Search Results

Search found 13341 results on 534 pages for '1 obiee performance tuning'.

Page 45/534 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >

  • What performance degradation to expect with Nginx over raw Gunicorn+Gevent?

    - by bouke
    I'm trying to get a very high performing webserver setup for handling long-polling, websockets etc. I have a VM running (Rackspace) with 1GB RAM / 4 cores. I've setup a very simple gunicorn 'hello world' application with (async) gevent workers. In front of gunicorn, I put Nginx with a simple proxy to Gunicorn. Using ab, Gunicorn spits out 7700 requests/sec, where Nginx only does a 5000 request/sec. Is such a performance degradation expected? Hello world: #!/usr/bin/env python def application(environ, start_response): start_response("200 OK", [("Content-type", "text/plain")]) return [ "Hello World!" ] Gunicorn: gunicorn -w8 -k gevent --keep-alive 60 application:application Nginx (stripped): user www-data; worker_processes 4; pid /var/run/nginx.pid; events { worker_connections 768; } http { sendfile on; tcp_nopush on; tcp_nodelay on; keepalive_timeout 65; types_hash_max_size 2048; upstream app_server { server 127.0.0.1:8000 fail_timeout=0; } server { listen 8080 default; keepalive_timeout 5; root /home/app/app/static; location / { proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header Host $http_host; proxy_redirect off; proxy_pass http://app_server; } } } Benchmark: (results: nginx TCP, nginx UNIX, gunicorn) ab -c 32 -n 12000 -k http://localhost:[8000|8080]/ Running gunicorn over a unix socket gives somewhat higher throughput (5500 r/s), but it still does't match raw gunicorn's performance.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2000, large transaction log, almost empty, performance issue?

    - by Mafu Josh
    For a company that I have been helping troubleshoot their database. In SQL Server 2000, database is about 120 gig. Something caused the transaction log to grow MUCH larger than normal to over 100 gig, some hung transaction that didn't commit or roll back for a few days. That has been resolved and it now stays around 1% full or less, due to its hourly transaction log backups. It IS my understanding that a GROWING transaction log file size can cause performance issues. But what I am a little paranoid about is the size. Although mainly empty, MIGHT it be having a negative effect on performance? But I haven't found any documentation that suggests this is true. I did find this link: http://www.bigresource.com/MS_SQL-Large-Transaction-Log-dramatically-Slows-down-processing-any-idea-why--2ahzP5wK.html but in this post I can't tell if their log was full or empty, and there is not any replies to the post in this link. So I am guessing it is not a problem, anyone know for sure?

    Read the article

  • Decrease in disk performance after partitioning and encryption, is this much of a drop normal?

    - by Biohazard
    I have a server that I only have remote access to. Earlier in the week I repartitioned the 2 disk raid as follows: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt 363G 1.8G 343G 1% / tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 2.0G 140K 2.0G 1% /dev tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda5 461M 26M 412M 6% /boot /dev/sda7 179G 8.6G 162G 6% /data The raid consists of 2 x 300gb SAS 15k disks. Prior to the changes I made, it was being used as a single unencrypted root parition and hdparm -t /dev/sda was giving readings around 240mb/s, which I still get if I do it now: /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 730 MB in 3.00 seconds = 243.06 MB/sec Since the repartition and encryption, I get the following on the separate partitions: Unencrypted /dev/sda7: /dev/sda7: Timing buffered disk reads: 540 MB in 3.00 seconds = 179.78 MB/sec Unencrypted /dev/sda5: /dev/sda5: Timing buffered disk reads: 476 MB in 2.55 seconds = 186.86 MB/sec Encrypted /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt: /dev/mapper/sda1_crypt: Timing buffered disk reads: 150 MB in 3.03 seconds = 49.54 MB/sec I expected a drop in performance on the encrypted partition, but not that much, but I didn't expect I would get a drop in performance on the other partitions at all. The other hardware in the server is: 2 x Quad Core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5405 @ 2.00GHz and 4gb RAM $ cat /proc/scsi/scsi Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 32 Lun: 00 Vendor: DP Model: BACKPLANE Rev: 1.05 Type: Enclosure ANSI SCSI revision: 05 Host: scsi0 Channel: 02 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: DELL Model: PERC 6/i Rev: 1.11 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: HL-DT-ST Model: CD-ROM GCR-8240N Rev: 1.10 Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 05 I'm guessing this means the server has a PERC 6/i RAID controller? The encryption was done with default settings during debian 6 installation. I can't recall the exact specifics and am not sure how I go about finding them? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Changing time intervals for vSphere performance monitoring, and is there a better way?

    - by user991710
    I have a set of experiments running on a cluster node which is running ESXi 5.1, and I want to monitor the resource consumption on the node itself. Specifically, I am currently running experiments on a subset of the VMs on the ESXi host and wish to monitor resource consumption on those specific VMs. Right now, since I'm using only a single ESXi host, I am using vSphere to access it and the performance reports. Ideally, I would like to get these reports for different time intervals. I can already get the charts for a time interval of 1h, but these are rather long-running experiments and something like 2h, 3h,... would be preferable. However, I cannot seem to change the time interval. Here is an example of what my Customize Performance Chart dialog shows: I am also running on a trial key at the moment. How can I change this interval? Do I need a standard license, or do I just need to turn off the VM (unlikely, but I haven't attempted it yet as these are long-running experiments)? Any help (or pointers to documentation which deals with the above -- I've already looked but did not find much) would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Fundamentals of Columnstore Index

    - by pinaldave
    There are two kind of storage in database. Row Store and Column Store. Row store does exactly as the name suggests – stores rows of data on a page – and column store stores all the data in a column on the same page. These columns are much easier to search – instead of a query searching all the data in an entire row whether the data is relevant or not, column store queries need only to search much lesser number of the columns. This means major increases in search speed and hard drive use. Additionally, the column store indexes are heavily compressed, which translates to even greater memory and faster searches. I am sure this looks very exciting and it does not mean that you convert every single index from row store to column store index. One has to understand the proper places where to use row store or column store indexes. Let us understand in this article what is the difference in Columnstore type of index. Column store indexes are run by Microsoft’s VertiPaq technology. However, all you really need to know is that this method of storing data is columns on a single page is much faster and more efficient. Creating a column store index is very easy, and you don’t have to learn new syntax to create them. You just need to specify the keyword “COLUMNSTORE” and enter the data as you normally would. Keep in mind that once you add a column store to a table, though, you cannot delete, insert or update the data – it is READ ONLY. However, since column store will be mainly used for data warehousing, this should not be a big problem. You can always use partitioning to avoid rebuilding the index. A columnstore index stores each column in a separate set of disk pages, rather than storing multiple rows per page as data traditionally has been stored. The difference between column store and row store approaches is illustrated below: In case of the row store indexes multiple pages will contain multiple rows of the columns spanning across multiple pages. In case of column store indexes multiple pages will contain multiple single columns. This will lead only the columns needed to solve a query will be fetched from disk. Additionally there is good chance that there will be redundant data in a single column which will further help to compress the data, this will have positive effect on buffer hit rate as most of the data will be in memory and due to same it will not need to be retrieved. Let us see small example of how columnstore index improves the performance of the query on a large table. As a first step let us create databaseset which is large enough to show performance impact of columnstore index. The time taken to create sample database may vary on different computer based on the resources. USE AdventureWorks GO -- Create New Table CREATE TABLE [dbo].[MySalesOrderDetail]( [SalesOrderID] [int] NOT NULL, [SalesOrderDetailID] [int] NOT NULL, [CarrierTrackingNumber] [nvarchar](25) NULL, [OrderQty] [smallint] NOT NULL, [ProductID] [int] NOT NULL, [SpecialOfferID] [int] NOT NULL, [UnitPrice] [money] NOT NULL, [UnitPriceDiscount] [money] NOT NULL, [LineTotal] [numeric](38, 6) NOT NULL, [rowguid] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [ModifiedDate] [datetime] NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] GO -- Create clustered index CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [CL_MySalesOrderDetail] ON [dbo].[MySalesOrderDetail] ( [SalesOrderDetailID]) GO -- Create Sample Data Table -- WARNING: This Query may run upto 2-10 minutes based on your systems resources INSERT INTO [dbo].[MySalesOrderDetail] SELECT S1.* FROM Sales.SalesOrderDetail S1 GO 100 Now let us do quick performance test. I have kept STATISTICS IO ON for measuring how much IO following queries take. In my test first I will run query which will use regular index. We will note the IO usage of the query. After that we will create columnstore index and will measure the IO of the same. -- Performance Test -- Comparing Regular Index with ColumnStore Index USE AdventureWorks GO SET STATISTICS IO ON GO -- Select Table with regular Index SELECT ProductID, SUM(UnitPrice) SumUnitPrice, AVG(UnitPrice) AvgUnitPrice, SUM(OrderQty) SumOrderQty, AVG(OrderQty) AvgOrderQty FROM [dbo].[MySalesOrderDetail] GROUP BY ProductID ORDER BY ProductID GO -- Table 'MySalesOrderDetail'. Scan count 1, logical reads 342261, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0. -- Create ColumnStore Index CREATE NONCLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE INDEX [IX_MySalesOrderDetail_ColumnStore] ON [MySalesOrderDetail] (UnitPrice, OrderQty, ProductID) GO -- Select Table with Columnstore Index SELECT ProductID, SUM(UnitPrice) SumUnitPrice, AVG(UnitPrice) AvgUnitPrice, SUM(OrderQty) SumOrderQty, AVG(OrderQty) AvgOrderQty FROM [dbo].[MySalesOrderDetail] GROUP BY ProductID ORDER BY ProductID GO It is very clear from the results that query is performance extremely fast after creating ColumnStore Index. The amount of the pages it has to read to run query is drastically reduced as the column which are needed in the query are stored in the same page and query does not have to go through every single page to read those columns. If we enable execution plan and compare we can see that column store index performance way better than regular index in this case. Let us clean up the database. -- Cleanup DROP INDEX [IX_MySalesOrderDetail_ColumnStore] ON [dbo].[MySalesOrderDetail] GO TRUNCATE TABLE dbo.MySalesOrderDetail GO DROP TABLE dbo.MySalesOrderDetail GO In future posts we will see cases where Columnstore index is not appropriate solution as well few other tricks and tips of the columnstore index. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Index, SQL Optimization, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • In the Firing Line: The impact of project and portfolio performance on the CEO

    - by Melissa Centurio Lopes
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} What are the primary measurements for rating CEO performance? For corporate boards, business analysts, investors, and the trade press the metrics they deploy are relatively binary in nature; what is being done to generate earnings, and what is being done to build and sustain high performance? As for the market, interest is primarily aroused when operational and financial performance falls outside planned commitments for the year. When organizations announce better than predicted results, they usually experience an immediate increase in share price. Likewise, poor results have an obviously negative impact on the share price and impact the role and tenure of the incumbent CEO. The danger for the CEO is that the risk of failure is ever present, ranging from manufacturing delays and supply chain issues to labor shortages and scope creep. This risk is enhanced by the involvement of secondary suppliers providing services critical to overall work schedules, and magnified further across a portfolio of programs and projects underway at any one time – and all set within a global context. All can impact planned return on investment and have an inevitable impact on the share price – the primary empirical measure of day-to-day performance. Read this complete complementary report, In the Firing Line and explore what is the direct link between the health of the portfolio and CEO performance. This report will provide an overview of the responsibility the CEO has for implementing and maintaining a culture of accountability, offer examples of some of the higher profile project failings in recent years, and detail the capabilities available to the CEO to mitigate the risks residing in their own portfolios. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

    Read the article

  • What is better for the overall performance and feel of the game: one setInterval performing all the work, or many of them doing individual tasks?

    - by Bane
    This question is, I suppose, not limited to Javascript, but it is the language I use to create my game, so I'll use it as an example. For now, I have structured my HTML5 game like this: var fps = 60; var game = new Game(); setInterval(game.update, 1000/fps); And game.update looks like this: this.update = function() { this.parseInput(); this.logic(); this.physics(); this.draw(); } This seems a bit inefficient, maybe I don't need to do all of those things at once. An obvious alternative would be to have more intervals performing individual tasks, but is it worth it? var fps = 60; var game = new Game(); setInterval(game.draw, 1000/fps); setInterval(game.physics, 1000/a); //where "a" is some constant, performing the same function as "fps" ... With which approach should I go and why? Is there a better alternative? Also, in case the second approach is the best, how frequently should I perform the tasks?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Oracle BI Server Modeling, Part 1- Designing a Query Factory

    - by bob.ertl(at)oracle.com
      Welcome to Oracle BI Development's BI Foundation blog, focused on helping you get the most value from your Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition (BI EE) platform deployments.  In my first series of posts, I plan to show developers the concepts and best practices for modeling in the Common Enterprise Information Model (CEIM), the semantic layer of Oracle BI EE.  In this segment, I will lay the groundwork for the modeling concepts.  First, I will cover the big picture of how the BI Server fits into the system, and how the CEIM controls the query processing. Oracle BI EE Query Cycle The purpose of the Oracle BI Server is to bridge the gap between the presentation services and the data sources.  There are typically a variety of data sources in a variety of technologies: relational, normalized transaction systems; relational star-schema data warehouses and marts; multidimensional analytic cubes and financial applications; flat files, Excel files, XML files, and so on. Business datasets can reside in a single type of source, or, most of the time, are spread across various types of sources. Presentation services users are generally business people who need to be able to query that set of sources without any knowledge of technologies, schemas, or how sources are organized in their company. They think of business analysis in terms of measures with specific calculations, hierarchical dimensions for breaking those measures down, and detailed reports of the business transactions themselves.  Most of them create queries without knowing it, by picking a dashboard page and some filters.  Others create their own analysis by selecting metrics and dimensional attributes, and possibly creating additional calculations. The BI Server bridges that gap from simple business terms to technical physical queries by exposing just the business focused measures and dimensional attributes that business people can use in their analyses and dashboards.   After they make their selections and start the analysis, the BI Server plans the best way to query the data sources, writes the optimized sequence of physical queries to those sources, post-processes the results, and presents them to the client as a single result set suitable for tables, pivots and charts. The CEIM is a model that controls the processing of the BI Server.  It provides the subject areas that presentation services exposes for business users to select simplified metrics and dimensional attributes for their analysis.  It models the mappings to the physical data access, the calculations and logical transformations, and the data access security rules.  The CEIM consists of metadata stored in the repository, authored by developers using the Administration Tool client.     Presentation services and other query clients create their queries in BI EE's SQL-92 language, called Logical SQL or LSQL.  The API simply uses ODBC or JDBC to pass the query to the BI Server.  Presentation services writes the LSQL query in terms of the simplified objects presented to the users.  The BI Server creates a query plan, and rewrites the LSQL into fully-detailed SQL or other languages suitable for querying the physical sources.  For example, the LSQL on the left below was rewritten into the physical SQL for an Oracle 11g database on the right. Logical SQL   Physical SQL SELECT "D0 Time"."T02 Per Name Month" saw_0, "D4 Product"."P01  Product" saw_1, "F2 Units"."2-01  Billed Qty  (Sum All)" saw_2 FROM "Sample Sales" ORDER BY saw_0, saw_1       WITH SAWITH0 AS ( select T986.Per_Name_Month as c1, T879.Prod_Dsc as c2,      sum(T835.Units) as c3, T879.Prod_Key as c4 from      Product T879 /* A05 Product */ ,      Time_Mth T986 /* A08 Time Mth */ ,      FactsRev T835 /* A11 Revenue (Billed Time Join) */ where ( T835.Prod_Key = T879.Prod_Key and T835.Bill_Mth = T986.Row_Wid) group by T879.Prod_Dsc, T879.Prod_Key, T986.Per_Name_Month ) select SAWITH0.c1 as c1, SAWITH0.c2 as c2, SAWITH0.c3 as c3 from SAWITH0 order by c1, c2   Probably everybody reading this blog can write SQL or MDX.  However, the trick in designing the CEIM is that you are modeling a query-generation factory.  Rather than hand-crafting individual queries, you model behavior and relationships, thus configuring the BI Server machinery to manufacture millions of different queries in response to random user requests.  This mass production requires a different mindset and approach than when you are designing individual SQL statements in tools such as Oracle SQL Developer, Oracle Hyperion Interactive Reporting (formerly Brio), or Oracle BI Publisher.   The Structure of the Common Enterprise Information Model (CEIM) The CEIM has a unique structure specifically for modeling the relationships and behaviors that fill the gap from logical user requests to physical data source queries and back to the result.  The model divides the functionality into three specialized layers, called Presentation, Business Model and Mapping, and Physical, as shown below. Presentation services clients can generally only see the presentation layer, and the objects in the presentation layer are normally the only ones used in the LSQL request.  When a request comes into the BI Server from presentation services or another client, the relationships and objects in the model allow the BI Server to select the appropriate data sources, create a query plan, and generate the physical queries.  That's the left to right flow in the diagram below.  When the results come back from the data source queries, the right to left relationships in the model show how to transform the results and perform any final calculations and functions that could not be pushed down to the databases.   Business Model Think of the business model as the heart of the CEIM you are designing.  This is where you define the analytic behavior seen by the users, and the superset library of metric and dimension objects available to the user community as a whole.  It also provides the baseline business-friendly names and user-readable dictionary.  For these reasons, it is often called the "logical" model--it is a virtual database schema that persists no data, but can be queried as if it is a database. The business model always has a dimensional shape (more on this in future posts), and its simple shape and terminology hides the complexity of the source data models. Besides hiding complexity and normalizing terminology, this layer adds most of the analytic value, as well.  This is where you define the rich, dimensional behavior of the metrics and complex business calculations, as well as the conformed dimensions and hierarchies.  It contributes to the ease of use for business users, since the dimensional metric definitions apply in any context of filters and drill-downs, and the conformed dimensions enable dashboard-wide filters and guided analysis links that bring context along from one page to the next.  The conformed dimensions also provide a key to hiding the complexity of many sources, including federation of different databases, behind the simple business model. Note that the expression language in this layer is LSQL, so that any expression can be rewritten into any data source's query language at run time.  This is important for federation, where a given logical object can map to several different physical objects in different databases.  It is also important to portability of the CEIM to different database brands, which is a key requirement for Oracle's BI Applications products. Your requirements process with your user community will mostly affect the business model.  This is where you will define most of the things they specifically ask for, such as metric definitions.  For this reason, many of the best-practice methodologies of our consulting partners start with the high-level definition of this layer. Physical Model The physical model connects the business model that meets your users' requirements to the reality of the data sources you have available. In the query factory analogy, think of the physical layer as the bill of materials for generating physical queries.  Every schema, table, column, join, cube, hierarchy, etc., that will appear in any physical query manufactured at run time must be modeled here at design time. Each physical data source will have its own physical model, or "database" object in the CEIM.  The shape of each physical model matches the shape of its physical source.  In other words, if the source is normalized relational, the physical model will mimic that normalized shape.  If it is a hypercube, the physical model will have a hypercube shape.  If it is a flat file, it will have a denormalized tabular shape. To aid in query optimization, the physical layer also tracks the specifics of the database brand and release.  This allows the BI Server to make the most of each physical source's distinct capabilities, writing queries in its syntax, and using its specific functions. This allows the BI Server to push processing work as deep as possible into the physical source, which minimizes data movement and takes full advantage of the database's own optimizer.  For most data sources, native APIs are used to further optimize performance and functionality. The value of having a distinct separation between the logical (business) and physical models is encapsulation of the physical characteristics.  This encapsulation is another enabler of packaged BI applications and federation.  It is also key to hiding the complex shapes and relationships in the physical sources from the end users.  Consider a routine drill-down in the business model: physically, it can require a drill-through where the first query is MDX to a multidimensional cube, followed by the drill-down query in SQL to a normalized relational database.  The only difference from the user's point of view is that the 2nd query added a more detailed dimension level column - everything else was the same. Mappings Within the Business Model and Mapping Layer, the mappings provide the binding from each logical column and join in the dimensional business model, to each of the objects that can provide its data in the physical layer.  When there is more than one option for a physical source, rules in the mappings are applied to the query context to determine which of the data sources should be hit, and how to combine their results if more than one is used.  These rules specify aggregate navigation, vertical partitioning (fragmentation), and horizontal partitioning, any of which can be federated across multiple, heterogeneous sources.  These mappings are usually the most sophisticated part of the CEIM. Presentation You might think of the presentation layer as a set of very simple relational-like views into the business model.  Over ODBC/JDBC, they present a relational catalog consisting of databases, tables and columns.  For business users, presentation services interprets these as subject areas, folders and columns, respectively.  (Note that in 10g, subject areas were called presentation catalogs in the CEIM.  In this blog, I will stick to 11g terminology.)  Generally speaking, presentation services and other clients can query only these objects (there are exceptions for certain clients such as BI Publisher and Essbase Studio). The purpose of the presentation layer is to specialize the business model for different categories of users.  Based on a user's role, they will be restricted to specific subject areas, tables and columns for security.  The breakdown of the model into multiple subject areas organizes the content for users, and subjects superfluous to a particular business role can be hidden from that set of users.  Customized names and descriptions can be used to override the business model names for a specific audience.  Variables in the object names can be used for localization. For these reasons, you are better off thinking of the tables in the presentation layer as folders than as strict relational tables.  The real semantics of tables and how they function is in the business model, and any grouping of columns can be included in any table in the presentation layer.  In 11g, an LSQL query can also span multiple presentation subject areas, as long as they map to the same business model. Other Model Objects There are some objects that apply to multiple layers.  These include security-related objects, such as application roles, users, data filters, and query limits (governors).  There are also variables you can use in parameters and expressions, and initialization blocks for loading their initial values on a static or user session basis.  Finally, there are Multi-User Development (MUD) projects for developers to check out units of work, and objects for the marketing feature used by our packaged customer relationship management (CRM) software.   The Query Factory At this point, you should have a grasp on the query factory concept.  When developing the CEIM model, you are configuring the BI Server to automatically manufacture millions of queries in response to random user requests. You do this by defining the analytic behavior in the business model, mapping that to the physical data sources, and exposing it through the presentation layer's role-based subject areas. While configuring mass production requires a different mindset than when you hand-craft individual SQL or MDX statements, it builds on the modeling and query concepts you already understand. The following posts in this series will walk through the CEIM modeling concepts and best practices in detail.  We will initially review dimensional concepts so you can understand the business model, and then present a pattern-based approach to learning the mappings from a variety of physical schema shapes and deployments to the dimensional model.  Along the way, we will also present the dimensional calculation template, and learn how to configure the many additivity patterns.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >