Search Results

Search found 4726 results on 190 pages for 'ram jaiswal'.

Page 44/190 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • mysql - moving to a lower performance server, how small can I go?

    - by pedalpete
    I've been running a site for a few years now which really isn't growing in traffic, and I want to save some money on hosting, but keep it going for the loyal users of the site and api. The database has one a nearly 4 million row table, and on a 4gb dual xeon 5320 server. When I check server stats on this server with ps -aux, i get returns of mysql running at about 11% capacity, so no serious load. The main query against mysql runs in about 0.45 seconds. I popped over to linode.com to see what kind of performance I could get out of one of their tiny boxes, and their 360mb ram XEN vps returns the same query in 20 seconds. Clearly not good enough. I've looked at the mysql variables, and they are both very similar (I've included the show variables output below, if anybody is interested). Is there a good way to decide on what size server is needed based on what I'm coming from? Is it RAM that is likely making the difference with the large table size? Is there a way for me to figure out how much ram would be ideal?? Here's the output of the show variables (though I'm not sure it is important). +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | Variable_name | Value | +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | auto_increment_increment | 1 | | auto_increment_offset | 1 | | automatic_sp_privileges | ON | | back_log | 50 | | basedir | /usr/ | | bdb_cache_size | 8384512 | | bdb_home | /var/lib/mysql/ | | bdb_log_buffer_size | 262144 | | bdb_logdir | | | bdb_max_lock | 10000 | | bdb_shared_data | OFF | | bdb_tmpdir | /tmp/ | | binlog_cache_size | 32768 | | bulk_insert_buffer_size | 8388608 | | character_set_client | latin1 | | character_set_connection | latin1 | | character_set_database | latin1 | | character_set_filesystem | binary | | character_set_results | latin1 | | character_set_server | latin1 | | character_set_system | utf8 | | character_sets_dir | /usr/share/mysql/charsets/ | | collation_connection | latin1_swedish_ci | | collation_database | latin1_swedish_ci | | collation_server | latin1_swedish_ci | | completion_type | 0 | | concurrent_insert | 1 | | connect_timeout | 10 | | datadir | /var/lib/mysql/ | | date_format | %Y-%m-%d | | datetime_format | %Y-%m-%d %H:%i:%s | | default_week_format | 0 | | delay_key_write | ON | | delayed_insert_limit | 100 | | delayed_insert_timeout | 300 | | delayed_queue_size | 1000 | | div_precision_increment | 4 | | keep_files_on_create | OFF | | engine_condition_pushdown | OFF | | expire_logs_days | 0 | | flush | OFF | | flush_time | 0 | | ft_boolean_syntax | + - For some reason, that table formats properly in the preview, but apparently not when viewing the question. Hopefully it isn't needed anyway.

    Read the article

  • Experience with asymmetrical (non-identical hardware) SQL Server 2005 / Win 2003 cluster

    - by user24161
    I am reasonably good at dealing with SQL Server clusters; I am wondering if folks have experience, good or bad, using a mix of different models of servers from the same vendor in one SQL 2005 cluster. Suppose: I have one more powerful, more RAM, more shizzle box and one less powerful, less memory, less shizzle box bound together in a 2-node cluster. These would be HP DL380 and 580 machines (not that it should matter) I understand AND automate the process of managing memory for each SQL instance, so there's no memory contention when SQL instances fail over. Basically I am thinking a CLR proc will monitor the instances and self-regulate memory caps on each instance, so that they won't page or step on one another. I get the fact the instances might be slower and or under memory pressure if they share a "lesser" node, and that's OK. The business can deal with a slower instance in a server-problem scenario. Reasonable? Any "gotchas" to watch out for? More info 10/28: doing some experiments with a test cluster I find that reconfiguring max/min memory is OK PROVIDED the instance isn't already under memory pressure. If I torture the system with a huge query that demands a big chunk of RAM, and simultaneously adjust the memory allocation to a smaller value than what is being actively used, it's possible to run the instance out of memory and have it halt and restart itself (unhappy situation). Many ugly out-of-memory messages in the error log, crashing, burning... It's an extreme case, but good to know. Seems, then, that it would only be really safe to set this on startup of the instance, as in have a startup script that says "I am on node1, so my RAM settings are X or I am on node two, so they are Y," like this: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand... Update: I am testing a SQL Agent + PowerShell solution described in more detail here.

    Read the article

  • Should I completely turn off swap for linux webserver?

    - by Poma
    Recently my friend told me that it is a good idea to turn off swap on linux webservers with enough memory. My server has 12 GB and currently uses 4GB (not counting cache and buffers) under peak load. His argument was that in a normal situation server will never use all of its RAM so the only way it can encounter OutOfMemory situation is due to some bug/ddos/etc. So in case swap is turned off system will run out of memory that will eventually crash the program hogging memory (most likely the web server process) and probably some other processes. In case swap is turned on it will eat both RAM and swap and eventually will result in the same crash, but before that it will offload crucial processes like sshd to swap and start to do a lot of swap operations resulting in major slowdown. This way when under ddos system may go into a completely unusable condition due to huge lags and I probably will not be unable to log in and kill webserver process or deny all incoming traffic (all but ssh). Is this right? Am I missing something (like the fact that swap partition is very useful in some way even if I have enough RAM)? Should I turn it off?

    Read the article

  • What can cause the system to freeze in a way where even the reset button takes a long time to react?

    - by ThiefMaster
    What can be the reason for system freezes that are so "hard" that even the hardware reset button takes about 3 seconds until it actually resets the system (and then it actually powers down and up again instead of doing a "clean" hard reset like when pressing it during a normally running system). Since it initially happened mainly while playing videos from YouTube I suspected the graphics card - however, I replaced it recently and it did not change it. It still happens from time to time (and sometimes more often, like a few times times in the last few hours). The system is running Windows 7 - but I don't think this matters since I don't think any software, not even the OS, can actually affect the reset button's behaviour. The PC is not overheated and the freezes happen randomly. There is also no malware on the system. The CPU is an Intel Core i7-920 on a Gigabyte EX58-UD5 mainboard. What could be the cause for this problem? Faulty RAM? I did not run a full memtest86 check yet, but I wonder if there is a more likely issue than faulty RAM - checking 12G of ram does take some time after all! There are no entries in the event log - but that's what I expected since the system freezes so hard that I doubt it has time to write anything to any log.

    Read the article

  • New i7 is slower than old Core 2 Duo? Why? (BIOS programming)

    - by DrChase
    I've always wondered why the companies who make BIOS' either have terrible engineering psychologists or none at all. But without wasting your time further with random speculative questions, my real question is as follows: Why does my new computer run slower than my old computer? Old Computer: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU @ 3.0 Ghz (stock) 4GB OCZ DDR2 800 RAM Wolfdale E8400 mb nVidia GeForce 8600 GT New Computer: Intel Core i7 920 @ ~3.2 Ghz 6 GB OCZ DDR3 1066 RAM EVGA x58 SLI LE motherboard nVidia GeForce GTX 275 Vista x64 Home Premium on both. "Run slower" is defined as: - poorer FPS performance in the same games, applications - takes longer to start up - general desktop usage (checking email, opening up files, running exe's) is noticeably slower At first I thought I must've not set something up in the BIOS or something. But I have no idea how to set anything in the bios except for "Dummy O.C.", which brought me to ~3.2 Ghz. But beyond that I have no idea. I've been reading stuff about "ram timing" and voltages and the like but I really have no idea about that stuff. I'm a psychologist who has a basic understanding in building his own computers, not a computer scientist. Can someone give me some wisdom that might guide me to the reason my new computer is worse than my older one? I'm sorry if this is a bad question, or not appropriate to SO. I'm just pretty frustrated now and you all have helped me in the past so I figured I'd give it a shot. Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Page pool memory

    - by legiwei
    I'm currently using Windows XP SP3 32 bit, using C2D E6320 with 2GB RAM. When I am playing Starcraft 2, I encounter an error where it says my system is running low on page pool memory. Starcraft graphic settings suggested a high settings for me. I do not think it has to do with my GC but with my RAM. I then made a search to try to rectify the problem. Apparently, it's something to do with my virtual memory. I then proceed to try to the suggested solution which is to temper the registry and limit the page pool memory to 384MB. However, having done so, I still could not achieved it. I've seen screenshot settings of windows XP with 2GB having 384MB of page pool memory. My default settings puts it at 195MB whereas when I try to increase the pool limit, it can only go to a max of 229MB. I tried increasing my RAM capacity to 3GB but the pool limit still remains. I like to know how to increase my page pool memory. I've tried searching for solution but to no avail other than the one that I've mentioned above (which didn't solve my problem completely).

    Read the article

  • Redis - Records Fall Off

    - by Ian
    With memcache, when you exceed the available ram, it automatically drops the oldest records off the end of the stack.. Is there a way to do this with redis? I'm trying to find ways to avoid running in to a write error (when there's no more available ram), other than setting a timeout. The only reason the timeout isn't useful, it because it doesn't guaranty the ability to write.

    Read the article

  • Caching Mysql database for better performance

    - by kobey
    Hi, I'm using Amazon cloud and I've performance issue since the HDD is not located on my machine. My database is small (~500MB) and I can afford to keep it all in my RAM. I do not want to keep queries in my RAM, i need all the tables there. How can i do it? Thanks, Koby P.S. I'm using ubuntu server...

    Read the article

  • sql server 2008 takes alot of memory?

    - by Ahmed Said
    I making stress test on my database which is hosted on sqlserver 2008 64bit running on 64bit machine 10 GB of RAM. I have 400 threads each thread query the database for every second but the query time does not take time as the sql profiler says that, but after 18 hours sql takes 7.2 GB RAM and 7.2 on virtual memroy. Does is this normal behavior? and how can I adjust sql to clean up not in use memory?

    Read the article

  • Remove newlines and spaces

    - by Cosmin
    How can I remove newline between <table> .... </table> and add \n after each ex: <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="450" class="descriptiontable"><tr> <td width="50%" valign="top"> <span class="displayb">Model Procesor:</span> Intel Celeron<br><span class="displayb">Frecventa procesor (MHz):</span> 2660<br><span class="displayb">Placa Video:</span> Intel Extreme Graphics 2<br><span class="displayb">Retea integrata:</span> 10/100Mbps, RJ-45<br><span class="displayb">Chipset:</span> Intel 845G<br> </td> <td width="50%" valign="top"> <span class="displayb">Capacitate RAM (MB):</span> 512<br><span class="displayb">Tip RAM:</span> DDR<br> </td> </tr></table> and become : <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="450" class="descriptiontable"><tr><td width="50%" valign="top"><span class="displayb">Model Procesor:</span> Intel Celeron<br><span class="displayb">Frecventa procesor (MHz):</span> 2660<br><span class="displayb">Placa Video:</span> Intel Extreme Graphics 2<br><span class="displayb">Retea integrata:</span> 10/100Mbps, RJ-45<br><span class="displayb">Chipset:</span> Intel 845G<br></td><td width="50%" valign="top"><span class="displayb">Capacitate RAM (MB):</span> 512<br><span class="displayb">Tip RAM:</span> DDR<br></td></tr></table>\n s.

    Read the article

  • sql "Group By" and "Having"

    - by Hans Rudel
    im trying to work through some questions and im not sure how to do the following Q:Find the hard drive sizes that are equal among two or more PCs. its q15 on this site http://www.sql-ex.ru/learn_exercises.php#answer_ref The database scheme consists of four tables: Product(maker, model, type) PC(code, model, speed, ram, hd, cd, price) Laptop(code, model, speed, ram, hd, screen, price) Printer(code, model, color, type, price) any pointers would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to create svn folder in mac os x

    - by niceramar
    hi, i am working on iphone project, i like to create an svn folder and link that one to my server I tried to run the below command fsp3s-MacBook-Pro:~ fsp3$ svnadmin create /ram/Code/SVN i got the below error svnadmin: Repository creation failed svnadmin: Could not create top-level directory svnadmin: Can't create directory '/ram/Code/SVN': No such file or directory How to create an SVN folder in mac os x? thanks!

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 takes up a lot of memory?

    - by Ahmed Said
    I am conducting stress tests on my database, which is hosted on SQL Server 2008 64-bit running on a 64-bit machine with 10 GB of RAM. I have 400 threads. Each thread queries the database every second, but the query time does not take time, as the SQL profiler says that, but after 18 hours SQL Server uses up 7.2 GB of RAM and 7.2 GB of virtual memory. Is this normal behavior? How can I adjust SQL Server to clean up unused memory?

    Read the article

  • debug=true in web.config = BAD thing?

    - by MateloT
    We're seeing lots of virtual memory fragmentation and out of memory errors and then it hits the 3GB limit. The compilation debug is set to true in the web.config but I get different answers from everyone i ask, does debug set to true cause each aspx to compile into random areas of ram thus fragmenting that ram and eventually causing out of memory problems?

    Read the article

  • What does CPU Time consist of? [closed]

    - by Sid
    What does CPU time exactly consist of? For instance, is the time taken to access a page from the RAM (at which point, the CPU is most likely idling) part of the CPU time? I'm not talking about fetching the page from the disk here, just fetching it from the RAM. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Can i get the particular disk space(like C: ) using Jav program..?

    - by Venkats
    I used SystemEnvironment class in java for getting system information. In that i can get only RAM size, i can't get the specific disk space like c: and D: code is, com.sun.management.OperatingSystemMXBean mxbean = (com.sun.management.OperatingSystemMXBean)ManagementFactory.getOperatingSystemMXBean(); System.out.println("Total RAM:"+mxbean.getTotalSwapSpaceSize()/(1024*1024*1024)+""+"GB"); Can i get this using in java program?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to unpage all memory in Windows?

    - by Hack59
    I have plenty of RAM, however, after starting and finishing a large number of processes, it seems that most of the applications' virtual memory has been paged to disk, and switching to any of the older processes requires a very long time to load the memory back into RAM. Is there a way, either via Windows API or via kernel call, to get Windows to unpage all (or as much as possible) memory? Maybe by stepping through the list of running processes and get the memory manager to unpage each process's memory?

    Read the article

  • ESXI guests not using available CPU resources

    - by Alan M
    I have a VMWare ESXI 5.0.0 (it's a bit old, I know) host with three guest VMs on it. For reasons unknown, the guests will not use much of the availble CPU resources. I have all three guests in a single pool, with the hosts all configured to use the same amount of resource shares, so they're basically 33% each. The three guests are basically identically configured as far as their VM resources go. So the problem is, even when the guests are performing what should be very 'busy' activitites, such as at bootup, the actual host CPU consumed is something tiny, like 33mhz, when seen via vSphere console's "Virtual Machines" tab when viewing properties for the pool. And of course, the performance of the guest VMs is terrible. The host has plenty of CPU to spare. I've tried tinkering with individual guest VM resource settings; cranking up the reservation, etc. No matter. The guests just refuse to make use of the abundant CPU available to them, and insist on using a sliver of the available resources. Any suggestions? Update after reading various comments below Per the suggestions below, I did remove the guests from the application pool; this didn't make any difference. I do understand that the guests are not going to consume resources they do not need. I have tried to do a remote perfmon on the guest which is experiencing long boot times, but I cannot connect to the guest remotely with perfmon (guest is w2k8r2 server). Host graphs for CPU, Mem, Disk are basically flatlining; very little demand. Same is true for the guest stats; while the guest itself seems to be crawling, the guest resource graphing shows very little activity across CPU, Mem, Disk. Host is a Dell PowerEdge 2900, has 2 physical CPU,20gb RAM. (it's a test/dev environment using surplus gear) Guest1 has: VM ver. 7, 2vCPU, 4gb RAM, 140gb storage which lives on a RAID-5 array on the host. Guest2 has: VM ver. 7, 2vCPU, 4gb RAM, 140gb storage which lives on a RAID-5 array on the host. Guest3 has: VM ver. 7, 1vCPU, 2gb RAM, 2tb storage which lives on a RAID-5 ISCSI NAS box Perhaps I am making a false assumption that if a guest has a demand for CPU (e.g. Windows Task Manager shows 100% CPU), the host would supply the guest with more CPU (mem, disk) on demand. Another Update After checking the stats, it would appear that the host is indeed not busy at all, neither is the guest. I believe I have a good idea on the issue, though; a messed-up VMWare Tools install. The guest has VMware Tools on it, but the host says it does not. VMWare Tools refuses to uninstall, refuses to be upgraded, refuses to be recognized. While I cannot say with authority, this would appear to be something worth investigation. I do not know the origin of the guest itself, nor the specifics on the original VMWare Tools install. Following various bits of googling, I did come up with a few suggestions that went nowhere. To that end, I was going to delete this question, but was prompted not to do so since so many folks answered. My suspicion right now is; the problem truly is the guest; the guest is not making a demand on the host, and as a natural result, the host is treating the guest accordingly. My Final Update I am 99% certain the guest VM had something fundamentally wrong with it re VMWare Tools. I created a clone of a different VM with a near-identical OS config, but a properly working install of VMWare tools. The guest runs just great, and takes up it's allotment of resources when it needs to; e.g. it eats up about 850mhz CPU during startup, then ticks down to idle once the guest OS is stable.

    Read the article

  • IBM Server Config questions

    - by Joel Coel
    I have a few questions on a potential server setup. First, the situation: Last year we bought an IBM x3500 server with 2 Xeon E5410's, 9GB RAM, 6 HDDs. The original intent for this server was to replace the old exchange e-mail server. It was brought in, set up, and then shortly after we switched to gmail. Shortly after that my predecessor left for greener pastures, and finally I was hired. So this nice server is now sitting (mostly) idle. This year I have budget again for one server, and of course I want to put this other server to work. I'm thinking about the best use for the two server, and I think I finally have a plan for what I want to do with them. The idea is to use the two newer servers as a pair of VM hosts. I will set up each server with the same 8 VMs, but divide up the load so that only 4 are active per physical host. That means I've normally got 2GB RAM + 2 cores per host. I've done some load testing to pick out what servers to convert to virtual, and chose them so that each host will be capable of handling the entire set of 8 by itself in a pinch with 1 core and 1GB RAM, but would be very taxed to do so. This should take our data center from 13 total servers down to 7. The "servers" I'm replacing are mostly re-purposed desktops, so I'm more than happy to be able to do this. Now it's time to go shopping for the new server. I'd like my two hosts to match as closely as possible, and so I'm looking at IBM again. It also helps that we have some educational matching grant money from IBM that I need to use to help pay for this system (we're a small private college). So finally, (if you're not bored already), we come to my questions: Am I missing anything big or obvious in this plan? I'm a little worried about network performance since the VM hosts will only have 4 nics total where 8 used to be, but I don't think it will be a problem. Is there anything else like this I might be overlooking? Am I making it even too complicated? IBM no longer has a good analog to last year's server. If I want to match the performance (8 cores, 9GB RAM, 1333mhz front side bus, 6 spindles), I have to spend quite a bit more than we paid last year: $2K+, or nearly a 33% cost increase. This only brings a marginal increase in performance. The alternative to stay in budget is to take a hit on the fsb down to 800mhz or cut the number of cores in half, neither of which is attractive. The main cost culprit is the processor. IBM no longer offers the E5410. It's listed as a part, but not available in any of the server configs I've looked at. I'm considering getting the cheapest 800mhz fsb dual core xeon I can configure and then buying the E5410's separately. That's still an extra $350 I wasn't counting on, but that's better than $2K. I want to know what others think of this - will it work or will I end up with the wrong motherboard or some other issue? Am I missing a simple way to configure the server I really want? I don't really intend to do this, but one option to save some money back is to omit the redundant power supply. Since my redundancy plan for these system is to switch over to a completely different host, the extra power isn't fully necessary. That said, it's still very helpful to avoid even short downtimes while I switch over VMs. Has anyone done this?

    Read the article

  • How to Tell a Hardware Problem From a Software Problem

    - by Chris Hoffman
    Your computer seems to be malfunctioning — it’s slow, programs are crashing or Windows may be blue-screening. Is your computer’s hardware failing, or does it have a software problem that you can fix on your own? This can actually be a bit tricky to figure out. Hardware problems and software problems can lead to the same symptoms — for example, frequent blue screens of death may be caused by either software or hardware problems. Computer is Slow We’ve all heard the stories — someone’s computer slows down over time because they install too much software that runs at startup or it becomes infected with malware. The person concludes that their computer is slowing down because it’s old, so they replace it. But they’re wrong. If a computer is slowing down, it has a software problem that can be fixed. Hardware problems shouldn’t cause your computer to slow down. There are some rare exceptions to this — perhaps your CPU is overheating and it’s downclocking itself, running slower to stay cooler — but most slowness is caused by software issues. Blue Screens Modern versions of Windows are much more stable than older versions of Windows. When used with reliable hardware with well-programmed drivers, a typical Windows computer shouldn’t blue-screen at all. If you are encountering frequent blue screens of death, there’s a good chance your computer’s hardware is failing. Blue screens could also be caused by badly programmed hardware drivers, however. If you just installed or upgraded hardware drivers and blue screens start, try uninstalling the drivers or using system restore — there may be something wrong with the drivers. If you haven’t done anything with your drivers recently and blue screens start, there’s a very good chance you have a hardware problem. Computer Won’t Boot If your computer won’t boot, you could have either a software problem or a hardware problem. Is Windows attempting to boot and failing part-way through the boot process, or does the computer no longer recognize its hard drive or not power on at all? Consult our guide to troubleshooting boot problems for more information. When Hardware Starts to Fail… Here are some common components that can fail and the problems their failures may cause: Hard Drive: If your hard drive starts failing, files on your hard drive may become corrupted. You may see long delays when you attempt to access files or save to the hard drive. Windows may stop booting entirely. CPU: A failing CPU may result in your computer not booting at all. If the CPU is overheating, your computer may blue-screen when it’s under load — for example, when you’re playing a demanding game or encoding video. RAM: Applications write data to your RAM and use it for short-term storage. If your RAM starts failing, an application may write data to part of the RAM, then later read it back and get an incorrect value. This can result in application crashes, blue screens, and file corruption. Graphics Card: Graphics card problems may result in graphical errors while rendering 3D content or even just while displaying your desktop. If the graphics card is overheating, it may crash your graphics driver or cause your computer to freeze while under load — for example, when playing demanding 3D games. Fans: If any of the fans fail in your computer, components may overheat and you may see the above CPU or graphics card problems. Your computer may also shut itself down abruptly so it doesn’t overheat any further and damage itself. Motherboard: Motherboard problems can be extremely tough to diagnose. You may see occasional blue screens or similar problems. Power Supply: A malfunctioning power supply is also tough to diagnose — it may deliver too much power to a component, damaging it and causing it to malfunction. If the power supply dies completely, your computer won’t power on and nothing will happen when you press the power button. Other common problems — for example, a computer slowing down — are likely to be software problems. It’s also possible that software problems can cause many of the above symptoms — malware that hooks deep into the Windows kernel can cause your computer to blue-screen, for example. The Only Way to Know For Sure We’ve tried to give you some idea of the difference between common software problems and hardware problems with the above examples. But it’s often tough to know for sure, and troubleshooting is usually a trial-and-error process. This is especially true if you have an intermittent problem, such as your computer blue-screening a few times a week. You can try scanning your computer for malware and running System Restore to restore your computer’s system software back to its previous working state, but these aren’t  guaranteed ways to fix software problems. The best way to determine whether the problem you have is a software or hardware one is to bite the bullet and restore your computer’s software back to its default state. That means reinstalling Windows or using the Refresh or reset feature on Windows 8. See whether the problem still persists after you restore its operating system to its default state. If you still see the same problem – for example, if your computer is blue-screening and continues to blue-screen after reinstalling Windows — you know you have a hardware problem and need to have your computer fixed or replaced. If the computer crashes or freezes while reinstalling Windows, you definitely have a hardware problem. Even this isn’t a completely perfect method — for example, you may reinstall Windows and install the same hardware drivers afterwards. If the hardware drivers are badly programmed, the blue-screens may continue. Blue screens of death aren’t as common on Windows these days — if you’re encountering them frequently, you likely have a hardware problem. Most blue screens you encounter will likely be caused by hardware issues. On the other hand, other common complaints like “my computer has slowed down” are easily fixable software problems. When in doubt, back up your files and reinstall Windows. Image Credit: Anders Sandberg on Flickr, comedy_nose on Flickr     

    Read the article

  • Boost Netbook Speed with an SD Card & ReadyBoost

    - by Matthew Guay
    Looking for a way to increase the performance of your netbook?  Here’s how you can use a standard SD memory card or a USB flash drive to boost performance with ReadyBoost. Most netbooks ship with 1Gb of Ram, and many older netbooks shipped with even less.  Even if you want to add more ram, often they can only be upgraded to a max of 2GB.  With ReadyBoost in Windows 7, it’s easy to boost your system’s performance with flash memory.  If your netbook has an SD card slot, you can insert a memory card into it and just leave it there to always boost your netbook’s memory; otherwise, you can use a standard USB flash drive the same way. Also, you can use ReadyBoost on any desktop or laptop; ones with limited memory will see the most performance increase from using it. Please Note:  ReadyBoost requires at least 256Mb of free space on your flash drive, and also requires minimum read/write speeds.  Most modern memory cards or flash drives meet these requirements, but be aware that an old card may not work with it. Using ReadyBoost Insert an SD card into your card reader, or connect a USB flash drive to a USB port on your computer.  Windows will automatically see if your flash memory is ReadyBoost capable, and if so, you can directly choose to speed up your computer with ReadyBoost. The ReadyBoost settings dialog will open when you select this.  Choose “Use this device” and choose how much space you want ReadyBoost to use. Click Ok, and Windows will setup ReadyBoost and start using it to speed up your computer.  It will automatically use ReadyBoost whenever the card is connected to the computer. When you view your SD card or flash drive in Explorer, you will notice a ReadyBoost file the size you chose before.  This will be deleted when you eject your card or flash drive. If you need to remove your drive to use elsewhere, simply eject as normal. Windows will inform you that the drive is currently being used.  Make sure you have closed any programs or files you had open from the drive, and then press Continue to stop ReadyBoost and eject your drive. If you remove the drive without ejecting it, the ReadyBoost file may still remain on the drive.  You can delete this to save space on the drive, and the cache will be recreated when you use ReadyBoost next time. Conclusion Although ReadyBoost may not make your netbook feel like a Core i7 laptop with 6GB of RAM, it will still help performance and make multitasking even easier.  Also, if you have, say, a memory stick and a flash drive, you can use both of them with ReadyBoost for the maximum benefit.  We have even noticed better battery life when multitasking with ReadyBoost, as it lets you use your hard drive less.  SD cards and thumb drives are relatively cheap today, and many of us have several already, so this is a great way to improve netbook performance cheaply. Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Speed up Your Windows Vista Computer with ReadyBoostSet the Speed Dial as the Opera Startup PageAsk the Readers: What are Your Computer’s Hardware Specs?Understanding Windows Vista Aero Glass RequirementsReplace Google Chrome’s New Tab Page with Speed Dial TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 Recycle ! Find That Elusive Icon with FindIcons Looking for Good Windows Media Player 12 Plug-ins? Find Out the Celebrity You Resemble With FaceDouble Whoa ! Use Printflush to Solve Printing Problems

    Read the article

  • MacGyver Moments

    - by Geoff N. Hiten
    Denny Cherry tagged me to write about my best MacGyver Moment.  Usually I ignore blogosphere fluff and just use this space to write what I think is important.  However, #MVP10 just ended and I have a stronger sense of community.  Besides, where else would I mention my second best Macgyver moment was making a BIOS jumper out of a soda can.  Aluminum is conductive and I didn't have any real jumpers lying around. My best moment is probably my entire home computer network.  Every system but one is hand-built, usually cobbled together out of spare parts and 'adapted' from its original purpose. My Primary Domain Controller is a Dell 2300.   The Service Tag indicates it was shipped to the original owner in 1999.  Box has a PERC/1 RAID controller.  I acquired this from a previous employer for $50.  It runs Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition.  Does DNS, DHCP, and RADIUS services as a bonus.  RADIUS authentication is used for VPN and Wireless access.  It is nice to sign in once and be done with it. The Secondary Domain Controller is an old desktop.  Dual P-III 933 with some extra drives. My VPN box is a P-II 250 with 384MB of RAM and a 21 GB hard drive.  I did a P-to-V to my Hyper-V box a year or so ago and retired the hardware again.  Dynamic DNS lets me connect no matter how often Comcast shuffles my IP. The Hyper-V box is a desktop system with 8GB RAM and an AMD Athlon 5000+ processor.  Cost me less than $500 to put together nearly two years ago.  I reasoned that if Vista and Windows 2008 were the same code then Vista 64-bit certified meant the drivers for Vista would load into Windows 2008.  Turns out I was right. Later I added three 1TB drives but wasn't too happy with how that turned out.  I recovered two of the drives yesterday and am building an iSCSI storage unit. (Much thanks to Starwind.  Great product).  I am using an old AMD 1.1GhZ box with 1.5 GB RAM (cobbled together from three old PCs) as my storave server.  The Hyper-V box is slated for an OS rebuild to 2008 R2 once I get the storage system worked out.  maybe in a week or two. A couple of DLink Gigabit switches ties everything together. Add in the Vonage box, the three PCs, the Wireless-N Access Point, the two notebooks and the XBox and you have gone from MacGyver to darn near Rube Goldberg. The only thing I really spend money on is power supplies and fans.  I buy top-of-the-line for both. I even pull and crimp my own cables. Oh, and if my kids hose up a PC, I have all of their data on a server elsewhere.  Every PC and laptop is pretty much interchangable for email and basic workstation tasks.  That helps a lot too. Of course I will tag SQLVariant.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >