Search Results

Search found 4715 results on 189 pages for 'ram bhat'.

Page 40/189 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

• Mysql performance problem & Failed DIMM

  - by murdoch

  Hi I have a dedicated mysql database server which has been having some performance problems recently, under normal load the server will be running fine, then suddenly out of the blue the performance will fall off a cliff. The server isn't using the swap file and there is 12GB of RAM in the server, more than enough for its needs. After contacting my hosting comapnies support they have discovered that there is a failed 2GB DIMM in the server and have scheduled to replace it tomorow morning. My question is could a failed DIMM result in the performance problems I am seeing or is this just coincidence? My worry is that they will replace the ram tomorrow but the problems will persist and I will still be lost of explanations so I am just trying to think ahead. The reason I ask is that there is plenty of RAM in the server, more than required and simply missing 2GB should be a problem, so if this failed DIMM is causing these performance problems then the OS must be trying to access the failed DIMM and slowing down as a result. Does that sound like a credible explanation? This is what DELLs omreport program says about the RAM, notice one dimm is "Critical" Memory Information Health : Critical Memory Operating Mode Fail Over State : Inactive Memory Operating Mode Configuration : Optimizer Attributes of Memory Array(s) Attributes : Location Memory Array 1 : System Board or Motherboard Attributes : Use Memory Array 1 : System Memory Attributes : Installed Capacity Memory Array 1 : 12288 MB Attributes : Maximum Capacity Memory Array 1 : 196608 MB Attributes : Slots Available Memory Array 1 : 18 Attributes : Slots Used Memory Array 1 : 6 Attributes : ECC Type Memory Array 1 : Multibit ECC Total of Memory Array(s) Attributes : Total Installed Capacity Value : 12288 MB Attributes : Total Installed Capacity Available to the OS Value : 12004 MB Attributes : Total Maximum Capacity Value : 196608 MB Details of Memory Array 1 Index : 0 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_A1 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 1 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_A2 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 2 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_A3 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 3 Status : Critical Connector Name : DIMM_B1 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 4 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_B2 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 5 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_B3 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB the command free -m shows this, the server seems to be using more than 10GB of ram which would suggest it is trying to use the DIMM total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 12004 10766 1238 0 384 4809 -/+ buffers/cache: 5572 6432 Swap: 2047 0 2047 iostat output while problem is occuring avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 52.82 0.00 11.01 0.00 0.00 36.17 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 47.00 0.00 576.00 0 576 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 1.00 0.00 32.00 0 32 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 46.00 0.00 544.00 0 544 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 53.12 0.00 7.81 0.00 0.00 39.06 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 49.00 0.00 592.00 0 592 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 49.00 0.00 592.00 0 592 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 56.09 0.00 7.43 0.37 0.00 36.10 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 232.00 0.00 64520.00 0 64520 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 159.00 0.00 63728.00 0 63728 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 73.00 0.00 792.00 0 792 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 52.18 0.00 9.24 0.06 0.00 38.51 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 49.00 0.00 600.00 0 600 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 49.00 0.00 600.00 0 600 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.82 0.00 8.64 0.00 0.00 36.55 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 100.00 0.00 2168.00 0 2168 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 100.00 0.00 2168.00 0 2168 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.78 0.00 6.75 0.00 0.00 38.48 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 84.00 0.00 896.00 0 896 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 84.00 0.00 896.00 0 896 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.34 0.00 7.31 0.00 0.00 38.35 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 81.00 0.00 840.00 0 840 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 81.00 0.00 840.00 0 840 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 55.18 0.00 5.81 0.44 0.00 38.58 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 317.00 0.00 105632.00 0 105632 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 224.00 0.00 104672.00 0 104672 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 93.00 0.00 960.00 0 960 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 55.38 0.00 7.63 0.00 0.00 36.98 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 74.00 0.00 800.00 0 800 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 74.00 0.00 800.00 0 800 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 56.43 0.00 7.80 0.00 0.00 35.77 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 72.00 0.00 784.00 0 784 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 72.00 0.00 784.00 0 784 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.87 0.00 6.49 0.00 0.00 38.64 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 80.20 0.00 855.45 0 864 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 80.20 0.00 855.45 0 864 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 57.22 0.00 5.69 0.00 0.00 37.09 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 33.00 0.00 432.00 0 432 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 33.00 0.00 432.00 0 432 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 56.03 0.00 7.93 0.00 0.00 36.04 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 41.00 0.00 560.00 0 560 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 2.00 0.00 88.00 0 88 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 39.00 0.00 472.00 0 472 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 55.78 0.00 5.13 0.00 0.00 39.09 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 29.00 0.00 392.00 0 392 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 29.00 0.00 392.00 0 392 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 53.68 0.00 8.30 0.06 0.00 37.95 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 78.00 0.00 4280.00 0 4280 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 78.00 0.00 4280.00 0 4280

  Read the article

• Which GPU with my CPU for 1080p flash?

  - by oshirowanen

  Based on the following site: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/ I need the following minimum spec to play 1080p flash video via a browser: CPU: 1.8GHz Intel Core Duo, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, or faster processor RAM: 512MB of RAM GPU: 64MB of graphics memory I only have a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 process which is no where near as good as the processor listed above. I don't want to upgrade my processor as I think it will mean I have to change the motherboard etc. So, my question is, what is the cheapest PCI-E GPU I can buy which will allow me to play smooth 1080p flash video via a browser. I think the cheapest I can get is the 8400GS, but am not sure if that will be able to handle 1080p with the processor I have. I have looked at the GT520 and was wondering if this is the cheapest GPU which I need, or if there is something cheaper which will do 1080p with a 2.8GHz Pentium 4. Or, will I have to get something better than a GT520?

  Read the article

• VLC will sometimes have issues displaying video in fullscreen. What could cause this? How would I troubleshoot the issue?

  - by George Marian

  Recently VLC has been having issues displaying video in fullscreen mode. AFAIK, nothing has changed with the video card drivers and it's certainly the same version of VLC. (/me shakes a fist at the repository maintainers) This has worked without issue in the past. In fact, I've had as many as 6 instances of VLC running, each playing a video. One was always fullscreen on my second monitor, while the others were tiled on my primary monitor. I was able to toggle any of the other 5 into fullscreen mode and the video displayed without issue. Lately, I've been having trouble running 2 instances in fullscreen mode. (Sometimes, even a single instance will not display the video in fullscreen.) VLC will continue to play the video, but in fullscreen mode I see nothing but a black screen. Sometimes, the video will display if I maximize the VLC window. Other times, I have to settle for a smaller sized window. I don't know if this is pertinent, but sometimes changing the min/max state of a Firefox window (Minefield, specifically) seemed to allow the troublesome instance to display the video in fullscreen mode. However, that did not prove to be a consistent workaround. Sometimes, it seemed that closing a Firefox window did the trick, though that isn't consistently successful either. (I futzed with Firefox, because with the crazy number of windows and tabs that I normally have open, it regularly hogs about 1 GB of RAM.) Another bit of funkiness that comes to mind is the fact that my secondary monitor is considered the primary on boot-up. I use xrandr to designate the real 1st monitor as primary after boot-up, as suggested by someone in a question I asked on the Unix & Linux SE site. Specs: Ubuntu 10.10 w/ Gnome and Compiz 8GB RAM AMD Phenom II 965 Black Edition Asus M4A79 Deluxe mobo XFX ATI Radeon HD 5750 w/ 1GB RAM VLC is configured to use the hardware overlay for video (as per the default setting) Does anyone have an idea what may cause this issue or how I may go about troubleshooting it? Update: Right now I have 2 instances of VLC playing, each in fullscreen mode on a separate monitor. This is what I see:

  Read the article

• I can not connect to the Internet with cable

  - by Diego Castro

  tengo un computador de escritorio (board: gigabyte h61m, procesador: intel core i3 de 64 bits, ram: ddr3 4 GB) y puedo acceder a internet normalmente desde Windows 7 (mi conexión es por cable directamente al modem (referencias del modem: D-link DSL-2640T)) e instale Ubuntu 11.04 y no puedo acceder a internet, probé con Ubuntu 10.04 (que es el que tengo actualmente instalado) y tampoco funciono no se que debo configurar ni que hacer, simplemente no se conecta, he intentado cambiando de modo automatico a modo manual en ipv4 y colocando los datos correspondientes (dirección IP, máscara de red y servidores de DNS) y no logro conectarme aún, agradezco la ayuda machine traslator Hi, I have a desktop (board: gigabyte h61m, Processor: Intel Core i3 64-bit RAM: 4 GB ddr3) and I can access the internet normally from Windows 7 (my connection is wired directly to the modem (modem references : D-link DSL-2640T)) and install Ubuntu 11.04 and I can not access the internet, I tried Ubuntu 10.04 (which is what I have currently installed) and worked either not set or that I should do, just does not connect, I tried switching from automatic mode to manual mode ipv4 and placing the data (IP address, subnet mask and DNS servers) and I can not even connect, appreciate the help

  Read the article

• How to get Cinnamon working in Virtualbox?

  - by kavoura

  I installed Ubuntu 11.10 (32-bit) in VirtualBox 4.1.8. I wanted to install Cinnamon, so I did and I have the option to choose it from the login screen, as well as GNOME options. If I choose Ubuntu I get Unity, which works fine. GNOME also works. But when I choose Cinnamon, the screen goes black and nothing responds and I have to reset the virtual machine. I have already installed Ubuntu 11.10 (64-bit) onto the PC in a separate partition (currently running 10.10 but trying out 11.10) and in that Cinnamon works perfectly. In VirtualBox I have 3D settings enabled and gave the virtual machine 128 MB graphics RAM, and 1024 MB system RAM. What settings should I change or what should I do to get Cinnamon working in Ubuntu in VirtualBox? I have also tried doing it in LinuxMint 12, but I get the same problem, just a black screen when selecting Cinnamon. So are Cinnamon and VirtualBox incompatible?

  Read the article

• Installing 12.04 Ubuntu Studio on VMware Workstation 7, won't install VMware Tools

  - by Chase Kelley

  I'm attempting to install Ubuntu Studio 12.04 on my laptop by using VMware Workstation 7.1.5, and I've encountered a problem. The install goes well until the installation of Ubuntu has completed and the installation of VMware Tools starts; after that it just stops. I have waited about an hour and a half and nothing has changed. The installation is on VMware Easy Install, and I am running Windows Vista 32-bit with 3 GB system RAM and 2 GB of RAM on the virtual machine. Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you!

  Read the article

• Unity very slow while Gnome Classic running just fine

  - by Sorin Sbarnea

  I see tons of people complaining about Unity speed and I think the problem is not with the video drivers. When I login to Gnome Classic the system is behaving just fine, but when on Unity I can barely do use it: windows are moved hard, terminal is damn slow. Is there any solution or bug that I should track? Details Ubuntu 11.10 Two monitors setup Latest Nvidia proprietary drivers (tested with default ones also, no change) 6GB RAM, Xeon @ 2.8 Nvidia Driver 280.13 - Quadro NVS 295 with 8 cores 256MB RAM. lspci | grep VGA 02:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation G98 [Quadro NVS 295] (rev a1) uname -a Linux sorins 3.0.0-16-generic #29-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 14 12:48:51 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

  Read the article

• 10 Windows Tweaking Myths Debunked

  - by Chris Hoffman

  Windows is big, complicated, and misunderstood. You’ll still stumble across bad advice from time to time when browsing the web. These Windows tweaking, performance, and system maintenance tips are mostly just useless, but some are actively harmful. Luckily, most of these myths have been stomped out on mainstream sites and forums. However, if you start searching the web, you’ll still find websites that recommend you do these things. Erase Cache Files Regularly to Speed Things Up You can free up disk space by running an application like CCleaner, another temporary-file-cleaning utility, or even the Windows Disk Cleanup tool. In some cases, you may even see an old computer speed up when you erase a large amount of useless files. However, running CCleaner or similar utilities every day to erase your browser’s cache won’t actually speed things up. It will slow down your web browsing as your web browser is forced to redownload the files all over again, and reconstruct the cache you regularly delete. If you’ve installed CCleaner or a similar program and run it every day with the default settings, you’re actually slowing down your web browsing. Consider at least preventing the program from wiping out your web browser cache. Enable ReadyBoost to Speed Up Modern PCs Windows still prompts you to enable ReadyBoost when you insert a USB stick or memory card. On modern computers, this is completely pointless — ReadyBoost won’t actually speed up your computer if you have at least 1 GB of RAM. If you have a very old computer with a tiny amount of RAM — think 512 MB — ReadyBoost may help a bit. Otherwise, don’t bother. Open the Disk Defragmenter and Manually Defragment On Windows 98, users had to manually open the defragmentation tool and run it, ensuring no other applications were using the hard drive while it did its work. Modern versions of Windows are capable of defragmenting your file system while other programs are using it, and they automatically defragment your disks for you. If you’re still opening the Disk Defragmenter every week and clicking the Defragment button, you don’t need to do this — Windows is doing it for you unless you’ve told it not to run on a schedule. Modern computers with solid-state drives don’t have to be defragmented at all. Disable Your Pagefile to Increase Performance When Windows runs out of empty space in RAM, it swaps out data from memory to a pagefile on your hard disk. If a computer doesn’t have much memory and it’s running slow, it’s probably moving data to the pagefile or reading data from it. Some Windows geeks seem to think that the pagefile is bad for system performance and disable it completely. The argument seems to be that Windows can’t be trusted to manage a pagefile and won’t use it intelligently, so the pagefile needs to be removed. As long as you have enough RAM, it’s true that you can get by without a pagefile. However, if you do have enough RAM, Windows will only use the pagefile rarely anyway. Tests have found that disabling the pagefile offers no performance benefit. Enable CPU Cores in MSConfig Some websites claim that Windows may not be using all of your CPU cores or that you can speed up your boot time by increasing the amount of cores used during boot. They direct you to the MSConfig application, where you can indeed select an option that appears to increase the amount of cores used. In reality, Windows always uses the maximum amount of processor cores your CPU has. (Technically, only one core is used at the beginning of the boot process, but the additional cores are quickly activated.) Leave this option unchecked. It’s just a debugging option that allows you to set a maximum number of cores, so it would be useful if you wanted to force Windows to only use a single core on a multi-core system — but all it can do is restrict the amount of cores used. Clean Your Prefetch To Increase Startup Speed Windows watches the programs you run and creates .pf files in its Prefetch folder for them. The Prefetch feature works as a sort of cache — when you open an application, Windows checks the Prefetch folder, looks at the application’s .pf file (if it exists), and uses that as a guide to start preloading data that the application will use. This helps your applications start faster. Some Windows geeks have misunderstood this feature. They believe that Windows loads these files at boot, so your boot time will slow down due to Windows preloading the data specified in the .pf files. They also argue you’ll build up useless files as you uninstall programs and .pf files will be left over. In reality, Windows only loads the data in these .pf files when you launch the associated application and only stores .pf files for the 128 most recently launched programs. If you were to regularly clean out the Prefetch folder, not only would programs take longer to open because they won’t be preloaded, Windows will have to waste time recreating all the .pf files. You could also modify the PrefetchParameters setting to disable Prefetch, but there’s no reason to do that. Let Windows manage Prefetch on its own. Disable QoS To Increase Network Bandwidth Quality of Service (QoS) is a feature that allows your computer to prioritize its traffic. For example, a time-critical application like Skype could choose to use QoS and prioritize its traffic over a file-downloading program so your voice conversation would work smoothly, even while you were downloading files. Some people incorrectly believe that QoS always reserves a certain amount of bandwidth and this bandwidth is unused until you disable it. This is untrue. In reality, 100% of bandwidth is normally available to all applications unless a program chooses to use QoS. Even if a program does choose to use QoS, the reserved space will be available to other programs unless the program is actively using it. No bandwidth is ever set aside and left empty. Set DisablePagingExecutive to Make Windows Faster The DisablePagingExecutive registry setting is set to 0 by default, which allows drivers and system code to be paged to the disk. When set to 1, drivers and system code will be forced to stay resident in memory. Once again, some people believe that Windows isn’t smart enough to manage the pagefile on its own and believe that changing this option will force Windows to keep important files in memory rather than stupidly paging them out. If you have more than enough memory, changing this won’t really do anything. If you have little memory, changing this setting may force Windows to push programs you’re using to the page file rather than push unused system files there — this would slow things down. This is an option that may be helpful for debugging in some situations, not a setting to change for more performance. Process Idle Tasks to Free Memory Windows does things, such as creating scheduled system restore points, when you step away from your computer. It waits until your computer is “idle” so it won’t slow your computer and waste your time while you’re using it. Running the “Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks” command forces Windows to perform all of these tasks while you’re using the computer. This is completely pointless and won’t help free memory or anything like that — all you’re doing is forcing Windows to slow your computer down while you’re using it. This command only exists so benchmarking programs can force idle tasks to run before performing benchmarks, ensuring idle tasks don’t start running and interfere with the benchmark. Delay or Disable Windows Services There’s no real reason to disable Windows services anymore. There was a time when Windows was particularly heavy and computers had little memory — think Windows Vista and those “Vista Capable” PCs Microsoft was sued over. Modern versions of Windows like Windows 7 and 8 are lighter than Windows Vista and computers have more than enough memory, so you won’t see any improvements from disabling system services included with Windows. Some people argue for not disabling services, however — they recommend setting services from “Automatic” to “Automatic (Delayed Start)”. By default, the Delayed Start option just starts services two minutes after the last “Automatic” service starts. Setting services to Delayed Start won’t really speed up your boot time, as the services will still need to start — in fact, it may lengthen the time it takes to get a usable desktop as services will still be loading two minutes after booting. Most services can load in parallel, and loading the services as early as possible will result in a better experience. The “Delayed Start” feature is primarily useful for system administrators who need to ensure a specific service starts later than another service. If you ever find a guide that recommends you set a little-known registry setting to improve performance, take a closer look — the change is probably useless. Want to actually speed up your PC? Try disabling useless startup programs that run on boot, increasing your boot time and consuming memory in the background. This is a much better tip than doing any of the above, especially considering most Windows PCs come packed to the brim with bloatware.     

  Read the article

• New Computer

  - by Matt Christian

  Last night I received my computer that was ordered with my tax return money.  Here are the specs of my old computer: - Pentium 4 Processor - 3-4 GB RAM - ~256 GB HDD space (2 drives) - nVidia card (AGP 8x) Sorry I can't be more specific, my memory is gone :p  Here are the new computer specs (mostly): - 2.8ghz Pentium i7 quadcore - 6 GB RAM - 1 TB HDD space (1 drive) - 1 GB Radeon card (PCI-X) I also got a new monitor (22" Asus with HDMI) so will be using my 19" widescreen as a secondary monitor. If I remember I'll hop on here and post the specifics later on...

  Read the article

• Is my computer slow due to lack of swap

  - by Kristian Jensen

  A few months ago, I installed Ubuntu 12.04 alongside with Windows 7 on my Asus EEE-PC 1015bx. It has a tendency of freezing and when trying to investigate I found that a swap partition of only 256 MB had been created. The Asus EEE-PC 1015bx is born with 1 GByte RAM only and it is not possible to add further or exchange the existing 1 GByte with a larger card. When looking at the system monitor, it looks like all swap is being utilized along with 70-75% of the RAM, even with very few applications running. Can the lack of much swap space be the reason for my computer running slowly and at times freezing? How can I add a swap partition? Or should I add a swap file instead? At the moment, I see two partitions when viewing the system monitor: one 28.6 GByte ext4 partition which must be the one containing Ubuntu and one 100 GByte fuseblk partition which I assume is the one holding Windows. It shows that I have 18.6 GByte free space on the ext4 partition. Can I "take a bite" from the ext4 partition and convert this into a swap partition? I was thinking something like 3 GBytes for swap considering my limited RAM. I hope that someone can guide me through. Thank you. 20th Oct 2012 - Further details Thank you for below answer which I find very useful. I am certainly considering switching to one of your suggested shells as I can see from the Internet that many have posted that these require much fewer resources than ubuntu. It seems to me that lubuntu is the perfect match for my very limited computer. I will have to wait a few days, though, as I am presently limited by a very slow and restricted Internet connection via satellite. But will lubuntu install as simply another shell replacing unity or will it replace ubuntu all together? Will the software that I have installed under ubuntu still be accessible in lubuntu? And can I return to ubuntu if required? Regarding the actual question of swap: When I run gparted, it shows me that there is one ntfs partition of 100 GBytes from where it boots and the before mentioned ext4 partition of 28.6 GBytes is not mentioned. Could it be that my ubuntu installation resides inside this 100 GBytes ntfs partiotion? And if so, can I take a bite of this for my swap partition? Realising that gparted is shown in Danish, I hope that you can make out what I mean. System monitoring shows below details: Once again I sincerely hope that you can help. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Lagging even LXDE freezes

  - by Anas Ismail Khan

  Laptop, i3, Ram: 2GB. Using 14.04LTS... and it lags like hell. Even if i open more than 4 tabs in Chrome, it freezes, and often I have no choice but to restart and multi-tasking is kinda difficult and at times impossible. Now there's whole thing about Lubuntu and LXDE that are suposed to be super-fast.. installed LXDE.. mind, not lubuntu-desktop. just LXDE. And it too freezes every now and then, and trust this.. when it freezes, it does so worse than Unity.. ESPECIALLY when i start PCManFM... and mount a disk or two... Any ideas as to why this is happening.. The minimum requirements for Unity are supposed to be 1Gig RAM.. and people are running it fine even on 512 MB...

  Read the article

• Screen Corruption in half the screen only

  - by Guy DAmico

  About 50% of the my NATTY desktop screen is corrupted. Once that happens I can re-boot as many times as I want but the problem continues. If I logout and then into WINDOWS for a day I may be successful and boot UBUNTU with a good screen. The desktop is formatted correctly, there's no pixelation, rather there is a fine grained white crosshatch pattern covering the entire screen. If I open any application the screen corruption worsens eventually to the point I can no longer make out anything. I ran ram memory test w/o any errors. I have no display issues when running WINDOWS 7. Any ideas. My computer is a Dual Boot stock DELL 5150 w/3gig of ram an on board video.

  Read the article

• Performance required to improve Windows Experience Index?

  - by Ian Boyd

  Is there a guide on the metrics required to obtain a certain Windows Experience Index? A Microsoft guy said in January 2009: On the matter of transparency, it is indeed our plan to disclose in great detail how the scores are calculated, what the tests attempt to measure, why, and how they map to realistic scenarios and usage patterns. Has that amount of transparency happened? Is there a technet article somewhere? If my score was limited by my Memory subscore of 5.9. A nieve person would suggest: Buy a faster RAM Which is wrong of course. From the Windows help: If your computer has a 64-bit central processing unit (CPU) and 4 gigabytes (GB) or less random access memory (RAM), then the Memory (RAM) subscore for your computer will have a maximum of 5.9. You can buy the fastest, overclocked, liquid-cooled, DDR5 RAM on the planet; you'll still have a maximum Memory subscore of 5.9. So in general the knee-jerk advice "buy better stuff" is not helpful. What i am looking for is attributes required to achieve a certain score, or move beyond a current limitation. The information i've been able to compile so far, chiefly from 3 Windows blog entries, and an article: Memory subscore Score Conditions ======= ================================ 1.0 < 256 MB 2.0 < 500 MB 2.9 <= 512 MB 3.5 < 704 MB 3.9 < 944 MB 4.5 <= 1.5 GB 5.9 < 4.0GB-64MB on a 64-bit OS Windows Vista highest score 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Graphics Subscore Score Conditions ======= ====================== 1.0 doesn't support DX9 1.9 doesn't support WDDM 4.9 does not support Pixel Shader 3.0 5.9 doesn't support DX10 or WDDM1.1 Windows Vista highest score 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Gaming graphics subscore Score Result ======= ============================= 1.0 doesn't support D3D 2.0 supports D3D9, DX9 and WDDM 5.9 doesn't support DX10 or WDDM1.1 Windows Vista highest score 6.0-6.9 good framerates (e.g. 40-50fps) at normal resoltuions (e.g. 1280x1024) 7.0-7.9 even higher framerates at even higher resolutions 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Processor subscore Score Conditions ======= ========================================================================== 5.9 Windows Vista highest score 6.0-6.9 many quad core processors will be able to score in the high 6 low 7 ranges 7.0+ many quad core processors will be able to score in the high 6 low 7 ranges 7.9 8-core systems will be able to approach 8.9 Windows 7 highest score Primary hard disk subscore (note) Score Conditions ======= ======================================== 1.9 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 2.0 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 2.9 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 3.0 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 5.9 highest you're likely to see without SSD Windows Vista highest score 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Bonus Chatter You can find your WEI detailed test results in: C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore e.g. 2011-11-06 01.00.19.482 Disk.Assessment (Recent).WinSAT.xml <WinSAT> <WinSPR> <DiskScore>5.9</DiskScore> </WinSPR> <Metrics> <DiskMetrics> <AvgThroughput units="MB/s" score="6.4" ioSize="65536" kind="Sequential Read">89.95188</AvgThroughput> <AvgThroughput units="MB/s" score="4.0" ioSize="16384" kind="Random Read">1.58000</AvgThroughput> <Responsiveness Reason="UnableToAssess" Kind="Cap">TRUE</Responsiveness> </DiskMetrics> </Metrics> </WinSAT> Pre-emptive snarky comment: "WEI is useless, it has no relation to reality" Fine, how do i increase my hard-drive's random I/O throughput? Update - Amount of memory limits rating Some people don't believe Microsoft's statement that having less than 4GB of RAM on a 64-bit edition of Windows doesn't limit the rating to 5.9: And from xxx.Formal.Assessment (Recent).WinSAT.xml: <WinSPR> <LimitsApplied> <MemoryScore> <LimitApplied Friendly="Physical memory available to the OS is less than 4.0GB-64MB on a 64-bit OS : limit mem score to 5.9" Relation="LT">4227858432</LimitApplied> </MemoryScore> </LimitsApplied> </WinSPR> References Windows Vista Team Blog: Windows Experience Index: An In-Depth Look Understand and improve your computer's performance in Windows Vista Engineering Windows 7 Blog: Engineering the Windows 7 “Windows Experience Index”

  Read the article

• ATI Radeon HD 5750 and lagging in games and youtube videos

  - by Morten Fjord Christensen

  I have a X-ONE W-601 desktop pc: 3,1GHz AMD QuadCore Athlon II 645 X4 8 GB DDR3 RAM 1000 GB Harddisk 7200RPM ATI Radeon HD5750 with 1GB DDR5 RAM I'm running Ubuntu 11.10 64-bit and have installed the proprietary driver, but still games lag and videos a little bit. Been googling around and seen that it has something to do with the older drivers from AMD and KMS, but no guide helped me correctly through to make my graphic card work smoothly. I don't know if this helps but "fglrxinfo" in terminal shows: display: :0 screen: 0 OpenGL vendor string: ATI Technologies Inc. OpenGL renderer string: ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series OpenGL version string: 4.1.11005 Compatibility Profile Context And the driver check command shows: [ 51.184] (II) ATI Proprietary Linux Driver Version Identifier:8.88.7 Any help appreciated :D

  Read the article

• How are minimum system requirements determined?

  - by Michael McGowan

  We've all seen countless examples of software that ships with "minimum system requirements" like the following: Windows XP/Vista/7 1GB RAM 200 MB Storage How are these generally determined? Obviously sometimes there are specific constraints (if the program takes 200 MB on disk then that is a hard requirement). Aside from those situations, many times for things like RAM or processor it turns out that more/faster is better with no hard constraint. How are these determined? Do developers just make up numbers that seem reasonable? Does QA go through some rigorous process testing various requirements until they find the lowest settings with acceptable performance? My instinct says it should be the latter but is often the former in practice.

  Read the article

• Not getting GUI mode on ubuntu 12.04 desktop edition after installation on vmware workstation 7

  - by Salil Naik

  I installed Ubuntu 12.04 desktop edition on my PC using VMWare workstation 7. I assigned 1GB RAM and 20 GB Hard disk to Ubuntu. While starting Ubuntu virtual machine, It is not starting up with GUI mode. In is prompting me my Login ID in textual mode always. After waiting for long time as well the GUI mode is not appearing. I tried running sudo apt-get install updates sudo apt-get install xinit sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop Honestly, i don't know the meaning of all these.I am very new to ubuntu.Please help me here what to do? Below is my Laptop configuration OS: Genuine Windows 7 Home Basic(64 bit) RAM: 3 GB Processor: Intel core i3 Regards Salil

  Read the article

• Object Oriented programming on 8-bit MCU Case Study

  - by Calvin Grier

  I see that there's a lot of questions related to OO Programming here. I'm actually trying to find a specific resource related to embedded OO approaches for an 8 bit MCU. Several years back (maybe 6) I was looking for material related to Object Oriented programming for resource constrained 8051 microprocessors. I found an article/website with a case history of a design group that used a very small RAM part, and implemented many Object based constructs during their C design and development. I believe it was an 8051. The project was a success, and managed to stay inside the very small ROM/RAM they had available. I'm attempting to find it again, but Google can't locate it. The article was well written, and recommended a "mixed" approach using C methods for inheritance and encapsulation - if I recall correctly. Can anyone help me locate this article?

  Read the article

• XNA: Huge Tile Map, long load times

  - by Zach

  Recently I built a tile map generator for a game project. What I am very proud of is that I finally got it to the point where I can have a GIANT 2D map build perfectly on my PC. About 120000pixels by 40000 pixels. I can go larger actually, but I have only 1 draw back. #1 ram, the map currently draws about 320MB of ram and I know the Xbox allows 512MB I think? #2 It takes 20 mins for the map to build then display on the Xbox, on my PC it take less then a few seconds. I need to bring that 20 minutes of generating from 20 mins to how ever little bit I can, and how can a lower the amount of RAM usage while still being able to generate my map. Right now everything is stored in Jagged Arrays, each piece generating in a size of 1280x720 (the mother piece). Up to the amount that I need, every block is exactly 40x40 pixels however the blocks get removed from a List or regenerated in a List depending how close the mother piece is to the player. Saving A LOT of CPU, so at all times its no more then looping through 5184 some blocks. Well at least I'm sure of this. But how can I lower my RAM usage without hurting the size of the map, and how can I lower these INSANE loading times? EDIT: Let me explain my self better. Also I'd like to let everyone know now that I'm inexperienced with many of these things. So here is an example of the arrays I'm using. Here is the overall in a shorter term: int[][] array = new int[30][]; array[0] = new int[] { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 }; array[1] = new int[] { 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 }; that goes on for around 30 arrays downward. Now for every time it hits a 1, it goes and generates a tile map 1280x720 and it does that exactly the way it does it above. This is how I loop through those arrays: for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i += 1) { for (int h = 0; h < array[i].Length; h += 1) { } { Now how the tiles are drawn and removed is something like this: public void Draw(SpriteBatch spriteBatch, Vector2 cam) { if (cam.X >= this.Position.X - 1280) { if (cam.X <= this.Position.X + 2560) { if (cam.Y >= this.Position.Y - 720) { if (cam.Y <= this.Position.Y + 1440) { if (visible) { if (once == 0) { once = 1; visible = false; regen(); } } for (int i = Tiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { Tiles[i].Draw(spriteBatch, cam); } for (int i = unWalkTiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { unWalkTiles[i].Draw(spriteBatch, cam); } } else { once = 0; for (int i = Tiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { Tiles.RemoveAt(i); } for (int i = unWalkTiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { unWalkTiles.RemoveAt(i); } } } else { once = 0; for (int i = Tiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { Tiles.RemoveAt(i); } for (int i = unWalkTiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { unWalkTiles.RemoveAt(i); } } } else { once = 0; for (int i = Tiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { Tiles.RemoveAt(i); } for (int i = unWalkTiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { unWalkTiles.RemoveAt(i); } } } else { once = 0; for (int i = Tiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { Tiles.RemoveAt(i); } for (int i = unWalkTiles.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { unWalkTiles.RemoveAt(i); } } } } If you guys still need more information just ask in the comments.

  Read the article

• Installed Ubuntu In a low Specs PC and it is too slow, even with LXDE

  - by Herudae

  I'm new with Linux and started with Ubuntu 11.10, I installed it in my PC (Core2Duo 2Ghz, 512Mb Ram DDR2, integrated video in Motherboard), I know the requirements for Unity are 1Gb Ram so I decided to download a Desktop environment more lightweight, so I Installed LXDE, it loads very fast, compared to the 3.5 min from login screen to open desktop in Unity, but it freezes every time I open a single program, I can't even navigate in Internet, it freezes, sometimes for a pair of minutes and the graph at bottom right is all green as if iyt were using 100% CPU, it happens with every program. As additional data it takes 3+ min to get from boot system selection screen to Login screen and 3.5 Min more to get into Ubuntu with Unity, with LXDE it turns to 30 secs aproximately. Is Ubuntu + LXDE Desktop Environment Package = Lubuntu? or should I download Lubuntu directly instead? I installed some other desktop environments, as Gnome but it doesn't log in, the screen just turns grey. Should I get an older Ubuntu version? I'm thinking about uninstalling Ubuntu but I'll try to deplete the options, thanks for your support.

  Read the article

• What You Said: How You Monitor Your Computer

  - by Jason Fitzpatrick

  Earlier this week we asked you to share your computer monitoring tips and tricks, now we’re back to share the wealth. Read on to see how your fellow reader monitor their gear. One of the more popular monitoring tools, thanks in part to the amount of things beyond just hardware it can monitor, in the comments was Rainmeter. Lee writes: I don’t really monitor my computer constantly, only when something is hanging up and I need to see what’s causing it. That being said, I do have Rainmeter so I can quickly see how much RAM or CPU is being used. For anything more detailed, I just go into the task manager and sort by RAM or CPU. Shinigamibob uses a wider range of tools to get a more in-depth look at difference aspects of his computer: 7 Ways To Free Up Hard Disk Space On Windows HTG Explains: How System Restore Works in Windows HTG Explains: How Antivirus Software Works

  Read the article

• Why get dedicated hosting? [closed]

  - by user176105

  Possible Duplicate: How to find web hosting that meets my requirements? I just finished writing a website and I'm about to publish it. I was looking at hosting options and I was about to get regular hosting from godaddy, which is about $6 a month with unlimited bandwidth, 150 gb of data, 500 emails and 25 mysql databases. The other option is dedicated servers, which range a lot in price, but are around $200 a month. Why would someone choose dedicated servers? Is it becuase they max the limits of regular hosting or is it because the ram/cpu is shared on regular hosting? If the latter, what will happen if a lot of users come to my site and max the ram/cpu?

  Read the article

• Cloud hosting vs self hosting price

  - by yes123

  I was looking at some cloud hosting price. Consider an entry level self hosted server: PRICE: 40€ ---------- CPU: i5 (4x 2.66 GHz) RAM: 16GB hard disk: 2TB Bandwidth: 10TB/month with 100Mbps Now consider an equivalent on a cloud structure... (for example phpfog) PRICE: 29$ -------------- RAM: 613MB (LOL WUT?) CPU: 2 Burst ECUs Storage: 10GB (WUT?) Basically with cloud, to have the same hardware of your entry level dedicated server you have to pay 300-400€... Is it normal? I am missing something?

  Read the article

• Reasons for either 32-bit or 64-bit as development machine

  - by vartec

  I'm about to make a new Linux install, which will be primarily used for programming. I've seen benchmarks showing speed improvement of 64-bit version, however, I have hard time of telling how much these benchmarks translate to improvement in every day usage. And of course there are other aspects to consider. Usage I have in mind: mainly programming Python, with occasional C, C++ and Java; IDEs, which are using Java platforms (Eclipse and IntelliJ); on very rare occasions having to compile for 32-bit platform; not planning to have more than 64GB of RAM anytime soon (and I don't mind using PAE kernels); machine in question has 4GB RAM and Athlon II X2; What are pros and cons of choosing either i386 or x86_64 distro?

  Read the article

• Why is my laptop so sluggish? Or Damn You Facebook and Twitter! Or All Hail Chrome!

  - by John Conwell

  In the past three weeks, I've noticed that my laptop (dual core 2.1GHz, 2Gb RAM) has become amazingly sluggish.  I only uses for communications and data lookup workflows, so the slowness was tolerable.  But today I finally got fed up with the suckyness and decided to get to the root of the problem (I do have strong performance roots after all). It actually didn't take all that long to figure it out.  About a year ago I converted to Google Chrome (away from FireFox).  One of the great tools Chrome has is a "Task Manager" tool, that gives you Windows Task Manager like details for all the tabs open in the browser (Shift + Esc).  Since every tab runs in its own process, its easy from Task Manager (both Windows or Chrome) to identify and kill a single performance offending tab.  This is unlike IE, where you only get aggregate data about all tabs open.  Anyway, I digress.  Today my laptop sucked.  Windows Task Manager told me that I had two memory hogging Chrome tabs, but couldn't tell me which web page those tabs are showing.  Enter Chrome Task Manager which tells you the page title, along with CPU, memory and network utilization of each tab.  Enter my amazement.  Turns out Facebook was using just shy of half a Gb of RAM.  Half a Gigabyte!  That's 512 Megabytes!524,288 Kilobytes! 536,870,912 Bytes!  Or 4,294,967,296 Bits!  In other words, that's a frackin boat load of memory.  Now consider that Facebook is running on pretty much 96.3% (statistics based on absolutely nothing) of every house hold desktop, laptop, netbook, and mobile device in America, that is pretty horrific! And I wasn't playing any Facebook games like FarmWars or MafiaVille.  I just had my normal, default home page up showing me who just had breakfast, or just got finished with their morning run. I'm sorry...let me say that again...HALF A GIG OF RAM!  That is just unforgivable. I can just see my mom calling me up:  Mom: "John...I think I need a new computer.  Mine is really slow these days" John: "What do you have running?" Mom: "Oh, just Facebook" John: "Ok, close Facebook and tell me how fast your computer feels" Mom: "Well...I don't know how fast it is.  All I do is use Facebook" John: "Ok Mom, I'll send you a new computer by Tuesday" Oh yea...and the other offending web page?  It was Twitter, using a quarter of a Gigabyte. God I love social networks!

  Read the article

• Help with Kodak esp 3250 printer driver on Lubuntu 12.1 SOLVED!

  - by user108608

  First my system: pentium 4 -don't remember the speed-, 1g ram, dual boot to separate physical drives, Fdos and Lubuntu 12.1 second my lan: I have four computers operating for the same printer. 1. Intel quad core i5, 4g ram, running Windoze 7 64 bit, printer connected and shared from here. Kodak ESP 3250 2. Gateway 17" laptop running Windoze 7 32bit 3. Asus tablet (small laptop) running Lumbutu 12.1 4. My dual boot system running Fdos and Lubuntu 12.1 The problem: I downloaded c2esp_25c-1_i386.deb, tried to install it using DEBI Package Installer, it loads the files, looks for cups driver and ends with an error: "Dependancy is not satisfiable: libcupsdriver1 (=1.4.0)" What do I do now? Is there some place that I can get the correct cups driver? further information: The Asus tablet was running Ubuntu 12.1 (very slowly and with a few crashes) and could print from the lan printer with no problems. Is there something in Ubuntu that can be loaded into Lubuntu? noobee user hoping for answers, Paul

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >