Search Results

Search found 4699 results on 188 pages for 'ram g'.

Page 46/188 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • apache2 and php slow first load on Ubuntu VPS - something like mysqltuner but for apache?

    - by talkingnews
    Ubuntu 10.10 64 bit VPS, 512Mb dedicated RAM. Mysql tuned so that sqltuner is completely happy. Used RAM never above 350Mb out of the 493 available. Load never exceeds 1.04 or so. httpd.conf tuned as per all the guides for vps of that memory - amount of preforks, spares etc. But for the FIRST load a site after having not visited for a while, it's taking ages. First load: Parse Time: 3.576 - Number of Queries: 50 - Query Time: 0.019723195953369 Reload Parse Time: 0.096 - Number of Queries: 39 - Query Time: 0.0066126374511719 Subsequent reloads will be at this speed. htop shows two items as soon as I load that page for the first time: php-cgi /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start I'm using suPHP but I've tried fast-cgi and cgi. Stuck now, a weekend of tweaking has brought me nothing. Advice appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Perl script and out of memory errors

    - by Kevin
    We have a midsized server with 48GB of RAM and are attempting to import a list of around 100,000 opt-in email subscribers to a new list management system written in Perl. From my understanding, Perl doesn't have imposed memory limits like PHP, and yet we are continuously getting internal server errors when attempting to do the import. When investigating the error logs, we see that the script ran out of memory. Since perl doesn't have a setting to limit the memory usage (as far as I can tell) why are we getting these errors? I doubt a small import like this is consuming 48GB of ram. We have compromised and split the list into chunks of 10,000, but would like to figure out the root cause for future fixes. This is a CentOS machine with Litespeed as the web server.

    Read the article

  • Should I install Windows 7 on a 3 years old PC?

    - by Jitendra vyas
    This is my PC configuration, Should I upgrade my Windows XP to Windows 7. Currently I'm using Windows XP SP3 32 bit. Now will I get same performance or better performance or bad performance if I install Windows 7 on this system? Or would sticking with XP be better? Memory (RAM): 1472 MB DDR RAM (not DDR 2) CPU Info: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 2500+ CPU Speed: 1398.7 MHz Sound card: Vinyl AC'97 Audio (WAVE) Display Adapters: VIA/S3G UniChrome Pro IGP | NetMeeting driver | RDPDD Chained DD Network Adapters: Bluetooth Device (Personal Area Network) | WAN (PPP/SLIP) Interface Hard Disks: 300 GB SATA HDD Manufacturer: Phoenix Technologies, LTD Product Make: MS-7142 AC Power Status: OnLine BIOS Info: AT/AT COMPATIBLE | 01/18/06 | VIAK8M - 42302e31 Motherboard: MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD MS-7142 Modem: ZTE USB Modem FFFE CDMA :

    Read the article

  • Server Memory with Magento

    - by Mohamed Elgharabawy
    I have a cloud server with the following specifications: 2vCPUs 4G RAM 160GB Disk Space Network 400Mb/s System Image: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS I am only running Magento CE 1.7.0.2 on this server. Nothing else. Usually, the server has a loading time of 4-5 seconds. Recently, this has dropped to over 30 seconds and sometimes the server just goes away and I get HTTP error reports to my email stating that HTTP requests took more than 20000ms. Running top command and sorting them returns the following: top - 15:29:07 up 3:40, 1 user, load average: 28.59, 25.95, 22.91 Tasks: 112 total, 30 running, 82 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 90.2%us, 9.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.2%st PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 31901 www-data 20 0 360m 71m 5840 R 7 1.8 1:39.51 apache2 32084 www-data 20 0 362m 72m 5548 R 7 1.8 1:31.56 apache2 32089 www-data 20 0 348m 59m 5660 R 7 1.5 1:41.74 apache2 32295 www-data 20 0 343m 54m 5532 R 7 1.4 2:00.78 apache2 32303 www-data 20 0 354m 65m 5260 R 7 1.6 1:38.76 apache2 32304 www-data 20 0 346m 56m 5544 R 7 1.4 1:41.26 apache2 32305 www-data 20 0 348m 59m 5640 R 7 1.5 1:50.11 apache2 32291 www-data 20 0 358m 69m 5256 R 6 1.7 1:44.26 apache2 32517 www-data 20 0 345m 56m 5532 R 6 1.4 1:45.56 apache2 30473 www-data 20 0 355m 66m 5680 R 6 1.7 2:00.05 apache2 32093 www-data 20 0 352m 63m 5848 R 6 1.6 1:53.23 apache2 32302 www-data 20 0 345m 56m 5512 R 6 1.4 1:55.87 apache2 32433 www-data 20 0 346m 57m 5500 S 6 1.4 1:31.58 apache2 32638 www-data 20 0 354m 65m 5508 R 6 1.6 1:36.59 apache2 32230 www-data 20 0 347m 57m 5524 R 6 1.4 1:33.96 apache2 32231 www-data 20 0 355m 66m 5512 R 6 1.7 1:37.47 apache2 32233 www-data 20 0 354m 64m 6032 R 6 1.6 1:59.74 apache2 32300 www-data 20 0 355m 66m 5672 R 6 1.7 1:43.76 apache2 32510 www-data 20 0 347m 58m 5512 R 6 1.5 1:42.54 apache2 32521 www-data 20 0 348m 59m 5508 R 6 1.5 1:47.99 apache2 32639 www-data 20 0 344m 55m 5512 R 6 1.4 1:34.25 apache2 32083 www-data 20 0 345m 56m 5696 R 5 1.4 1:59.42 apache2 32085 www-data 20 0 347m 58m 5692 R 5 1.5 1:42.29 apache2 32293 www-data 20 0 353m 64m 5676 R 5 1.6 1:52.73 apache2 32301 www-data 20 0 348m 59m 5564 R 5 1.5 1:49.63 apache2 32528 www-data 20 0 351m 62m 5520 R 5 1.6 1:36.11 apache2 31523 mysql 20 0 3460m 576m 8288 S 5 14.4 2:06.91 mysqld 32002 www-data 20 0 345m 55m 5512 R 5 1.4 2:01.88 apache2 32080 www-data 20 0 357m 68m 5512 S 5 1.7 1:31.30 apache2 32163 www-data 20 0 347m 58m 5512 S 5 1.5 1:58.68 apache2 32509 www-data 20 0 345m 56m 5504 R 5 1.4 1:49.54 apache2 32306 www-data 20 0 358m 68m 5504 S 4 1.7 1:53.29 apache2 32165 www-data 20 0 344m 55m 5524 S 4 1.4 1:40.71 apache2 32640 www-data 20 0 345m 56m 5528 R 4 1.4 1:36.49 apache2 31888 www-data 20 0 359m 70m 5664 R 4 1.8 1:57.07 apache2 32511 www-data 20 0 357m 67m 5512 S 3 1.7 1:47.00 apache2 32054 www-data 20 0 357m 68m 5660 S 2 1.7 1:53.10 apache2 1 root 20 0 24452 2276 1232 S 0 0.1 0:01.58 init Moreover, running free -m returns the following: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4003 3919 83 0 118 901 -/+ buffers/cache: 2899 1103 Swap: 0 0 0 To investigate this further, I have installed apache buddy, it recommeneded that I need to reduce the maxclient connections. Which I did. I also installed MysqlTuner and it suggests that I need to set my innodb_buffer_pool_size to = 3.0G. However, I cannot do that, since the whole memory is 4G. Here is the output from apache buddy: ### GENERAL REPORT ### Settings considered for this report: Your server's physical RAM: 4003MB Apache's MaxClients directive: 40 Apache MPM Model: prefork Largest Apache process (by memory): 73.77MB [ OK ] Your MaxClients setting is within an acceptable range. Max potential memory usage: 2950.8 MB Percentage of RAM allocated to Apache 73.72 % And this is the output of MySQLTuner: -------- Performance Metrics ------------------------------------------------- [--] Up for: 47m 22s (675K q [237.552 qps], 12K conn, TX: 1B, RX: 300M) [--] Reads / Writes: 45% / 55% [--] Total buffers: 2.1G global + 2.7M per thread (151 max threads) [OK] Maximum possible memory usage: 2.5G (64% of installed RAM) [OK] Slow queries: 0% (0/675K) [OK] Highest usage of available connections: 26% (40/151) [OK] Key buffer size / total MyISAM indexes: 36.0M/18.7M [OK] Key buffer hit rate: 100.0% (245K cached / 105 reads) [OK] Query cache efficiency: 92.5% (500K cached / 541K selects) [!!] Query cache prunes per day: 302886 [OK] Sorts requiring temporary tables: 0% (1 temp sorts / 15K sorts) [!!] Joins performed without indexes: 12135 [OK] Temporary tables created on disk: 25% (8K on disk / 32K total) [OK] Thread cache hit rate: 90% (1K created / 12K connections) [!!] Table cache hit rate: 17% (400 open / 2K opened) [OK] Open file limit used: 12% (123/1K) [OK] Table locks acquired immediately: 100% (196K immediate / 196K locks) [!!] InnoDB buffer pool / data size: 2.0G/3.5G [OK] InnoDB log waits: 0 -------- Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------- General recommendations: Run OPTIMIZE TABLE to defragment tables for better performance MySQL started within last 24 hours - recommendations may be inaccurate Enable the slow query log to troubleshoot bad queries Adjust your join queries to always utilize indexes Increase table_cache gradually to avoid file descriptor limits Read this before increasing table_cache over 64: http://bit.ly/1mi7c4C Variables to adjust: query_cache_size ( 64M) join_buffer_size ( 128.0K, or always use indexes with joins) table_cache ( 400) innodb_buffer_pool_size (= 3G) Last but not least, the server still has more than 60% of free disk space. Now, based on the above, I have few questions: Are these numbers normal? Do they make sense? Do I need to upgrade the server? If I don't need to upgrade and my configuration is not correct, how do I optimize it?

    Read the article

  • Virtual Machines: What components should I upgrade to improve running virtual machines?

    - by joshsvoss
    at work I need to have one or sometimes two instances of a vmware virtual Windows 7 machine running on my real Windows 7 machine. The computer I'm using is Dell Precision 490 from 2009 I believe, possibly earlier. Running Windows 7 ultimate. Problems while running VM's: The entire computer slows down when a vmware instance is running. Pages take a while to react to a scroll, applications take forever to launch, and programs hang both in the virtual machines and on the real one. So, what components should I upgrade to improve this? I guess a more pointed question would be, which components will help the most? Possible options: Getting 8gb of RAM instead of 4gb new graphics card new processors? (Is that really an option?) My intuition tells me it will be a combination of the RAM and graphics card. There is also the possibility that an '09 tower just isn't cut out for vm's and our business should purchase a new tower.

    Read the article

  • Sizing a Virtual Server

    - by vdubs
    I would like to replace four aging physical servers with one virtual server. What is the best way to insure the VM server is sized correctly? The requirements of the apps that will be running on the four servers are APPLICATION SERVERS - QTY 3 - These will run the application layer for the web server, Business Objects Business Intelligence app, and various other small client server apps. The three most heavy hitting apps each have the following server requirements. So, if I bought three physical servers, this would be the requirements for each of them Processor - Dual 2.83 GHZ (or faster) Ram - 4 GB Raid 5 - 50-100GB usable space NIC - 1 GB Web Server - this will run one asp.net e-business app that will talk to our dedicated SQL server and the three app servers above. The E-Business software has these requirements for the web server Processor - Quad 2.83 GHZ (or faster) Ram - 8 GB Raid 5 - 50-100GB usable space NIC - 1 GB What is the best tool to determine what I need from a hardware standpoing in a virtual server? I am planning on using VMWare.

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 - swap file on a USB disk? [closed]

    - by Sara Cohen
    Possible Duplicate: How to move the page file to another physical disk location Windows 7 I was given temporarily a PC, running Windows 7 Ultimate. The problem is it's hard drive is full, there are like 250 MB free. The swap file is set to none. It has 4 GB RAM. When I load a few tabs in Chrome or IE and start a game it runs out of memory. I already emptied Recycle Bin, %temp%, etc. Deleting/moving user files or adding RAM is not an option. Now I have a USB 3 7200 RPM drive, it's connected to a USB 3 port and is really fast. Is there a way to create a swap file on that drive?

    Read the article

  • Apache and MySQL taking all the memory? Maximum connections?

    - by lpfavreau
    I've a had one of our servers going down (network wise) but keeping its uptime (so looks the server is not losing its power) recently. I've asked my hosting company to investigate and I've been told, after investigation, that Apache and MySQL were at all time using 80% of the memory and peaking at 95% and that I might be needing to add some more RAM to the server. One of their justifications to adding more RAM was that I was using the default max connections setting (125 for MySQL and 150 for Apache) and that for handling those 150 simultaneous connections, I would need at least 3Gb of memory instead of the 1Gb I have at the moment. Now, I understand that tweaking the max connections might be better than me leaving the default setting although I didn't feel it was a concern at the moment, having had servers with the same configuration handle more traffic than the current 1 or 2 visitors before the lunch, telling myself I'd tweak it depending on the visits pattern later. I've also always known Apache was more memory hungry under default settings than its competitor such as nginx and lighttpd. Nonetheless, looking at the stats of my machine, I'm trying to see how my hosting company got those numbers. I'm getting: # free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 1000 944 56 0 148 725 -/+ buffers/cache: 71 929 Swap: 1953 0 1953 Which I guess means that yes, the server is reserving around 95% of its memory at the moment but I also thought it meant that only 71 out of the 1000 total were really used by the applications at the moment looking a the buffers/cache row. Also I don't see any swapping: # vmstat 60 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 0 0 57612 151704 742596 0 0 1 1 3 11 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 57604 151704 742596 0 0 0 1 1 24 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 57604 151704 742596 0 0 0 2 1 18 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 57604 151704 742596 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 100 0 And finally, while requesting a page: top - 08:33:19 up 3 days, 13:11, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00 Tasks: 81 total, 1 running, 80 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 1.3%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 98.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 1024616k total, 976744k used, 47872k free, 151716k buffers Swap: 2000052k total, 0k used, 2000052k free, 742596k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 24914 www-data 20 0 26296 8640 3724 S 2 0.8 0:00.06 apache2 23785 mysql 20 0 125m 18m 5268 S 1 1.9 0:04.54 mysqld 24491 www-data 20 0 25828 7488 3180 S 1 0.7 0:00.02 apache2 1 root 20 0 2844 1688 544 S 0 0.2 0:01.30 init ... So, I'd like to know, experts of serverfault: Do I really need more RAM at the moment? How do they calculate that for 150 simultaneous connections I'd need 3Gb? Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • SAN cache memory upgrade

    - by Scott Lundberg
    We currently have an IBM DS4300 Dual Controller Fibre SAN. It is a good box, but getting pretty old. It came with 256MB of cache per controller. Recently we replaced the batteries in one of the controllers and noticed that the cache is a DDR PC2100 ECC DIMM. Of course, we are thinking about how cheap this RAM is now and is there any good reason we can't upgrade the RAM. IBM used to have a "Turbo" upgrade to this box that doubled the cache and had a bunch of software features for about 10K USD. Since that product has been end-of-lifed, I don't think we can get that upgrade and we don't need the software upgrades (FlashCopy, StorageCopy, etc). Besides the obvious potential warranty issue, what if any issues would we expect to see if attempting to put 2 - 1GB DIMMS in this unit? Any other things I am missing here? EDIT: Memory label: Samsung CN 0433 PC2100U-25331-A1 M381L3223ETM-CB0 256MB DDR PC2100 CL2.5 ECC

    Read the article

  • Will more memory help my CPU-peaking SQL Server 2008 R2

    - by Tor Haugen
    I'm supporting a system running against a SQL Server 2008 R2. The server is a single-CPU box with 8 GB of memory. As traffic has increased, the server has started saturating, peaking to 100% CPU ever more often. Disk I/O remains moderate (somewhat surprisingly). Obviously, a new server would be the best option. But failing that, can I expect a noticable improvement from installing more RAM? Or does RAM only help for I/O issues (through caching)?

    Read the article

  • Virtualbox PXE Boot Failing with a Windows Server 2008 R2 Server

    - by Vbitz
    Some fast help on this would be good, I have been on this problem for 14 hours. In a Virtualbox test environment I have 2 virtual machines networked together using a internal network (no traffic runs though the host, it is all at a software level). One is a fresh client with 512mb of ram and a dual core set-up, the other is the server with 1.5GB of ram and running server 2008 r2. The server is configured as a dns server, dchp server, domain controller and also serves PXE booting though WDS (Windows Deployment Services). Both machines can see each other and I am able to start a network boot. The issue comes at the second to last stage of the pre windows PE install. On TFTP download of boot.sdi it starts it but stops during the boot process.

    Read the article

  • Ngingx wont start with fastcgi_split_path_info" error

    - by Ke
    Hi, I heard that nginx is faster and since im on a VPS with low ram i thought id try it out. I got through this tutorial http://www.howtoforge.com/installing-php-5.3-nginx-and-php-fpm-on-ubuntu-debian But I now get the following error: unknown directive "fastcgi_split_path_info" in /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/default:28 Anyone know what might be causing the problem? I cant find any reference to the problem on Google Also I have heard conflicting things about Nginx vs Apache. Some say use one, some say the other. Im using allsorts such as rewrite rules, proxies etc. Am I setting myself up for a fall by using Nginx? If I go for apache, does anyone know of anyway to tweak it so that it performs better on a low ram VPS? Cheers Ke

    Read the article

  • Ngingx wont start with fastcgi_split_path_info" error

    - by Ke
    Hi, I heard that nginx is faster and since im on a VPS with low ram i thought id try it out. I got through this tutorial http://www.howtoforge.com/installing-php-5.3-nginx-and-php-fpm-on-ubuntu-debian But I now get the following error: unknown directive "fastcgi_split_path_info" in /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/default:28 Anyone know what might be causing the problem? I cant find any reference to the problem on Google Also I have heard conflicting things about Nginx vs Apache. Some say use one, some say the other. Im using allsorts such as rewrite rules, proxies etc. Am I setting myself up for a fall by using Nginx? If I go for apache, does anyone know of anyway to tweak it so that it performs better on a low ram VPS? Cheers Ke

    Read the article

  • RAID P410i and P812 performance issues

    - by Alexey
    I'm having much trouble with I/O performance of HP DL360 server with two RAID controllers - P410i and P812, Windows Server 2008, 36 GiB RAM and 16 x Intel Xeon x5550. The server runs a bunch of tasks producing heavy sequential I/O, and after about 20-30 minutes of intensive work it looks like the tasks are stuck, not using CPU and with enough free memory (so this cannot be a bottleneck). The same tasks were running quite well on the older server (Windows Server 2003, 4 x Intel Xeon, 12 GiB RAM). RAID cache is present, write-cache battery is installed. Cache is configured as 25% readahead/75% writeback. The swap file resides on the logical disk served by P410i and other logical disks are on P812. Can someone tell me what can be the matter of this? Is this a hardware problem or misconfiguration?

    Read the article

  • CPU I/O communication part 2

    - by b-gen-jack-o-neill
    Hi, I was suggested when I have some further questions on my older ones, to create newer Question and reffer to old one. So, this is the original question: CPU I/O communication OK, I have just 2 more questions. 1, How is MMIO set? I mean, lets say I have developed some extension card with PCI interface. How do you say to memory controller to redirect desired memory space to my card´s RAM? I mean, I think standart text-mode VGA MMIO adress is 0x8000. Is this HW set (every motherboard automatically redirects 0x8000 adress to PCI-E) or its just standart and can be changed (VGA says to motherboard: give me memory mapped IO at 0x8000) 2, Can one expansion card have more MMIO connections? I mean, lets say I have card with 10 Bytes of RAM. Can Bytes 0-4 be mapped to 0x0 and bytes 5-9 to 0x5000? Please, if you know about some good article about this, please post link. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Ngingx won't start with fastcgi_split_path_info" error

    - by Ke
    I heard that nginx is faster and since I'm on a VPS with low RAM I thought I would try it out. I got through this tutorial http://www.howtoforge.com/installing-php-5.3-nginx-and-php-fpm-on-ubuntu-debian But I now get the following error: unknown directive "fastcgi_split_path_info" in /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/default:28 What might be causing the problem? I can't find any reference to the problem on Google. Also I have heard conflicting things about nginx vs Apache. Some say use one, some say the other. I'm using all sorts of things such as rewrite rules, proxies etc. Am I setting myself up for a fall by using nginx? If I go for Apache: how can I tweak it so that it performs better on a low RAM VPS?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid Memory "Hard Fault/sec"

    - by Flavio Oliveira
    i've a problem on my windows 2008 server x64, and i cannot understand how can i solve it. i'm looking to Resource Monitor and see about 100 to 200 hard faults/sec. and generally the machine is slow. As i've readed a bit it is caused by a "memory Page" that is no longer available on physical memory and causes a io operations (disk) and it is a problem. The current hardware is a intel core2duo E8400 (3.0GHz) with 6GB RAM on a Windows Server Web 64-bit. Actually the machine have about 2GB Ram used what having 4Gb available to use, Why is the machine requires that high level of Disk operations? what can i do to increase the performance? Im experiencing a memory issues? what should be my starting point?

    Read the article

  • How can I configure Firefox to assume I have less memory?

    - by WoLpH
    Firefox has a few different settings that automatically get tuned based on the system ram. This is all great if you're running nothing besides Firefox, but when you're running half a dozen apps at the same time and they all assume that they can take a decent chunk of mem it just kills the box. Example settings: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.capacity How can I make Firefox automatically configure all these settings with the assumption that I only have 512MB of memory instead of 4GB (or whatever number, but you get the idea). I am running Ubuntu 12.04 with Firefox 14 Current workarounds: Running a Windows XP virtual machine with 512MB of ram. It actually runs smooth and takes less memory (including Windows) to run than having Firefox (or Chrome for that matter) run standalone. Install the 32 bit version of Firefox By installing the 32 bit version of firefox (apt-get install firefox:i386) the base memory usage is only about 50% of what it is with the 64 bit.

    Read the article

  • Remote Desktop with resource sharing

    - by Malfist
    I recently removed ubuntu from my laptop and installed Windows 7 because Microsoft's DreamSpark program gave me Visual Studio Pro for free and I want to do some C# programming with it. The problem is that my laptop's screen is small, it's resources are extremely limited, and it doesn't have a full sized keyboard. However, I do have a desktop that is my primary system, and it's got a quadcore and tons of RAM in it, and dual monitors. My question is this, is there a way I can use a program from my laptop, on my desktop, and share my desktops CPU and RAM with the laptop? Everything is connected through a 100 MB/s switch. One caveat, my desktop is running ubuntu.

    Read the article

  • Programs minimized for long time takes long time to "wake up"

    - by bart
    I'm working in Photoshop CS6 and multiple browsers a lot. I'm not using them all at once, so sometimes some applications are minimized to taskbar for hours or days. The problem is, when I try to maximize them from the taskbar - it sometimes takes longer than starting them! Especially Photoshop feels really weird for many seconds after finally showing up, it's slow, unresponsive and even sometimes totally freezes for minute or two. It's not a hardware problem as it's been like that since always on all on my PCs. Would I also notice it after upgrading my HDD to SDD and adding RAM (my main PC holds 4 GB currently)? Could guys with powerful pcs / macs tell me - does it also happen to you? I guess OSes somehow "focus" on active software and move all the resources away from the ones that run, but are not used. Is it possible to somehow set RAM / CPU / HDD priorities or something, for let's say, Photoshop, so it won't slow down after long period of inactivity?

    Read the article

  • Windows Swap (Page File): Enable or Disable?

    - by d03boy
    From my personal experience I've noticed that disabling the page file in Windows XP has given me, in general, the most speed gain out of any other software change I can make. Obviously this has to be done when a significant amount of RAM is available. Typically I find that it works nicely with +2GB of RAM. The only issues I've ever really had were loading up Adobe Photoshop. Is this really a speed improvement or am I imagining it? Note: In order to actually turn it off, you must not just set it to 0MB, but disable it. Otherwise Windows will just expand it when it needs to in order to meet its needs.

    Read the article

  • Boot linux off hard drive and then switch to run from usb flash disk

    - by Jesse
    I have an older laptop that I want to use as a simple media server on my home network. I would like to avoid using the internal hard drive except for booting (BIOS does NOT support booting from USB). My thought was to mirror the hard drive (currently has current install of Arch Linux) onto the flash drive and then after booting switch over to run everything from the flash drive. I read the following article about using a RAM disk (HOW-TO: Boot OS into RAM for speed and silence) but ran into problem because the USB subsystem does not seem to be initialized soon enough (I create root and home paritions on the flash disk and modified fstab to pick those - didn't work). Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Troubleshooting a high SQL Server Compilation/Batch-Ratio

    - by Sleepless
    I have a SQL Server (quad core x86, 4GB RAM) that constantly has almost the same values for "SQLServer:SQL Statistics: SQL compilations/sec" and "SQLServer:SQL Statistics: SQL batches/sec". This could be interpreted as a server running 100% ad hoc queries, each one of which has to be recompiled, but this is not the case here. The sys.dm_exec_query_stats DMV lists hundreds of query plans with an execution_count much larger than 1. Does anybody have any idea how to interpret / troubleshoot this phenomenon? BTW, the server's general performance counters (CPU,I/O,RAM) all show very modest utilization.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >