181166 for the LAN - but how can I give people access to the internet? Is there such thing as a network extender / 16-port switch? Obviously, the internet performance doesn't need to be super stellar, because the games will be using LAN - so I am looking to provide some usable internet for web browsing, and very high speed LAN for games. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Howto align partitions in Linux + NetApp

  - by santisaez

  NetApp support has suggested us aligning partitions to improve performance, in short: starting sector must be divisible by 8. How can I move the start point in a misaligned partition -in production, with ext3- under Linux? A screenshot with a misaligned (start=63s) and aligned (start=64s) partition is available at: http://filesocial.com/lkwvvn2 (If anyone is interested in this topic, NetApp has a good document explaining performance issues in misaligned partitions, search for "tr-3747": Best Practices for File System Alignment in Virtual Environments.) I have tried using parted "resize + move" commands, but when moving start point a get this error: (parted) resize Partition number? 1 Start? [64s]? End? [419425019s]? 419425018 (parted) move Partition number? 1 Start? 65 End? [419425019s]? 419425019 Error: Can't move a partition onto itself. Try using resize, perhaps? Using fdisk 'b' command in expert mode ('move beginning of data in a partition') works, but it doesn't move the file system.. thanks!!

  Read the article

• Matched or unmatched drives for RAID arrays?

  - by Will

  Looking around there is conflciting information on this, with some strongly suggesting one or the other. From my understanding the issue with matched drives is that the wear on both drives is more or less the same, so the potential for the second drive failing with or very soon after the first is pretty high. People also claim matched drives give substianatally higher performance however assuming the unmatched drives are more or less the same (eg 2, 1 TB STATA II 7200rpm drives with 32MB cache), would the minor differences between say a Seagate and a Western Digital one (say one has a 128MB/s read rate, and the other a 150MB/s read rate, as well as I guess various other minor differences) actually cause any notable performance loss, ie potentialy worse than two matched 128MB/s drives, or does RAID not really care and give you essentially an optimal solution (eg upto 278MB/s total read speed for RAID 0 and 1) and similar for other RAID with more "unmatched" drives (5 and 1+0 come to mind as possibilities)? Also I couldnt find much info on how this is different on different RAID setups, eg RAID 0 or RAID 1, software or hardware RAID, etc. I'm assuming such things have an effect, and thats it's not all the same for RAID in general?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281  | Next Page >