Search Results

Search found 14282 results on 572 pages for 'performance counter'.

Page 42/572 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

  • Why your Netapp is so slow...

    - by Darius Zanganeh
    Have you ever wondered why your Netapp FAS box is slow and doesn't perform well at large block workloads?  In this blog entry I will give you a little bit of information that will probably help you understand why it’s so slow, why you shouldn't use it for applications that read and write in large blocks like 64k, 128k, 256k ++ etc..  Of course since I work for Oracle at this time, I will show you why the ZS3 storage boxes are excellent choices for these types of workloads. Netapp’s Fundamental Problem The fundamental problem you have running these workloads on Netapp is the backend block size of their WAFL file system.  Every application block on a Netapp FAS ends up in a 4k chunk on a disk. Reference:  Netapp TR-3001 Whitepaper Netapp has proven this lacking large block performance fact in at least two different ways. They have NEVER posted an SPC-2 Benchmark yet they have posted SPC-1 and SPECSFS, both recently. In 2011 they purchased Engenio to try and fill this GAP in their portfolio. Block Size Matters So why does block size matter anyways?  Many applications use large block chunks of data especially in the Big Data movement.  Some examples are SAS Business Analytics, Microsoft SQL, Hadoop HDFS is even 64MB! Now let me boil this down for you.  If an application such MS SQL is writing data in a 64k chunk then before Netapp actually writes it on disk it will have to split it into 16 different 4k writes and 16 different disk IOPS.  When the application later goes to read that 64k chunk the Netapp will have to again do 16 different disk IOPS.  In comparison the ZS3 Storage Appliance can write in variable block sizes ranging from 512b to 1MB.  So if you put the same MSSQL database on a ZS3 you can set the specific LUNs for this database to 64k and then when you do an application read/write it requires only a single disk IO.  That is 16x faster!  But, back to the problem with your Netapp, you will VERY quickly run out of disk IO and hit a wall.  Now all arrays will have some fancy pre fetch algorithm and some nice cache and maybe even flash based cache such as a PAM card in your Netapp but with large block workloads you will usually blow through the cache and still need significant disk IO.  Also because these datasets are usually very large and usually not dedupable they are usually not good candidates for an all flash system.  You can do some simple math in excel and very quickly you will see why it matters.  Here are a couple of READ examples using SAS and MSSQL.  Assume these are the READ IOPS the application needs even after all the fancy cache and algorithms.   Here is an example with 128k blocks.  Notice the numbers of drives on the Netapp! Here is an example with 64k blocks You can easily see that the Oracle ZS3 can do dramatically more work with dramatically less drives.  This doesn't even take into account that the ONTAP system will likely run out of CPU way before you get to these drive numbers so you be buying many more controllers.  So with all that said, lets look at the ZS3 and why you should consider it for any workload your running on Netapp today.  ZS3 World Record Price/Performance in the SPC-2 benchmark ZS3-2 is #1 in Price Performance $12.08ZS3-2 is #3 in Overall Performance 16,212 MBPS Note: The number one overall spot in the world is held by an AFA 33,477 MBPS but at a Price Performance of $29.79.  A customer could purchase 2 x ZS3-2 systems in the benchmark with relatively the same performance and walk away with $600,000 in their pocket.

    Read the article

  • How to correctly use DERIVE or COUNTER in munin plugins

    - by Johan
    I'm using munin to monitor my server. I've been able to write plugins for it, but only if the graph type is GAUGE. When I try COUNTER or DERIVE, no data is logged or graphed. The plugin i'm currently stuck on is for monitoring bandwidth usage, and is as follows: /etc/munin/plugins/bandwidth2 #!/bin/sh if [ "$1" = "config" ]; then echo 'graph_title Bandwidth Usage 2' echo 'graph_vlabel Bandwidth' echo 'graph_scale no' echo 'graph_category network' echo 'graph_info Bandwidth usage.' echo 'used.label Used' echo 'used.info Bandwidth used so far this month.' echo 'used.type DERIVE' echo 'used.min 0' echo 'remain.label Remaining' echo 'remain.info Bandwidth remaining this month.' echo 'remain.type DERIVE' echo 'remain.min 0' exit 0 fi cat /var/log/zen.log The contents of /var/log/zen.log are: used.value 61.3251953125 remain.value 20.0146484375 And the resulting database is: <!-- Round Robin Database Dump --><rrd> <version> 0003 </version> <step> 300 </step> <!-- Seconds --> <lastupdate> 1269936605 </lastupdate> <!-- 2010-03-30 09:10:05 BST --> <ds> <name> 42 </name> <type> DERIVE </type> <minimal_heartbeat> 600 </minimal_heartbeat> <min> 0.0000000000e+00 </min> <max> NaN </max> <!-- PDP Status --> <last_ds> 61.3251953125 </last_ds> <value> NaN </value> <unknown_sec> 5 </unknown_sec> </ds> <!-- Round Robin Archives --> <rra> <cf> AVERAGE </cf> <pdp_per_row> 1 </pdp_per_row> <!-- 300 seconds --> <params> <xff> 5.0000000000e-01 </xff> </params> <cdp_prep> <ds> <primary_value> NaN </primary_value> <secondary_value> NaN </secondary_value> <value> NaN </value> <unknown_datapoints> 0 </unknown_datapoints> </ds> </cdp_prep> <database> <!-- 2010-03-28 09:15:00 BST / 1269764100 --> <row><v> NaN </v></row> <!-- 2010-03-28 09:20:00 BST / 1269764400 --> <row><v> NaN </v></row> <!-- 2010-03-28 09:25:00 BST / 1269764700 --> <row><v> NaN </v></row> <snip> The value for last_ds is correct, it just doesn't seem to make it into the actual database. If I change DERIVE to GAUGE, it works as expected. munin-run bandwidth2 outputs the contents of /var/log/zen.log I've been all over the (sparse) docs for munin plugins, and can't find my mistake. Modifying an existing plugin didn't work for me either.

    Read the article

  • 3 Day Level 400 SQL Tuning Workshop 15 March in London, early bird and referral offer

    - by sqlworkshops
    I want to inform you that we have organized the "3 Day Level 400 Microsoft SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005 Performance Monitoring & Tuning Hands-on Workshop" in London, United Kingdom during March 15-17, 2011.This is a truly level 400 hands-on workshop and you can find the Agenda, Prerequisite, Goal of the Workshop and Registration information at www.sqlworkshops.com/ruk. Charges are GBP 1800 (VAT excl.). Early bird discount of GBP 125 until 18 February. We are also introducing a new referral plan. If you refer someone who participates in the workshop you will receive an Amazon gift voucher for GBP 125.Feedback from one of the participants who attended our November London workshop:Andrew, Senior SQL Server DBA from UBS, UK, www.ubs.com, November 26, 2010:Rating: In a scale of 1 to 5 please rate each item below (1=Poor & 5=Excellent) Overall I was satisfied with the workshop 5 Instructor maintained the focus of the course 5 Mix of theory and practice was appropriate 5 Instructor answered the questions asked 5 The training facility met the requirement 5 How confident are you with SQL Server 2008 performance tuning 5 Additional comments from Andrew: The course was expertly delivered and backed up with practical examples. At the end of the course I felt my knowledge of SQL Server had been greatly enhanced and was eager to share with my colleagues. I felt there was one prerequisite missing from the course description, an open mind since the course changed some of my core product beliefs. For Additional workshop feedbacks refer to: www.sqlworkshops.com/feedbacks.I will be delivering the Level 300-400 1 Day Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Performance Monitoring and Tuning Seminar at Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey during March. This event is organized by Microsoft Turkey, let me know if you are in Turkey and would like to attend.During September 2010 I delivered this Level 300-400 1 Day Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Performance Monitoring and Tuning Seminar in Zurich, Switzerland organized by Microsoft Switzerland and the feedback was 4.85 out of 5, there were about 100 participants. During November 2010 when I delivered seminar in Lisbon, Portugal organized by Microsoft Portugal, the feedback was 8.30 out of 9, there were 130 participants.Our Mission: Empower customers to fully realize the Performance potential of Microsoft SQL Server without increasing the total cost of ownership (TCO) and achieve high customer satisfaction in every consulting engagement and workshop delivery.Our Business Plan: Provide useful content in webcasts, articles and seminars to get visibility for consulting engagements and workshop delivery opportunity. Help us by forwarding this email to your SQL Server friends and colleagues.Looking forwardR Meyyappan & Team @ www.SQLWorkshops.comLinkedIn: http://at.linkedin.com/in/rmeyyappan

    Read the article

  • Performance Improvement: Session State

    Performance is critical to today's successful applications and web sites. If you design with an awareness of the session state management challenges you can always change your strategies to match your performance needs.

    Read the article

  • Performance Improvement: Session State

    Performance is critical to today's successful applications and web sites. If you design with an awareness of the session state management challenges you can always change your strategies to match your performance needs.

    Read the article

  • FREE eBook: .NET Performance Testing and Optimization (Part 1)

    In this this first part of complete guide to performance profiling, Paul Glavich and Chris Farrell explain why performance testing is a good idea and walk you through everything you need to know to set up a test environment. This comprehensive guide to getting started is an essential handbook to any programmer looking to set up a .NET testing environment and get the best results out of it. Download your free copy now span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2011: High-performance GWT: best practices for writing smaller, faster apps

    Google I/O 2011: High-performance GWT: best practices for writing smaller, faster apps David Chandler The GWT compiler isn't just a Java to JavaScript transliterator. In this session, we'll show you compiler optimizations to shrink your app and make it compile and run faster. Learn common performance pitfalls, how to use lightweight cell widgets, how to use code splitting with Activities and Places, and compiler options to reduce your app's size and compile time. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 4791 21 ratings Time: 01:01:32 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Improved Performance on PeopleSoft Combined Benchmark using SPARC T4-4

    - by Brian
    Oracle's SPARC T4-4 server running Oracle's PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 combined online and batch benchmark achieved a world record 18,000 concurrent users experiencing subsecond response time while executing a PeopleSoft Payroll batch job of 500,000 employees in 32.4 minutes. This result was obtained with a SPARC T4-4 server running Oracle Database 11g Release 2, a SPARC T4-4 server running PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 application server and a SPARC T4-2 server running Oracle WebLogic Server in the web tier. The SPARC T4-4 server running the application tier used Oracle Solaris Zones which provide a flexible, scalable and manageable virtualization environment. The average CPU utilization on the SPARC T4-2 server in the web tier was 17%, on the SPARC T4-4 server in the application tier it was 59%, and on the SPARC T4-4 server in the database tier was 47% (online and batch) leaving significant headroom for additional processing across the three tiers. The SPARC T4-4 server used for the database tier hosted Oracle Database 11g Release 2 using Oracle Automatic Storage Management (ASM) for database files management with I/O performance equivalent to raw devices. Performance Landscape Results are presented for the PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service and Payroll combined benchmark. The new result with 128 streams shows significant improvement in the payroll batch processing time with little impact on the self-service component response time. PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service and Payroll Benchmark Systems Users Ave Response Search (sec) Ave Response Save (sec) Batch Time (min) Streams SPARC T4-2 (web) SPARC T4-4 (app) SPARC T4-4 (db) 18,000 0.988 0.539 32.4 128 SPARC T4-2 (web) SPARC T4-4 (app) SPARC T4-4 (db) 18,000 0.944 0.503 43.3 64 The following results are for the PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service benchmark that was previous run. The results are not directly comparable with the combined results because they do not include the payroll component. PeopleSoft HRMS Self-Service 9.1 Benchmark Systems Users Ave Response Search (sec) Ave Response Save (sec) Batch Time (min) Streams SPARC T4-2 (web) SPARC T4-4 (app) 2x SPARC T4-2 (db) 18,000 1.048 0.742 N/A N/A The following results are for the PeopleSoft Payroll benchmark that was previous run. The results are not directly comparable with the combined results because they do not include the self-service component. PeopleSoft Payroll (N.A.) 9.1 - 500K Employees (7 Million SQL PayCalc, Unicode) Systems Users Ave Response Search (sec) Ave Response Save (sec) Batch Time (min) Streams SPARC T4-4 (db) N/A N/A N/A 30.84 96 Configuration Summary Application Configuration: 1 x SPARC T4-4 server with 4 x SPARC T4 processors, 3.0 GHz 512 GB memory Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 PeopleTools 8.52 PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 Oracle Tuxedo, Version 10.3.0.0, 64-bit, Patch Level 031 Java Platform, Standard Edition Development Kit 6 Update 32 Database Configuration: 1 x SPARC T4-4 server with 4 x SPARC T4 processors, 3.0 GHz 256 GB memory Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 Oracle Database 11g Release 2 PeopleTools 8.52 Oracle Tuxedo, Version 10.3.0.0, 64-bit, Patch Level 031 Micro Focus Server Express (COBOL v 5.1.00) Web Tier Configuration: 1 x SPARC T4-2 server with 2 x SPARC T4 processors, 2.85 GHz 256 GB memory Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 PeopleTools 8.52 Oracle WebLogic Server 10.3.4 Java Platform, Standard Edition Development Kit 6 Update 32 Storage Configuration: 1 x Sun Server X2-4 as a COMSTAR head for data 4 x Intel Xeon X7550, 2.0 GHz 128 GB memory 1 x Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (80 flash modules) 1 x Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (40 flash modules) 1 x Sun Fire X4275 as a COMSTAR head for redo logs 12 x 2 TB SAS disks with Niwot Raid controller Benchmark Description This benchmark combines PeopleSoft HCM 9.1 HR Self Service online and PeopleSoft Payroll batch workloads to run on a unified database deployed on Oracle Database 11g Release 2. The PeopleSoft HRSS benchmark kit is a Oracle standard benchmark kit run by all platform vendors to measure the performance. It's an OLTP benchmark where DB SQLs are moderately complex. The results are certified by Oracle and a white paper is published. PeopleSoft HR SS defines a business transaction as a series of HTML pages that guide a user through a particular scenario. Users are defined as corporate Employees, Managers and HR administrators. The benchmark consist of 14 scenarios which emulate users performing typical HCM transactions such as viewing paycheck, promoting and hiring employees, updating employee profile and other typical HCM application transactions. All these transactions are well-defined in the PeopleSoft HR Self-Service 9.1 benchmark kit. This benchmark metric is the weighted average response search/save time for all the transactions. The PeopleSoft 9.1 Payroll (North America) benchmark demonstrates system performance for a range of processing volumes in a specific configuration. This workload represents large batch runs typical of a ERP environment during a mass update. The benchmark measures five application business process run times for a database representing large organization. They are Paysheet Creation, Payroll Calculation, Payroll Confirmation, Print Advice forms, and Create Direct Deposit File. The benchmark metric is the cumulative elapsed time taken to complete the Paysheet Creation, Payroll Calculation and Payroll Confirmation business application processes. The benchmark metrics are taken for each respective benchmark while running simultaneously on the same database back-end. Specifically, the payroll batch processes are started when the online workload reaches steady state (the maximum number of online users) and overlap with online transactions for the duration of the steady state. Key Points and Best Practices Two PeopleSoft Domain sets with 200 application servers each on a SPARC T4-4 server were hosted in 2 separate Oracle Solaris Zones to demonstrate consolidation of multiple application servers, ease of administration and performance tuning. Each Oracle Solaris Zone was bound to a separate processor set, each containing 15 cores (total 120 threads). The default set (1 core from first and third processor socket, total 16 threads) was used for network and disk interrupt handling. This was done to improve performance by reducing memory access latency by using the physical memory closest to the processors and offload I/O interrupt handling to default set threads, freeing up cpu resources for Application Servers threads and balancing application workload across 240 threads. A total of 128 PeopleSoft streams server processes where used on the database node to complete payroll batch job of 500,000 employees in 32.4 minutes. See Also Oracle PeopleSoft Benchmark White Papers oracle.com SPARC T4-2 Server oracle.com OTN SPARC T4-4 Server oracle.com OTN PeopleSoft Enterprise Human Capital Managementoracle.com OTN PeopleSoft Enterprise Human Capital Management (Payroll) oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement Copyright 2012, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners. Results as of 8 November 2012.

    Read the article

  • Tester la performance de votre réseau avec Iperf, un tutoriel par Nicolas Hennion

    Bonjour à tous !La rubrique Réseaux vous propose un article expliquant comment tester les performances du réseau avec Iperf par nicolargo : Tester la performance de votre réseau avec Iperf. Citation: Iperf est un des outils indispensables pour tout administrateur réseau qui se respecte. En effet, ce logiciel de mesure de performance réseau, disponible sur de nombreuses plateformes (Linux, BSD, Mac, Windows?) se présente sous la forme d'une ligne de commande à exécuter sur deux machines...

    Read the article

  • Data Quality Services Performance Best Practices Guide

    This guide details high-level performance numbers expected and a set of best practices on getting optimal performance when using Data Quality Services (DQS) in SQL Server 2012 with Cumulative Update 1. Schedule Azure backupsRed Gate’s Cloud Services makes it simple to create and schedule backups of your SQL Azure databases to Azure blob storage or Amazon S3. Try it for free today.

    Read the article

  • A Perspective on Database Performance Tuning

    Fundamentally, database performance tuning is done for two basic reasons, to reduce response time and to reduce resource usage, both of which can apply for any given situation. Julian Stuhler looks at database performance tuning, and why it remains one of the most important topics for any DBA, developer or systems administrator.

    Read the article

  • Talend vs. SSIS: A Simple Performance Comparison

    With all of the ETL tools in the marketplace, which one is best? Jeff Singleton brings us simple performance comparison pitting SSIS against open source powerhouse Talend. Optimize SQL Server performance“With SQL Monitor, we can be proactive in our optimization process, instead of waiting until a customer reports a problem,” John Trumbul, Sr. Software Engineer. Optimize your servers with a free trial.

    Read the article

  • A Perspective on Database Performance Tuning

    Fundamentally, database performance tuning is done for two basic reasons, to reduce response time and to reduce resource usage, both of which can apply for any given situation. Julian Stuhler looks at database performance tuning, and why it remains one of the most important topics for any DBA, developer or systems administrator.

    Read the article

  • Profiling SharePoint with ANTS Performance Profiler 5.2

    Using ANTS Performance Profiler with SharePoint has, previously, been possible, but not easy. Version 5.2 of ANTS Performance Profiler changes all that, and Chris Allen has put together a straight-forward guide to profiling SharePoint, demonstrating just how much easier it has become.

    Read the article

  • Will using FAT32 provide better pagefile performance than NTFS?

    - by llazzaro
    Hello, I was discussing with my others personalities, and came up with a conflict. In http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc938440.aspx , says that FAT32 is faster when using smaller volumes. Ok separate disk, will give more performance than same disk. But did anyone test this? Scenario 1 : Separate hard disk FAT32 (small volume) Scenario 2 : Separate hard disk NTFS which one will win? minimum gain?

    Read the article

  • Real performance gain from faster IDE or SATA hard drive?

    - by raw_noob
    How much of a real-world performance gain would you expect from: replacing a 5400rpm IDE HD with a 7200rpm IDE HD? replacing a 5400rpm IDE HD with a SATA-150? It's assumed that the drive in question is both the system drive and the only drive. A modest AMD Sempron-based home computer with adequate DDR memory running Windows XP Home SP3. Thanks for looking.

    Read the article

  • Revenue Recognition: Performance Obligation Pass a Hurdle

    - by Theresa Hickman
    I met up with Seamus Moran, our resident accounting expert, to get his thoughts about the latest happenings with IFRS. Last week, on March 13,  the comment period on the FASB and IASB exposure draft “Revenue From Contracts with Customers” closed.  FASB and IASB have just over 20 comment letters – a very small number.  The implication is that that the exposure draft does reflect general acceptance, and therefore will be published as both a US and Internationally Generally Accepted Accounting Standard. At a recent conference call, FASB and IASB expected to complete their report to both Boards on the comments by early summer, complete their deliberation of the comments by the fall and draft the final standard text by late this year. It is assumed the concept of Performance Obligations would become US GAAP and IFRS in place of the existing standards.  They confirmed that all existing US GAAP and IFRS guidelines would be withdrawn, and that they were in dialogue with the SEC on withdrawing the SEC guidelines on the revenue issue as well.The open question is when will Performance Obligations become effective?  The Boards have said that they would like this Revenue Recognition standard and the the Lease Accounting standard to be effective at the same time because what isn’t either insurance, interest, or a lease is a revenue arrangement.  However, ascertaining what is generally acceptable in respect of Leases is proving a little elusive, and the Boards have recently diverged a little on the P&L side of the accounting (although both are in agreement that there will be no off-balance sheet leases).  It is therefore likely that the Lease standard might be delayed. One wonders if the Boards will  define effectivity of the Revenue standard independently of the Lease standard or if they will stick with their resolve to make them co-effective.  The Boards have also said that neither standard will be effective before June 2015.Here is the gist of the new Revenue Recognition principle and the steps to apply it:Recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services in an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be entitled in exchange for those goods and services.Steps to apply the core principles: Identify the contract with the customer Identify the separate performance obligations Determine the transaction price Allocate the the transaction price Recognize Revenue when a performance obligation is satisfied  

    Read the article

  • GDD-BR 2010 [1G] Android: Building High-Performance Applications

    GDD-BR 2010 [1G] Android: Building High-Performance Applications Speaker: Tim Bray Track: Android Time: G [16:30 - 17:15] Room: 1 Level: 151 Build Android applications that are smooth, fast, responsive, and a pleasure to use. Also, learn about the tools and techniques we use to track down and fix performance problems. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 20 0 ratings Time: 33:34 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • How do large blobs affect SQL delete performance, and how can I mitigate the impact?

    - by Max Pollack
    I'm currently experiencing a strange issue that my understanding of SQL Server doesn't quite mesh with. We use SQL as our file storage for our internal storage service, and our database has about half a million rows in it. Most of the files (86%) are 1mb or under, but even on fresh copies of our database where we simply populate the table with data for the purposes of a test, it appears that rows with large amounts of data stored in a BLOB frequently cause timeouts when our SQL Server is under load. My understanding of how SQL Server deletes rows is that it's a garbage collection process, i.e. the row is marked as a ghost and the row is later deleted by the ghost cleanup process after the changes are copied to the transaction log. This suggests to me that regardless of the size of the data in the blob, row deletion should be close to instantaneous. However when deleting these rows we are definitely experiencing large numbers of timeouts and astoundingly low performance. In our test data set, its files over 30mb that cause this issue. This is an edge case, we don't frequently encounter these, and even though we're looking into SQL filestream as a solution to some of our problems, we're trying to narrow down where these issues are originating from. We ARE performing our deletes inside of a transaction. We're also performing updates to metadata such as file size stats, but these exist in a separate table away from the file data itself. Hierarchy data is stored in the table that contains the file information. Really, in the end it's not so much what we're doing around the deletes that matters, we just can't find any references to low delete performance on rows that contain a large amount of data in a BLOB. We are trying to determine if this is even an avenue worth exploring, or if it has to be one of our processes around the delete that's causing the issue. Are there any situations in which this could occur? Is it common for a database server to come to the point of complete timeouts when many of these deletes are occurring simultaneously? Is there a way to combat this issue if it exists? (cross-posted from StackOverflow )

    Read the article

  • PAL–Performance Analysis of Logs

    - by GavinPayneUK
    I was doing some research earlier this week on SQL Server related troubleshooting tools and was surprised I’d forgotten about Microsoft’s PAL tool – Performance Analysis of Logs. PAL is a free PowerShell UI based tool from Microsoft that creates a perfmon template which can then be used to capture counters most relevant to a high-level performance review PAL will them give for specific Microsoft server deployments, SQL Server being one of them.  Everyone knows what perfmon does, probably too...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2012 - For Butter or Worse: Smoothing Out Performance in Android UIs

    Google I/O 2012 - For Butter or Worse: Smoothing Out Performance in Android UIs Chet Haase, Romain Guy Great user experience requires buttery smoothness in rendering and animating your interface; your app must have a good, consistent frame rate. This session deep-dives into our work on the Android framework to find and fix performance issues, along with tips on how you can do the same for your applications. For all I/O 2012 sessions, go to developers.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 4804 116 ratings Time: 58:50 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Independent Research on 1500 Companies Reveals Challenges in Performance Visibility – Part 1

    - by ndwyouell
    At the end of May I was joined by Professor Andy Neely of Cambridge University on a webinar, with an audience of over 700, to discuss the results of this extensive study which covered 13 countries and nearly every commercial and industrial sector.  What stunned both of us was not so much the number listening but the 100 questions they asked in just 1 hour.  This certainly represents a record in my experience and for those that organized the webinar. So what was all the fuss about?  Well, to begin with this was a pretty big sample and it represented organizations with over $100m sales across the USA, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. It also delivered some pretty interesting results across a wide range of EPM subjects such as profitability, planning and reporting.  Let’s look at some of those findings. We kicked off with profitability, one of the key factors in driving performance, or that is what you would think, but in fact 82% of our respondents said they did not have complete visibility into the profitability of their organization. 91% of these went further to say that, not surprisingly, this lack of knowledge into the profitability has implications with over half citing 3 or more implications.  Implications cited included misallocated resources, revenue opportunities not maximized, erroneous decisions made and impaired financial performance.  Quite a list of implications, especially given the difficult economic circumstances many organizations are operating in at this time. So why is this?  Well other results in the study point to some of the potential reasons.  Firstly 59% of respondents that use spreadsheets use them for monitoring profitability and 93% of all managers responding to the study use spreadsheets to gather and analyze information.  This is an enormous proportion given the problems with using spreadsheets based performance management systems that have been widely talked about for many years.  For profitability analysis this is particularly important when you consider the typical requirement will be to allocate cost and revenue across 6+ dimensions based on many different allocation methods.  Not something that can be done easily in spreadsheets plus it gets to be a nightmare once you want to change allocations, run different scenarios and then change the basis of your planning and budgeting! It is no wonder so many organizations have challenges in performance visibility. My next blog will look at the fragmented nature of many organizations’ planning.  In the meantime if you want to read the complete report on the research go to: http://www.oracle.com/webapps/dialogue/ns/dlgwelcome.jsp?p_ext=Y&p_dlg_id=10077790&src=7038701&Act=29

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >