Search Results

Search found 251 results on 11 pages for 'fragmentation'.

Page 3/11 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >

  • How frequently IP packets are fragmented at the source host?

    - by Methos
    I know that if IP payload MTU then routers usually fragment the IP packet. Finally all the fragmented packets are assembled at the destination using the fields IP-ID, IP fragment offsets and fragmentation flags. Max length of IP payload is 64K. Thus its very plausible for L4 to hand over payload which is 64K. If the L2 protocol is Ethernet, which often is the case, then the MTU will be about 1600 bytes. Hence IP packet will be fragmented at the source host itself. However, a quick search about IP implementation in Linux tells me that in recent kernels, L4 protocols are fragment friendly i.e. they try to save the fragmentation work for IP by handing over buffers of size which is close to MTU. Considering these two facts, I am wondering about how frequently does the IP packet gets fragmented at the source host itself. Does it occur sometimes/rarely/never? Does anyone know if there are exceptions to the rule of fragmentation in linux kernel (i.e. are there situations where L4 protocols are not fragment friendly)? How is this handled in other common OSes like windows? In general how frequently IP packets are fragmented?

    Read the article

  • La moitié des mobiles sous Android tournent avec la version 2.1, fin de la fragmentation et du casse

    Mise à jour du 17/06/10 La moitié des mobiles sous Android tournent avec la version 2.1 Fin de la fragmentation et du casse-tête pour les développeurs ? La fragmentation d'Android (la multiplication des versions de l'OS) est un problème pour Google. Et surtout un casse-tête pour les développeurs qui doivent prendre en compte les spécificités (et quelque fois la non rétro-compatibilité) de chacune des versions. Avec la sortie d'Android 2.1, l'idée que tous les terminaux puissent être mis à jour pour unifier les versions de l'OS avait été émise. Mais si elle paraissait bonne sur le papier, elle n'était malheureusement pas...

    Read the article

  • C++ new memory allocation fragmentation

    - by tamulj
    I was trying to look at the behavior of the new allocator and why it doesn't place data contiguously. My code: struct ci { char c; int i; } template <typename T> void memTest() { T * pLast = new T(); for(int i = 0; i < 20; ++i) { T * pNew = new T(); cout << (pNew - pLast) << " "; pLast = pNew; } } So I ran this with char, int, ci. Most allocations were a fixed length from the last, sometimes there were odd jumps from one available block to another. sizeof(char) : 1 Average Jump: 64 bytes sizeof(int): 4 Average Jump: 16 sizeof(ci): 8 (int has to be placed on a 4 byte align) Average Jump: 9 Can anyone explain why the allocator is fragmenting memory like this? Also why is the jump for char so much larger then ints and a structure that contains both an int and char.

    Read the article

  • Why might the Large Object Heap grow rather than throw an exception?

    - by Unsliced
    In a previous question I asked possible programatic ways of maximising the largest block allocatable on the LOH. I'm still seeing the problems, but now I'm trying to get my head around why the LOH seems to grow and shrink in size, yet I'm still seeing OutOfMemoryExceptions that tally with what others have reported as being due to LOH fragmentation. Why might one call to, for example, StringBuilder.EnsureCapacity throw an OutOfMemoryException for me, but another call from somewhere else result in the LOH expanding in size (according to the performance counters, it is growing and shrinking)?

    Read the article

  • Does Windows XP automatically reassemble UDP fragments?

    - by Matt Davis
    I've got a Windows application that receives and processes XML messages transmitted via UDP. The application collects the data using Windows "raw" sockets, so the entire layer 3 packet is visible. We've recently run across a problem that has me stumped. If the XML messages (i.e., UDP packets) are large (i.e., 1500 bytes), they get fragmented as expected. Ordinarily, this will cause the XML processor to fail because it attempts to process each UDP packet as if it is a complete XML message. This is a known short-coming in the system at this stage of its development. On Windows 7, this is exactly what happens. The fragments are received and logged, but no processing occurs. On Windows XP, however, the same fragments are seen, and the XML processor seems to handle everything just fine. Does Windows XP automatically reassemble UDP fragments? I guess I could expect this for a normal UDP socket, but it's not expected behavior for a "raw" socket, IMO. Further, if this is the case on Windows XP, why isn't the behavior the same on Windows 7? Is there a way to enable this?

    Read the article

  • Jelly Bean équipe un terminal Android sur deux, vers la fin de la fragmentation de l'OS ?

    Jelly Bean équipe un terminal Android sur deux vers la fin de la fragmentation de l'OS ?Comme il est de coutume, Google vient de publier son baromètre mensuel à destination des développeurs Android.Jelly Bean, les versions cumulées les plus récentes du système d'exploitation mobile, continue à s'accaparer des parts au détriment des versions les plus anciennes (Froyo, Gingerbread).Concrètement, Jelly Bean (Android 4.1.x, 4.2.x et 4.3) équipe désormais plus de la moitié des terminaux Android, avec...

    Read the article

  • No Significant Fragmentation? Look Closer…

    If you are relying on using 'best-practice' percentage-based thresholds when you are creating an index maintenance plan for a SQL Server that checks the fragmentation in your pages, you may miss occasional 'edge' conditions on larger tables that will cause severe degradation in performance. It is worth being aware of patterns of data access in particular tables when judging the best threshold figure to use.

    Read the article

  • No Significant Fragmentation? Look Closer…

    If you are relying on using 'best-practice' percentage-based thresholds when you are creating an index maintenance plan for a SQL Server that checks the fragmentation in your pages, you may miss occasional 'edge' conditions on larger tables that will cause severe degradation in performance. It is worth being aware of patterns of data access in particular tables when judging the best threshold figure to use.

    Read the article

  • strategy to allocate/free lots of small objects

    - by aaa
    hello I am toying with certain caching algorithm, which is challenging somewhat. Basically, it needs to allocate lots of small objects (double arrays, < 256 elements), with objects accessible through mapped value, map[key] = array. time to initialized array may be quite large, generally more than 10 thousand cpu cycles. By lots I mean around gigabyte in total. objects may need to be popped/pushed as needed, generally in random places, one object at a time. lifetime of an object is generally long, minutes or more, however, object may be subject to allocation/deallocation several times during duration of program. What would be good strategy to avoid memory fragmentation, while still maintaining reasonable allocate deallocate speed? I am using C++, so I can use new and malloc. Thanks. I know there a similar questions on website, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2156745/efficiently-allocating-many-short-lived-small-objects, are somewhat different, thread safety is not immediate issue for me.

    Read the article

  • Design approach, string table data, variables, stl memory usage

    - by howieh
    I have an old structure class like this: typedef vector<vector<string>> VARTYPE_T; which works as a single variable. This variable can hold from one value over a list to data like a table. Most values are long,double, string or double [3] for coordinates (x,y,z). I just convert them as needed. The variables are managed in a map like this : map<string,VARTYPE_T *> where the string holds the variable name. Sure, they are wrapped in classes. Also i have a tree of nodes, where each node can hold one of these variablemaps. Using VS 2008 SP1 for this, i detect a lot of memory fragmentation. Checking against the stlport, stlport seemed to be faster (20% ) and uses lesser memory (30%, for my test cases). So the question is: What is the best implementation to solve this requirement with fast an properly used memory ? Should i write an own allocator like a pool allocator. How would you do this ? Thanks in advance, Howie

    Read the article

  • Benefits of "Don't Fragment" on TCP Packets?

    - by taspeotis
    One of our customers is having trouble submitting data from our application (on their PC) to a server (different geographical location). When sending packets under 1100 bytes everything works fine, but above this we see TCP retransmitting the packet every few seconds and getting no response. The packets we are using for testing are about 1400 bytes (but less than 1472). I can send an ICMP ping to www.google.com that is 1472 bytes and get a response (so it's not their router/first few hops). I found that our application sets the DF flag for these packets, and I believe a router along the way to the server has an MTU less than/equal to 1100 and dropping the packet. This affects 1 client in 5000, but since everybody's routes will be different this is expected. The data is a SOAP envelope and we expect a SOAP response back. I can't justify WHY we do it, the code to do this was written by a previous developer. So... Are there are benefits OR justification to setting the DF flag on TCP packets for application data? I can think of reasons it is needed for network diagnostics applications but not in our situation (we want the data to get to the endpoint, fragmented or not). One of our sysadmins said that it might have something to do with us using SSL, but as far as I know SSL is like a stream and regardless of fragmentation, as long as the stream is rebuilt at the end, there's no problem. If there's no good justification I will be changing the behaviour of our application. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • What Is Disk Fragmentation and Do I Still Need to Defragment?

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Do modern computers still need the kind of routine defragmentation procedures that older computers called for? Read on to learn about fragmentation and what modern operating systems and file systems do to minimize performance impacts. Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-drive grouping of Q&A web sites. Secure Yourself by Using Two-Step Verification on These 16 Web Services How to Fix a Stuck Pixel on an LCD Monitor How to Factory Reset Your Android Phone or Tablet When It Won’t Boot

    Read the article

  • Android : plus de 61% des smartphones embarquent la version 2.2 et moins de 8% sont sur une version 1.x, fin de la fragmentation ?

    Android : plus de 61 % des smartphones embarquent la version 2.2 Et moins de 8% sont sur une version 1.x, la fin de la fragmentation ? Mise à jour du 18/03/11, par Hinault Romaric La version 2.2 est de « très » loin la plus utilisée par les terminaux tournant sur Android d'après l'analyse menée par Google sur les terminaux Android ayant accédé à l'Android Market au cours des deux premières semaines de mars 2011 (du 01 au 14). Actuellement, c'est un total de 61,3% de terminaux qui tournent sur la version 2.2 (Froyo) d'Android au détriment de la version 2.1 (Eclair) qui chute à moins de 30%. [IMG]http://rdonfack.dev...

    Read the article

  • Single Responsibility Principle - How Can I Avoid Code Fragmentation?

    - by Dean Chalk
    I'm working on a team where the team leader is a virulent advocate of SOLID development principles. However, he lacks a lot of experience in getting complex software out of the door. We have a situation where he has applied SRP to what was already quite a complex code base, which has now become very highly fragmented and difficult to understand and debug. We now have a problem not only with code fragmentation, but also encapsulation, as methods within a class that may have been private or protected have been judged to represent a 'reason to change' and have been extracted to public or internal classes and interfaces which is not in keeping with the encapsulation goals of the application. We have some class constructors which take over 20 interface parameters, so our IoC registration and resolution is becoming a monster in its own right. I want to know if there is any 'refactor away from SRP' approach we could use to help fix some of these issues. I have read that it doesn't violate SOLID if I create a number of empty courser-grained classes that 'wrap' a number of closely related classes to provide a single-point of access to the sum of their functionality (i.e. mimicking a less overly SRP'd class implementation). Apart from that, I cannot think of a solution which will allow us to pragmatically continue with our development efforts, while keeping everyone happy. Any suggestions ?

    Read the article

  • MySQL Optimization 20 gig table

    - by user169743
    I have a 20 gig table that has a large amount of inserts and updates daily. This table is also frequently searched. I'd like to know if the MySQL indices can become fragmented and perhaps need to be rebuilt or something similar. I'm finding it difficult to figure out which of the CHECK TABLE, REPAIR TABLE or something similar? Any guidance appreciated, I'm a db newb.

    Read the article

  • Why Fragmentation is Done at IP why not for TCP/UDP.

    - by mahesh
    I am looking for the reason Why Fragmentation is Done at IP level but why not for TCP/UDP. Suppose say my frame looks like this |MAC|IP|TCP|Payload|FCS. the whole size if say for eg: 1600. PathMTU happens here, why fragmentation is implemented @ IP level is my question and why not implemented @ TCP/UDP level/code. Thank in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't 'Low Fragmentation Heap' LFH enabled by default on Windows Server 2003?

    - by James Wiseman
    I've been investigating an issue with a production Classic ASP website running on IIS6 which seems indicative of memory fragmentation. One of the suggestions of how to ameliorate this came from Stackoverflow: How can I find why some classic asp pages randomly take a real long time to execute?. It suggested flipping a setting in the site's global.asa file to 'turn on' Low Fragmentation Heap (LFH). The following code (with a registered version of the accompanying DLL) did the trick. Set LFHObj=CreateObject("TURNONLFH.ObjTurnOnLFH") LFHObj.TurnOnLFH() application("TurnOnLFHResult")=CStr(LFHObj.TurnOnLFHResult) (Really the code isn't that important to the question). An author of a linked post reported a seemingly magic resolution to this issue, and, reading around a little more, I discovered that this setting is enabled by default on Windows Server 2008. So, naturally, this left me a little concerned: Why is this setting not enabled by default on 2003, or If it works in 2008 why have Microsoft not issued a patch to enable it by default on 2003? I suspect the answer to the above is the same for both (if there is one). Obviously, we're testing it in a non-production environment, and doing an array of metrics and comparisons to deem if it does help us. But aside from this I'm really just trying to understand if there's any technical reason why we should do this, or if there are any gotchas that we need to be aware of.

    Read the article

  • Disadvantages of enabling 'Low Fragmentation Heap' LFH on Windows Server 2003?

    - by James Wiseman
    I've been investigating an issue with a production Classic ASP website running on IIS6 which seems indicative of memory fragmentation. One of the suggestions of how to ameliorate this came from Stackoverflow: How can I find why some classic asp pages randomly take a real long time to execute?. It suggested flipping a setting in the site's global.asa file to 'turn on' Low Fragmentation Heap (LFH). The following code (with a registered version of the accompanying DLL) did the trick. Set LFHObj=CreateObject("TURNONLFH.ObjTurnOnLFH") LFHObj.TurnOnLFH() application("TurnOnLFHResult")=CStr(LFHObj.TurnOnLFHResult) (Really the code isn't that important to the question). An author of a linked post reported a seemingly magic resolution to this issue, and, reading around a little more, I discovered that this setting is enabled by default on Windows Server 2008. So, naturally, this left me a little concerned: Why is this setting not enabled by default on 2003, or If it works in 2008 why have Microsoft not issued a patch to enable it by default on 2003? I suspect the answer to the above is the same for both (if there is one). Obviously, we're testing it in a non-production environment, and doing an array of metrics and comparisons to deem if it does help us. But aside from this I'm really just trying to understand if there's any technical reason why we should do this, or if there are any gotchas that we need to be aware of.

    Read the article

  • Visual C#, Large Arrays, and LOH Fragmentation. What is the accepted convention?

    - by Gorchestopher H
    I have an other active question HERE regarding some hopeless memory issues that possibly involve LOH Fragmentation among possibly other unknowns. What my question now is, what is the accepted way of doing things? If my app needs to be done in Visual C#, and needs to deal with large arrays to the tune of int[4000000], how can I not be doomed by the garbage collector's refusal to deal with the LOH? It would seem that I am forced to make any large arrays global, and never use the word "new" around any of them. So, I'm left with ungraceful global arrays with "maxindex" variables instead of neatly sized arrays that get passed around by functions. I've always been told that this was bad practice. What alternative is there? Is there some kind of function to the tune of System.GC.CollectLOH("Seriously") ? Are there possibly some way to outsource garbage collection to something other than System.GC? Anyway, what are the generally accepted rules for dealing with large (85Kb) variables?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server - Rebuilding Indexes

    - by Renso
    Goal: Rebuild indexes in SQL server. This can be done one at a time or with the example script below to rebuild all index for a specified table or for all tables in a given database. Why? The data in indexes gets fragmented over time. That means that as the index grows, the newly added rows to the index are physically stored in other sections of the allocated database storage space. Kind of like when you load your Christmas shopping into the trunk of your car and it is full you continue to load some on the back seat, in the same way some storage buffer is created for your index but once that runs out the data is then stored in other storage space and your data in your index is no longer stored in contiguous physical pages. To access the index the database manager has to "string together" disparate fragments to create the full-index and create one contiguous set of pages for that index. Defragmentation fixes that. What does the fragmentation affect?Depending of course on how large the table is and how fragmented the data is, can cause SQL Server to perform unnecessary data reads, slowing down SQL Server’s performance.Which index to rebuild?As a rule consider that when reorganize a table's clustered index, all other non-clustered indexes on that same table will automatically be rebuilt. A table can only have one clustered index.How to rebuild all the index for one table:The DBCC DBREINDEX command will not automatically rebuild all of the indexes on a given table in a databaseHow to rebuild all indexes for all tables in a given database:USE [myDB]    -- enter your database name hereDECLARE @tableName varchar(255)DECLARE TableCursor CURSOR FORSELECT table_name FROM information_schema.tablesWHERE table_type = 'base table'OPEN TableCursorFETCH NEXT FROM TableCursor INTO @tableNameWHILE @@FETCH_STATUS = 0BEGINDBCC DBREINDEX(@tableName,' ',90)     --a fill factor of 90%FETCH NEXT FROM TableCursor INTO @tableNameENDCLOSE TableCursorDEALLOCATE TableCursorWhat does this script do?Reindexes all indexes in all tables of the given database. Each index is filled with a fill factor of 90%. While the command DBCC DBREINDEX runs and rebuilds the indexes, that the table becomes unavailable for use by your users temporarily until the rebuild has completed, so don't do this during production  hours as it will create a shared lock on the tables, although it will allow for read-only uncommitted data reads; i.e.e SELECT.What is the fill factor?Is the percentage of space on each index page for storing data when the index is created or rebuilt. It replaces the fill factor when the index was created, becoming the new default for the index and for any other nonclustered indexes rebuilt because a clustered index is rebuilt. When fillfactor is 0, DBCC DBREINDEX uses the fill factor value last specified for the index. This value is stored in the sys.indexes catalog view. If fillfactor is specified, table_name and index_name must be specified. If fillfactor is not specified, the default fill factor, 100, is used.How do I determine the level of fragmentation?Run the DBCC SHOWCONTIG command. However this requires you to specify the ID of both the table and index being. To make it a lot easier by only requiring you to specify the table name and/or index you can run this script:DECLARE@ID int,@IndexID int,@IndexName varchar(128)--Specify the table and index namesSELECT @IndexName = ‘index_name’    --name of the indexSET @ID = OBJECT_ID(‘table_name’)  -- name of the tableSELECT @IndexID = IndIDFROM sysindexesWHERE id = @ID AND name = @IndexName--Show the level of fragmentationDBCC SHOWCONTIG (@id, @IndexID)Here is an example:DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Tickets' table...Table: 'Tickets' (1829581556); index ID: 1, database ID: 13TABLE level scan performed.- Pages Scanned................................: 915- Extents Scanned..............................: 119- Extent Switches..............................: 281- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 7.7- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 40.78% [115:282]- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 16.28%- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 99.16%- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 2457.0- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 69.64%DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.What's important here?The Scan Density; Ideally it should be 100%. As time goes by it drops as fragmentation occurs. When the level drops below 75%, you should consider re-indexing.Here are the results of the same table and clustered index after running the script:DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Tickets' table...Table: 'Tickets' (1829581556); index ID: 1, database ID: 13TABLE level scan performed.- Pages Scanned................................: 692- Extents Scanned..............................: 87- Extent Switches..............................: 86- Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 100.00% [87:87]- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 0.00%- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 22.99%- Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 639.8- Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 92.10%DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.What's different?The Scan Density has increased from 40.78% to 100%; no fragmentation on the clustered index. Note that since we rebuilt the clustered index, all other index were also rebuilt.

    Read the article

  • Hi I am facing a fragmentation error while executing this code? Can someone explain why?

    - by aks
    #include<stdio.h> struct table { char *ipAddress; char *domainName; struct table *next; }; struct table *head = NULL; void add_rec(); void show_rec(); int main() { add_rec(); show_rec(); return 0; } void add_rec() { struct table * temp = head; struct table * temp1 = (struct table *)malloc(sizeof(struct table)); if(!temp1) printf("\n Unable to allocate memory \n"); printf("Enter the ip address you want \n"); scanf("%s",temp1->ipAddress); printf("\nEnter the domain name you want \n"); scanf("%s",temp1->domainName); if(!temp) { head = temp; } else { while(temp->next!=NULL) temp = temp->next; temp->next = temp1; } } void show_rec() { struct table * temp = head; if(!temp) printf("\n No entry exists \n"); while(temp!=NULL) { printf("ipAddress = %s\t domainName = %s\n",temp->ipAddress,temp->domainName); temp = temp->next; } } When i execute this code and enters the IP address for the first node, i am facing fragmentation error. The code crashed. Can someone enlighten?

    Read the article

  • is it worth defragging an iPod

    - by alimack
    Essentially my 5G iPod was cutting tracks off and generally misbehaving. So I did the following: 1) Use Diskwarrior - heavy directory fragmentation which it fixed; 2) Use iDefrag - some fragmentation but it kept halting as it couldn't move files; 3) Try to write out drive with Disk Utility - got a warning from DU so gave up before I started; 4) Completely restored using iTunes; 5) Reran Diskwarrior - still heavy directory fragmentation; 6) Reran iDefrag, still fragmentation although limited to two bands; The iPod is much quicker to traverse menus and no more track skipping. My question is this - is defragging worth it or does the heat generated by the process kill the drive and make it a self-defeating process. Anyone have any metrics/ figures? Clearly it's a bad idea for solid state drives like the nano & touch.

    Read the article

  • Don't Cut Corners on Server Defragmentation

    Hard-Core Hardware: Fragmentation may not cut it as a big screen villain, but it remains a threat and handicap to optimal server performance. In this era of massive hard drives and virtualization, minimizing fragmentation is more critical than ever.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >