Search Results

Search found 1282 results on 52 pages for 'overhead'.

Page 4/52 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • zlib memory usage / performance. With 500kb of data.

    - by unixman83
    Is zLib Worth it? Are there other better suited compressors? I am using an embedded system. Frequently, I have only 3MB of RAM or less available to my application. So I am considering using zlib to compress my buffers. I am concerned about overhead however. The buffer's average size will be 30kb. This probably won't get compressed by zlib. Anyone know of a good compressor for extremely limited memory environments? However, I will experience occasional maximum buffer sizes of 700kb, with 500kb much more common. Is zlib worth it in this case? Or is the overhead too much to justify? My sole considerations for compression are RAM overhead of algorithm and performance at least as good as zlib.

    Read the article

  • Impact of Truncate or Drop Table When Flashback Database is Enabled

    - by alejandro.vargas
    Recently I was working on a VLDB on the implementation of a disaster recovery environment configured with data guard physical standby and fast start failover. One of the questions that come up was about the overhead of truncating and dropping tables. There are daily jobs on the database that truncate extremely large partitions, and as note 565535.1 explains, we knew there is an overhead for these operations. But the information on the note was not clear enough, we the additional information I've got from Senior Oracle colleagues I did compile this document "Impact of Truncate or Drop Table When Flashback Database is Enabled" that further explain the case

    Read the article

  • Video stutter when using external drive

    - by psion
    When using boxee to play video files off of an external western digital 1TB drive formatted NTFS, I notice a slight stutter in the video every 5-10 seconds. When using mplayer, it doesn't stutter as often, but it still stutters occasionally. If I play the video off of the local sata drive, it plays fine even in boxee. I use this computer as my HTPC and I just switched from windows to linux on it. In windows, I never had any sort of stutter playing movies from the drive. I am using the latest intel graphics drivers (for the intel GMA 950) root@eee-htpc:/home/htpc# grep wd /etc/mtab /dev/sdb1 /mnt/wd2 fuseblk rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other,blksize=512 0 0 I notice that despite trying to use ntfs or ntfs-3g, ubuntu uses ntfs-fuse which I've heard is slower. /dev/sdb1: Timing buffered disk reads: 80 MB in 3.07 seconds = 26.08 MB/sec root@eee-htpc:/mnt/wd2# dd if=/dev/zero of=./120mb bs=1024 count=120000 root@eee-htpc:/mnt/wd2# time mv ./120mb /home/htpc real 0m2.095s user 0m0.016s sys 0m0.736s Even though fuse has a reputation for being slow, it should easily be fast enough for playing standard definition video files. So why the video stutter? edit: The issue seems to be overhead cpu usage from either playing off of a usb device or ntfs/fuse. Watching CPU usage with top, local files use 10-40% CPU. Watching the same video on the external formatted ntfs, it spikes to 170% (over 100% because of hyperthreading). To me it seems like it must be overhead from the fuse driver, though I don't know if it has more or less overhead than ntfs-3g. It's a EEEBox B202 that has an atom 270, so not exactly the most powerful out there. edit2: I believe the solution would be to use non-fuse drivers or different fuse drivers. so far I have not been able to. edit3: I've probably edited this more times than I should, but as an update I have upgraded ntfs drivers to ntfs-3g 2010.8.8 external FUSE 28 - Third Generation NTFS Driver using the following PPA - ppa:x3lectric/team-iquik-releases. When first opening a video file in boxee that's on ntfs there's still the same amount of lag. After a few minutes of video, the lag seems to go away and the cpu usage comes down to 10-40%. Every so often though, it begins to stutter again. Also, if I skip ahead/back in the file, it begins to stutter a lot.

    Read the article

  • Should custom data elements be stored as XML or database entries?

    - by meteorainer
    There are a ton of questions like this, but they are mostly very generalized, so I'd like to get some views on my specific usage. General: I'm building a new project on my own in Django. It's focus will be on small businesses. I'd like to make it somewhat customizble for my clients so they can add to their customer/invoice/employee/whatever items. My models would reflect boilerplate items that all ModelX might have. For example: first name last name email address ... Then my user's would be able to add fields for whatever data they might like. I'm still in design phase and am building this myself, so I've got some options. Working on... Right now the 'extra items' models have a FK to the generic model (Customer and CustomerDataPoints for example). All values in the extra data points are stored as char and will be coerced/parced into their actual format at view building. In this build the user could theoretically add whatever values they want, group them in sets and generally access them at will from the views relavent to that model. Pros: Low storage overhead, very extensible, searchable Cons: More sql joins My other option is to use some type of markup, or key-value pairing stored directly onto the boilerplate models. This coul essentially just be any low-overhead method weather XML or literal strings. The view and form generated from the stored data would be taking control of validation and reoganizing on updates. Then it would just dump the data back in as a char/blob/whatever. Something like: <datapoint type='char' value='something' required='true' /> <datapoint type='date' value='01/01/2001' required='false' /> ... Pros: No joins needed, Updates for validation and views are decoupled from data Cons: Much higher storage overhead, limited capacity to search on extra content So my question is: If you didn't live in the contraints impose by your company what method would you use? Why? What benefits or pitfalls do you see down the road for me as a small business trying to help other small businesses? Just to clarify, I am not asking about custom UI elements, those I can handle with forms and template snippets. I'm asking primarily about data storage and retreival of non standardized data relative to a boilerplate model.

    Read the article

  • Memory read/write access efficiency

    - by wolfPack88
    I've heard conflicting information from different sources, and I'm not really sure which one to believe. As such, I'll post what I understand and ask for corrections. Let's say I want to use a 2D matrix. There are three ways that I can do this (at least that I know of). 1: int i; char **matrix; matrix = malloc(50 * sizeof(char *)); for(i = 0; i < 50; i++) matrix[i] = malloc(50); 2: int i; int rowSize = 50; int pointerSize = 50 * sizeof(char *); int dataSize = 50 * 50; char **matrix; matrix = malloc(dataSize + pointerSize); char *pData = matrix + pointerSize - rowSize; for(i = 0; i < 50; i++) { pData += rowSize; matrix[i] = pData; } 3: //instead of accessing matrix[i][j] here, we would access matrix[i * 50 + j] char *matrix = malloc(50 * 50); In terms of memory usage, my understanding is that 3 is the most efficient, 2 is next, and 1 is least efficient, for the reasons below: 3: There is only one pointer and one allocation, and therefore, minimal overhead. 2: Once again, there is only one allocation, but there are now 51 pointers. This means there is 50 * sizeof(char *) more overhead. 1: There are 51 allocations and 51 pointers, causing the most overhead of all options. In terms of performance, once again my understanding is that 3 is the most efficient, 2 is next, and 1 is least efficient. Reasons being: 3: Only one memory access is needed. We will have to do a multiplication and an addition as opposed to two additions (as in the case of a pointer to a pointer), but memory access is slow enough that this doesn't matter. 2: We need two memory accesses; once to get a char *, and then to the appropriate char. Only two additions are performed here (once to get to the correct char * pointer from the original memory location, and once to get to the correct char variable from wherever the char * points to), so multiplication (which is slower than addition) is not required. However, on modern CPUs, multiplication is faster than memory access, so this point is moot. 1: Same issues as 2, but now the memory isn't contiguous. This causes cache misses and extra page table lookups, making it the least efficient of the lot. First and foremost: Is this correct? Second: Is there an option 4 that I am missing that would be even more efficient?

    Read the article

  • When to use functional programming approach and when not? (in Java)

    - by john smith optional
    let's assume I have a task to create a Set of class names. To remove duplication of .getName() method calls for each class, I used org.apache.commons.collections.CollectionUtils and org.apache.commons.collections.Transformer as follows: Snippet 1: Set<String> myNames = new HashSet<String>(); CollectionUtils.collect( Arrays.<Class<?>>asList(My1.class, My2.class, My3.class, My4.class, My5.class), new Transformer() { public Object transform(Object o) { return ((Class<?>) o).getName(); } }, myNames); An alternative would be this code: Snippet 2: Collections.addAll(myNames, My1.class.getName(), My2.class.getName(), My3.class.getName(), My4.class.getName(), My5.class.getName()); So, when using functional programming approach is overhead and when it's not and why? Isn't my usage of functional programming approach in snippet 1 is an overhead and why?

    Read the article

  • How to prioritize tasks when you have multiple programming projects running in parallel?

    - by Vinko Vrsalovic
    Say you have 5 customers, you develop 2 or 3 different projects for each. Each project has Xi tasks. Each project takes from 2 to 10 man weeks. Given that there are few resources, it is desired to minimize the management overhead. Two questions in this scenario: What tools would you use to prioritize the tasks and track their completion, while tending to minimize the overhead? What criteria would you take into consideration to determine which task to assign to the next available resource given that the primary objective is to increase throughput (more projects finished per time unit, this objective conflicts with starting one project and finishing it and then moving on to the next)? Ideas, management techniques, algorithms are welcome

    Read the article

  • ZFS + FreeBSD + virtualbox

    - by John
    Hi, I'm configuring a FreeBSD server hosting virtualbox serving half dozen mission critical busy mail servers. I just learned ZFS, I'm quite attracted, but have a few questions: what is the CPU overhead of ZFS? I googled and found little (or no) benchmark for that. from what I learned, when ZFS updates files, it keeps the old file as snapshot, and write the updated part for the new version. However that would mean for each snapshot it keeps that require significant storage overhead. How much is this storage overhead? For example, suppose I have 2TB usable space, how much space can actually be used for the latest version of files one year later? is FreeBSD with ZFS hosting virtualbox serving half dozen busy guest mission critical mail servers a reasonable combination? Anything particular to be careful with? And can I still choose ZFS for the guest OSs? This is because I may build another identical such box for redundancy, and will need to do some mirroring between each pair of the guest systems across the boxes. I'm trying to configure a Dell R710 for this. From what I learned, I shouldn't choose any RAID at all, is that true? In that case, are the drives still arrive hot swappable? this may sounds a bit pathetic, but since I have no experience with ZFS at all, and this is a mission critical server, so just ask just in case: I'm choosing twin Intel L5630 processors, and 6 x 600GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI drives. If I need more space in the future, I would just hot swap some drivers with larger capacity to expand the storage. There is no problem with these, right?

    Read the article

  • Built-in GZip/Deflate Compression on IIS 7.x

    - by Rick Strahl
    IIS 7 improves internal compression functionality dramatically making it much easier than previous versions to take advantage of compression that’s built-in to the Web server. IIS 7 also supports dynamic compression which allows automatic compression of content created in your own applications (ASP.NET or otherwise!). The scheme is based on content-type sniffing and so it works with any kind of Web application framework. While static compression on IIS 7 is super easy to set up and turned on by default for most text content (text/*, which includes HTML and CSS, as well as for JavaScript, Atom, XAML, XML), setting up dynamic compression is a bit more involved, mostly because the various default compression settings are set in multiple places down the IIS –> ASP.NET hierarchy. Let’s take a look at each of the two approaches available: Static Compression Compresses static content from the hard disk. IIS can cache this content by compressing the file once and storing the compressed file on disk and serving the compressed alias whenever static content is requested and it hasn’t changed. The overhead for this is minimal and should be aggressively enabled. Dynamic Compression Works against application generated output from applications like your ASP.NET apps. Unlike static content, dynamic content must be compressed every time a page that requests it regenerates its content. As such dynamic compression has a much bigger impact than static caching. How Compression is configured Compression in IIS 7.x  is configured with two .config file elements in the <system.WebServer> space. The elements can be set anywhere in the IIS/ASP.NET configuration pipeline all the way from ApplicationHost.config down to the local web.config file. The following is from the the default setting in ApplicationHost.config (in the %windir%\System32\inetsrv\config forlder) on IIS 7.5 with a couple of small adjustments (added json output and enabled dynamic compression): <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <configuration> <system.webServer> <httpCompression directory="%SystemDrive%\inetpub\temp\IIS Temporary Compressed Files"> <scheme name="gzip" dll="%Windir%\system32\inetsrv\gzip.dll" staticCompressionLevel="9" /> <dynamicTypes> <add mimeType="text/*" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="message/*" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/x-javascript" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/json" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="*/*" enabled="false" /> </dynamicTypes> <staticTypes> <add mimeType="text/*" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="message/*" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/x-javascript" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/atom+xml" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/xaml+xml" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="*/*" enabled="false" /> </staticTypes> </httpCompression> <urlCompression doStaticCompression="true" doDynamicCompression="true" /> </system.webServer> </configuration> You can find documentation on the httpCompression and urlCompression keys here respectively: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms690689%28v=vs.90%29.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa347437%28v=vs.90%29.aspx The httpCompression Element – What and How to compress Basically httpCompression configures what types to compress and how to compress them. It specifies the DLL that handles gzip encoding and the types of documents that are to be compressed. Types are set up based on mime-types which looks at returned Content-Type headers in HTTP responses. For example, I added the application/json to mime type to my dynamic compression types above to allow that content to be compressed as well since I have quite a bit of AJAX content that gets sent to the client. The UrlCompression Element – Enables and Disables Compression The urlCompression element is a quick way to turn compression on and off. By default static compression is enabled server wide, and dynamic compression is disabled server wide. This might be a bit confusing because the httpCompression element also has a doDynamicCompression attribute which is set to true by default, but the urlCompression attribute by the same name actually overrides it. The urlCompression element only has three attributes: doStaticCompression, doDynamicCompression and dynamicCompressionBeforeCache. The doCompression attributes are the final determining factor whether compression is enabled, so it’s a good idea to be explcit! The default for doDynamicCompression='false”, but doStaticCompression="true"! Static Compression is enabled by Default, Dynamic Compression is not Because static compression is very efficient in IIS 7 it’s enabled by default server wide and there probably is no reason to ever change that setting. Dynamic compression however, since it’s more resource intensive, is turned off by default. If you want to enable dynamic compression there are a few quirks you have to deal with, namely that enabling it in ApplicationHost.config doesn’t work. Setting: <urlCompression doDynamicCompression="true" /> in applicationhost.config appears to have no effect and I had to move this element into my local web.config to make dynamic compression work. This is actually a smart choice because you’re not likely to want dynamic compression in every application on a server. Rather dynamic compression should be applied selectively where it makes sense. However, nowhere is it documented that the setting in applicationhost.config doesn’t work (or more likely is overridden somewhere and disabled lower in the configuration hierarchy). So: remember to set doDynamicCompression=”true” in web.config!!! How Static Compression works Static compression works against static content loaded from files on disk. Because this content is static and not bound to change frequently – such as .js, .css and static HTML content – it’s fairly easy for IIS to compress and then cache the compressed content. The way this works is that IIS compresses the files into a special folder on the server’s hard disk and then reads the content from this location if already compressed content is requested and the underlying file resource has not changed. The semantics of serving an already compressed file are very efficient – IIS still checks for file changes, but otherwise just serves the already compressed file from the compression folder. The compression folder is located at: %windir%\inetpub\temp\IIS Temporary Compressed Files\ApplicationPool\ If you look into the subfolders you’ll find compressed files: These files are pre-compressed and IIS serves them directly to the client until the underlying files are changed. As I mentioned before – static compression is on by default and there’s very little reason to turn that functionality off as it is efficient and just works out of the box. The one tweak you might want to do is to set the compression level to maximum. Since IIS only compresses content very infrequently it would make sense to apply maximum compression. You can do this with the staticCompressionLevel setting on the scheme element: <scheme name="gzip" dll="%Windir%\system32\inetsrv\gzip.dll" staticCompressionLevel="9" /> Other than that the default settings are probably just fine. Dynamic Compression – not so fast! By default dynamic compression is disabled and that’s actually quite sensible – you should use dynamic compression very carefully and think about what content you want to compress. In most applications it wouldn’t make sense to compress *all* generated content as it would generate a significant amount of overhead. Scott Fortsyth has a great post that details some of the performance numbers and how much impact dynamic compression has. Depending on how busy your server is you can play around with compression and see what impact it has on your server’s performance. There are also a few settings you can tweak to minimize the overhead of dynamic compression. Specifically the httpCompression key has a couple of CPU related keys that can help minimize the impact of Dynamic Compression on a busy server: dynamicCompressionDisableCpuUsage dynamicCompressionEnableCpuUsage By default these are set to 90 and 50 which means that when the CPU hits 90% compression will be disabled until CPU utilization drops back down to 50%. Again this is actually quite sensible as it utilizes CPU power from compression when available and falling off when the threshold has been hit. It’s a good way some of that extra CPU power on your big servers to use when utilization is low. Again these settings are something you likely have to play with. I would probably set the upper limit a little lower than 90% maybe around 70% to make this a feature that kicks in only if there’s lots of power to spare. I’m not really sure how accurate these CPU readings that IIS uses are as Cpu usage on Web Servers can spike drastically even during low loads. Don’t trust settings – do some load testing or monitor your server in a live environment to see what values make sense for your environment. Finally for dynamic compression I tend to add one Mime type for JSON data, since a lot of my applications send large chunks of JSON data over the wire. You can do that with the application/json content type: <add mimeType="application/json" enabled="true" /> What about Deflate Compression? The default compression is GZip. The documentation hints that you can use a different compression scheme and mentions Deflate compression. And sure enough you can change the compression settings to: <scheme name="deflate" dll="%Windir%\system32\inetsrv\gzip.dll" staticCompressionLevel="9" /> to get deflate style compression. The deflate algorithm produces slightly more compact output so I tend to prefer it over GZip but more HTTP clients (other than browsers) support GZip than Deflate so be careful with this option if you build Web APIs. I also had some issues with the above value actually being applied right away. Changing the scheme in applicationhost.config didn’t show up on the site  right away. It required me to do a full IISReset to get that change to show up before I saw the change over to deflate compressed content. Content was slightly more compressed with deflate – not sure if it’s worth the slightly less common compression type, but the option at least is available. IIS 7 finally makes GZip Easy In summary IIS 7 makes GZip easy finally, even if the configuration settings are a bit obtuse and the documentation is seriously lacking. But once you know the basic settings I’ve described here and the fact that you can override all of this in your local web.config it’s pretty straight forward to configure GZip support and tweak it exactly to your needs. Static compression is a total no brainer as it adds very little overhead compared to direct static file serving and provides solid compression. Dynamic Compression is a little more tricky as it does add some overhead to servers, so it probably will require some tweaking to get the right balance of CPU load vs. compression ratios. Looking at large sites like Amazon, Yahoo, NewEgg etc. – they all use Related Content Code based ASP.NET GZip Caveats HttpWebRequest and GZip Responses © Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2011Posted in IIS7   ASP.NET  

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Code for type casting Generic Types 'generically' in C#

    - by Rick Strahl
    C# is a strongly typed language and while that's a fundamental feature of the language there are more and more situations where dynamic types make a lot of sense. I've written quite a bit about how I use dynamic for creating new type extensions: Dynamic Types and DynamicObject References in C# Creating a dynamic, extensible C# Expando Object Creating a dynamic DataReader for dynamic Property Access Today I want to point out an example of a much simpler usage for dynamic that I use occasionally to get around potential static typing issues in C# code especially those concerning generic types. TypeCasting Generics Generic types have been around since .NET 2.0 I've run into a number of situations in the past - especially with generic types that don't implement specific interfaces that can be cast to - where I've been unable to properly cast an object when it's passed to a method or assigned to a property. Granted often this can be a sign of bad design, but in at least some situations the code that needs to be integrated is not under my control so I have to make due with what's available or the parent object is too complex or intermingled to be easily refactored to a new usage scenario. Here's an example that I ran into in my own RazorHosting library - so I have really no excuse, but I also don't see another clean way around it in this case. A Generic Example Imagine I've implemented a generic type like this: public class RazorEngine<TBaseTemplateType> where TBaseTemplateType : RazorTemplateBase, new() You can now happily instantiate new generic versions of this type with custom template bases or even a non-generic version which is implemented like this: public class RazorEngine : RazorEngine<RazorTemplateBase> { public RazorEngine() : base() { } } To instantiate one: var engine = new RazorEngine<MyCustomRazorTemplate>(); Now imagine that the template class receives a reference to the engine when it's instantiated. This code is fired as part of the Engine pipeline when it gets ready to execute the template. It instantiates the template and assigns itself to the template: var template = new TBaseTemplateType() { Engine = this } The problem here is that possibly many variations of RazorEngine<T> can be passed. I can have RazorTemplateBase, RazorFolderHostTemplateBase, CustomRazorTemplateBase etc. as generic parameters and the Engine property has to reflect that somehow. So, how would I cast that? My first inclination was to use an interface on the engine class and then cast to the interface.  Generally that works, but unfortunately here the engine class is generic and has a few members that require the template type in the member signatures. So while I certainly can implement an interface: public interface IRazorEngine<TBaseTemplateType> it doesn't really help for passing this generically templated object to the template class - I still can't cast it if multiple differently typed versions of the generic type could be passed. I have the exact same issue in that I can't specify a 'generic' generic parameter, since there's no underlying base type that's common. In light of this I decided on using object and the following syntax for the property (and the same would be true for a method parameter): public class RazorTemplateBase :MarshalByRefObject,IDisposable { public object Engine {get;set; } } Now because the Engine property is a non-typed object, when I need to do something with this value, I still have no way to cast it explicitly. What I really would need is: public RazorEngine<> Engine { get; set; } but that's not possible. Dynamic to the Rescue Luckily with the dynamic type this sort of thing can be mitigated fairly easily. For example here's a method that uses the Engine property and uses the well known class interface by simply casting the plain object reference to dynamic and then firing away on the properties and methods of the base template class that are common to all templates:/// <summary> /// Allows rendering a dynamic template from a string template /// passing in a model. This is like rendering a partial /// but providing the input as a /// </summary> public virtual string RenderTemplate(string template,object model) { if (template == null) return string.Empty; // if there's no template markup if(!template.Contains("@")) return template; // use dynamic to get around generic type casting dynamic engine = Engine; string result = engine.RenderTemplate(template, model); if (result == null) throw new ApplicationException("RenderTemplate failed: " + engine.ErrorMessage); return result; } Prior to .NET 4.0  I would have had to use Reflection for this sort of thing which would have a been a heck of a lot more verbose, but dynamic makes this so much easier and cleaner and in this case at least the overhead is negliable since it's a single dynamic operation on an otherwise very complex operation call. Dynamic as  a Bailout Sometimes this sort of thing often reeks of a design flaw, and I agree that in hindsight this could have been designed differently. But as is often the case this particular scenario wasn't planned for originally and removing the generic signatures from the base type would break a ton of other code in the framework. Given the existing fairly complex engine design, refactoring an interface to remove generic types just to make this particular code work would have been overkill. Instead dynamic provides a nice and simple and relatively clean solution. Now if there were many other places where this occurs I would probably consider reworking the code to make this cleaner but given this isolated instance and relatively low profile operation use of dynamic seems a valid choice for me. This solution really works anywhere where you might end up with an inheritance structure that doesn't have a common base or interface that is sufficient. In the example above I know what I'm getting but there's no common base type that I can cast to. All that said, it's a good idea to think about use of dynamic before you rush in. In many situations there are alternatives that can still work with static typing. Dynamic definitely has some overhead compared to direct static access of objects, so if possible we should definitely stick to static typing. In the example above the application already uses dynamics extensively for dynamic page page templating and passing models around so introducing dynamics here has very little additional overhead. The operation itself also fires of a fairly resource heavy operation where the overhead of a couple of dynamic member accesses are not a performance issue. So, what's your experience with dynamic as a bailout mechanism? © Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in CSharp   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to use S3 over HTTP from EC2, as opposed to HTTPS

    - by Marc
    I found that there is a fair deal of overhead when uploading a lot of small files to S3. Some of this overhead comes from SSL itself. How safe is it to talk to S3 without SSL when running in EC2? From the awesome comments below, here are some clarifications: this is NOT a question about HTTPS versus HTTP or the sensitivity of my data. I'm trying to get a feeling for the networking and protocol particularities of EC2 and S3. For example Are we guaranteed to be passing through only the AWS network when communicating from EC2 to S3 Can other AWS users (apart from staff) sniff my communications between EC2 and S3 Is authentication on their api done on every call, and thus credentials are passed on every call? Or is there some kind of authenticated session. I am using the jets3t lib. Feedback from people with some AWS experience would be appreciated. Thanks Marc

    Read the article

  • Should we regularly schedule mysqlcheck (or databsae optimization)

    - by scatteredbomb
    We run a forum with some 2 million posts and I've noticed that if left untouched the overhead in the mySQL (as listed in phpMyAdmin) can get quite large (hundreds of megabytes). I'm wondering if scheduling a normal mysqlcheck to optimize the tables is good practice? Any reason not to do it, say, once a week at an off-peak hour? There was a time over the summer where our site was constantly crashing because mysql was using up all resources. That's when I noticed the huge amount of overhead and optimized the database and haven't had any problems since then with stability. I figured if that was helping alleviate the issues, I should just setup a cron to automatically do this.

    Read the article

  • Performance impact of running Linux in a virtual machine in Windows?

    - by vovick
    Hello, I'd like to know what performance impact I could expect running Linux in a virtual machine in Windows. The job I need Linux for is heavy and almost non-stop code compilation with GCC. Dual-boot doesn't look like a very attractive solution, so I'm counting on low VM overhead right now (10-20% would be fine for me, but 50% or more will be unacceptable). Did anyone try to measure the performance difference, are there any comparison tables? What virtual machine with the lowest overhead possible will you suggest? My host OS is Win7 and I've got a modern Core i7 with VT-x present. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What is recommended minimum object size for gzip performance benefits?

    - by utt73
    I'm working on improving page speed display times, and one of the methods is to gzip content from the webserver. Google recommends: Note that gzipping is only beneficial for larger resources. Due to the overhead and latency of compression and decompression, you should only gzip files above a certain size threshold; we recommend a minimum range between 150 and 1000 bytes. Gzipping files below 150 bytes can actually make them larger. We serve our content through Akamai, using their network for a proxy and CDN. What they've told me: Following up on your question regarding what is the minimum size Akamai will compress the requested object when sending it to the end user: The minimum size is 860 bytes. My reply: What is the reason(s) for why Akamai's minimum size is 860 bytes? And why, for example, is this not the case for files Akamai serves for facebook? (see below) Google recommends to gzip more agressively. And that seems appropriate on our site where the most frequent hits, by far, are AJAX calls that are <860 bytes. Akamai's response: The reasons 860 bytes is the minimum size for compression is twofold: (1) The overhead of compressing an object under 860 bytes outweighs performance gain. (2) Objects under 860 bytes can be transmitted via a single packet anyway, so there isn't a compelling reason to compress them. So I'm here for some fact checking. Is the 860 byte limit due to packet size the end of this reasoning? Why would high traffic sites push this down to the 150 byte limit... just to save on bandwidth costs (since CDNs base their charges on bandwith offloaded from origin), or is there a performance gain in doing so?

    Read the article

  • How do I manage the technical debate over WCF vs. Web API?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm managing a team of like 15 developers now, and we are stuck at a point on choosing the technology, where the team is broken into two completely opposite teams, debating over usage of WCF vs. Web API. Team A which supports usage of Web API, brings forward these reasons: Web API is just the modern way of writing services (Wikipedia) WCF is an overhead for HTTP. It's a solution for TCP, and Net Pipes, and other protocols WCF models are not POCO, because of [DataContract] & [DataMember] and those attributes SOAP is not as readable and handy as JSON SOAP is an overhead for network compared to JSON (transport over HTTP) No method overloading Team B which supports the usage of WCF, says: WCF supports multiple protocols (via configuration) WCF supports distributed transactions Many good examples and success stories exist for WCF (while Web API is still young) Duplex is excellent for two-way communication This debate is continuing, and I don't know what to do now. Personally, I think that we should use a tool only for its right place of usage. In other words, we'd better use Web API, if we want to expose a service over HTTP, but use WCF when it comes to TCP and Duplex. By searching the Internet, we can't get to a solid result. Many posts exist for supporting WCF, but on the contrary we also find people complaint about it. I know that the nature of this question might sound arguable, but we need some good hints to decide. We're stuck at a point where choosing a technology by chance might make us regret it later. We want to choose with open eyes. Our usage would be mostly for web, and we would expose our services over HTTP. In some cases (say 5 to 10 percent) we might need distributed transactions though. What should I do now? How do I manage this debate in a constructive way?

    Read the article

  • Polygons vs sprites rendering performance in Unity for windows phone 8

    - by Géry Arduino
    I'm currently building a windows phone 8 game with unity, having 111 (no more no less) sprites being updated each frames. I have a strong overhead in the profiler (70% to 90% minimum) I tried the following to get higher frame rate, I'm running it with minimum quality settings, I tried disabling and enabling V-Sync Finally I managedto get 60Fps, but I still have large overhead. I believe I should have more than 60Fps for such few amount. Moreover, I still have to implement the game logic over this so I'd like some room in my FPS to be able to work. I was wondering if it would be better in terms of performance to use polygons instead of sprites? As sprites are quite new in Unity, (that would give me around 222 triangles). Did someone tried to check the performance differences between sprites and actual mesh renderes in Unity when it comes to phones? If so what could be the best option in that case? FYI : I'm using the Windows Phone 8 emulator on Visual studio, I have a compliant computer for that so it should normally reflect the behavior of a real phone (expecting some differences but still...) EDIT : To clarify my question i wonder what is the most efficient in windows phone 8 : Sprites or Mesh renderers?

    Read the article

  • Instructor Insight: Using the Container Database in Oracle Database 12 c

    - by Breanne Cooley
    The first time I examined the Oracle Database 12c architecture, I wasn’t quite sure what I thought about the Container Database (CDB). In the current release of the Oracle RDBMS, the administrator now has a choice of whether or not to employ a CDB. Bundling Databases Inside One Container In today’s IT industry, consolidation is a common challenge. With potentially hundreds of databases to manage and maintain, an administrator will require a great deal of time and resources to upgrade and patch software. Why not consider deploying a container database to streamline this activity? By “bundling” several databases together inside one container, in the form of a pluggable database, we can save on overhead process resources and CPU time. Furthermore, we can reduce the human effort required for periodically patching and maintaining the software. Minimizing Storage Most IT professionals understand the concept of storage, as in solid state or non-rotating. Let’s take one-to-many databases and “plug” them into ONE designated container database. We can minimize many redundant pieces that would otherwise require separate storage and architecture, as was the case in previous releases of the Oracle RDBMS. The data dictionary can be housed and shared in one CDB, with individual metadata content for each pluggable database. We also won’t need as many background processes either, thus reducing the overhead cost of the CPU resource. Improve Security Levels within Each Pluggable Database  We can now segregate the CDB-administrator role from that of the pluggable-database administrator as well, achieving improved security levels within each pluggable database and within the CDB. And if the administrator chooses to use the non-CDB architecture, everything is backwards compatible, too.  The bottom line: it's a good idea to at least consider using a CDB. -Christopher Andrews, Senior Principal Instructor, Oracle University

    Read the article

  • Announcing: Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c Delivers Advanced Self-Service Automation for Oracle Database 12c Multitenant

    - by Scott McNeil
    New Self-Service Driven Provisioning of Pluggable Databases Today Oracle announced new capabilities that support managing the full lifecycle of pluggable database as a service in Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c Release 3 (12.1.0.3). This latest release builds on the existing capabilities to provide advanced automation for deploying database as a service using Oracle Database 12c Multitenant option. It takes it one step further by offering pluggable database as a service through Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c self-service portal providing customers with fast provisioning of database cloud services with minimal time and effort. This is a significant addition to Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c’s existing portfolio of cloud services that includes infrastructure as a service, database as a service, testing as a service, and Java platform as a service. The solution provides a self-service mechanism to provision pluggable databases allowing users to request and access database(s) on-demand. The self-service operations are also enabled through REST APIs allowing customers to integrate with third-party automation systems or their custom enterprise portals. Benefits Self-service provisioning allows rapid access to pluggable database as a service for hosting or certifying applications on Oracle Database 12c Self-service driven migration to pluggable database as a service in order to migrate a pre-Oracle Database 12c database to a pluggable database as a service model and test the consolidation strategy Single service catalog for all approved pluggable database as a service configurations which helps customers achieve standardization while catering to all applications and users in the enterprise Resource guarantee via database resource manager (and IORM on Oracle Exadata) that enables deployment of mixed workloads in a shared environment Quota, role based access, and policy based management that enforces governance and reduces administrative overhead Chargeback or showback which improves metering and accountability for services consumed by each pluggable database Comprehensive REST APIs that support integration with ticketing or change management systems, and or with other self-service portals Minimal administrative and maintenance overhead through self-managing automation that allows for intelligent placement of pluggable databases To understand how pluggable database as a service works, watch this quick demo: Stay Connected: Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Linkedin | Newsletter Download the Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control12c Mobile app

    Read the article

  • Unit testing statically typed functional code

    - by back2dos
    I wanted to ask you people, in which cases it makes sense to unit test statically typed functional code, as written in haskell, scala, ocaml, nemerle, f# or haXe (the last is what I am really interested in, but I wanted to tap into the knowledge of the bigger communities). I ask this because from my understanding: One aspect of unit tests is to have the specs in runnable form. However when employing a declarative style, that directly maps the formalized specs to language semantics, is it even actually possible to express the specs in runnable form in a separate way, that adds value? The more obvious aspect of unit tests is to track down errors that cannot be revealed through static analysis. Given that type safe functional code is a good tool to code extremely close to what your static analyzer understands. However a simple mistake like using x instead of y (both being coordinates) in your code cannot be covered. However such a mistake could also arise while writing the test code, so I am not sure whether its worth the effort. Unit tests do introduce redundancy, which means that when requirements change, the code implementing them and the tests covering this code must both be changed. This overhead of course is about constant, so one could argue, that it doesn't really matter. In fact, in languages like Ruby it really doesn't compared to the benefits, but given how statically typed functional programming covers a lot of the ground unit tests are intended for, it feels like it's a constant overhead one can simply reduce without penalty. From this I'd deduce that unit tests are somewhat obsolete in this programming style. Of course such a claim can only lead to religious wars, so let me boil this down to a simple question: When you use such a programming style, to which extents do you use unit tests and why (what quality is it you hope to gain for your code)? Or the other way round: do you have criteria by which you can qualify a unit of statically typed functional code as covered by the static analyzer and hence needs no unit test coverage?

    Read the article

  • Memory concerns while plotting escape from DLL Hell in Delphi

    - by Peter Turner
    I work on a program with about 50 DLLs that are loaded from one executable, it's an old organically grown program where the only rationale for creating a new DLL is that one previously didn't exist to fill a given need. (and namespaces didn't exist in Delphi so it never crossed our mind to make dll1.main.pas, dll2.main.pas or something even more unique) What we want to do is consolidate all these DLLs into one executable, since none of them are used out of the program, there shouldn't be much of a problem. The concern my boss has is that if we did this, the memory overhead for terminal server clients would go through the roof. So, I've stepped through enough initialization code to know that lots of stuff is done every time a DLL is loaded in to memory, but say I've got a project with about 4000 files, and 50 dlls, 10 of which are probably utilized by any one user in any one session of the program. The 50 dlls are about 2/3rds form files, if not more, but beyond that there's not a lot of other resources being loaded (only a few embedded pictures, icons, cursors, etc..). If I loaded all these files in to memory, how much memory is used per unit? how much is used per class? How do I keep the overhead down? and what is the biggest project one can reasonably expect to build with Delphi? This tidbit won't help answering, but I think it might clarify what my boss is worried about, we currently start our program at about 18megs, normal working conditions are usually less than 40 megs, he thinks it could climb as high as 120 megs.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >