Search Results

Search found 8638 results on 346 pages for 'vs'.

Page 55/346 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

  • Self-healing Cloud vs Failover Boxes

    - by IMB
    Now that self-healing cloud servers are becoming more and more popular, I am currently torn between the decision if I should setup a HAproxy failover for my VPS or if should save myself the trouble and just put my sites on a self-healing cloud server. Does it still make sense to setup your own failover system (HAproxy + 2 or more servers for example) when self healing cloud seems like a practical solution? They seem to do the same job or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Mac OS X Server mobile account VS Time Machine Network Backup

    - by elhombre
    I am installing a Server @home to manage the mac client's of my family. First I wanted to make time machine Backups over the internal network to an external Hard-drive which is connected to my Mac OS X Server (10.6) but when I read about the mobile accounts and it's synchronization features I got a little bit irritated what the differences between the two Services are. So where are the differences between a mobile account and a Time Machine Backup which is made over the network? Can the synchronized mobile Account be backup to an external Harddisk, if yes, how?

    Read the article

  • TCP Server Memory management: #Connections Vs. #Requests

    - by Andrew
    Given that, there is no theoretical limit to number of concurrent TCP connections a Windows 2008 server can handle. Only thing will happen is, with each connection there will be memory consumption in server. Unfortunately, memory is not unlimited (and I want to utilize only physical memory). For example, lets say we've 2GB server memory. Now there are two extreme cases: Case 1: If we've allocated 64KB buffer for each connection (only to receive incoming request), then 32768 connections can consume all the 2GB of memory. This will not leave any memory to queue/process incoming requests from those connections. Case 2: On the other hand, lets say a single (or very few) connections continuously keeps sending request buffers (for example, video streaming from one connection to other) and server cannot process them within time, those buffers will get piled up in server and eventually will occupy most of the servers memory. And it will not leave any memory for new connection thereafter. This is the real dilemma in server design bugging me badly for last many days. If I can decide on max size of request buffer per connection and max number of requests to allow in queue per connection. Then, based on available server memory, it will then automatically set limit on max number of concurrent connections. How to decide on these limits to achieve best performance and throughput? I am just looking for perfect utilization of server resources. Are there any standard guidelines or empirical data available with someone who can share with me please.

    Read the article

  • Two Firefox windows vs two browsers? Ram Consumption

    - by Kayle
    I don't know enough about Ram & sharing to know what the difference is here. Normally, I run Chrome in one desktop for personal use, and Firefox on a second desktop for business. I like the separation of saved passwords and whatnot. However, I recently learned that I can open two different profiles in Firefox at the same time, so I was wondering if that would be cheaper to my system resources, or not? Out the door, I don't think it would save more than 40-60mb of ram... but I'm wondering, 3 hours later, if ram handling will be better using just one browser for all my heavy lifting. I only have 2gb of ram and I run iTunes and Photoshop as well, almost all day. So I like to save ram where I can. Any thoughts? UPDATE: I've been centering around chrome more recently and using firefox for testing. Dev isn't bad on Chrome and it's great at releasing memory when I close tabs. In retrospect, I think the best answer to this question is simply for me to buy another 2gb of ram.

    Read the article

  • Data Archiving vs not

    - by Recursion
    For the sake of data integrity, is it wiser to archive your files or just leave them unarchived. No compression is being used. My thinking is that if you leave your files unarchived, if there is some form of corruption it will only hurt a smaller number of files. Though if you archive, lets say all of your documents, if there is even the slightest corruption, the entire archive is unrecoverable. So whats the best way to keep a clean file system, but not be subject to data corruption.

    Read the article

  • Internet Explorer 8 Viewing PDF files vs saving them

    - by Andy Evans
    I have a user asking about viewing PDF files in Internet Explorer. When she clicks the file link on a website, IE prompts her to save the file, which she then has to open to read. What she's not seeing in the prompt is the ability to open the file without having to save it, or, just opening the PDF automatically. She and a few others are having the same problem, while a majority of the user do not have this problem. All of the users have IE 8 and Adobe Reader 9 installed. I've verified that Adobe Reader's "Display PDF in browser" option is enabled. What else should I check?

    Read the article

  • Time Machine vs Source Control?

    - by Blub
    Finally got convinced to start using some kind of version control for my code instead of zipping down a copy of the project at the end of each day. Downloaded Tortoise SVN and used it to create a repository localy on my hdd. I've been using it for 2 days now but I have to say that using it is actually more hassle than just copying the project manually in explorer. Sure, you only store incremental changes but with the cheap disks of today I can't really say that's an argument when you only have small projects. I haven't realy found a quick way to browse the older versions of my files eighter. What I want is an infinite undo that is completely transparent while I code, if I save the file I want a backup. I don't want to check out, check in and don't even get me started on moving files. I haven't tried Time Machine for OS X but it looks like it's exactly what I'm looking for. Does such a program exist for windows? Preferably free and with some kind of tagging-system so I can tag a timestamp when the project is working etc. Maybe should add that I mostly work alone on a single computer. Update: Some of you asked why I want backup. Since I work alone it's mostly to allow me to quickly hack up a solution without worrying that something will screw up.

    Read the article

  • wireless repeater vs wireless bridge?

    - by Kossel
    Scenario: I have a ADSL modem inside the studio which is connected with some wired/wireless devices. but when I'm in the backyard with my laptop the wireless signal is very poor, so the connection is very unstable. I have an old belkin wireless router and I read that it can be useful in this scenario. after some search, it's compatible with DD-WRT, and seems setting it both wireless repeater or wireless bridge can do the job. but which is better for speed and stability or for my purpose they are the same? wireless repeater wireless bridge

    Read the article

  • IIS 7.5 log to: sql server vs file

    - by stacker
    I want to know if get IIS to log directly to the sql server is resource costive, and a better solution maybe generate log files, and each hour import this files to sql server. Does it VERY big cost to log to sql server each request directly? The pages are open connection to the database anyway for each request.

    Read the article

  • File Server - Storage configuration: RAID vs LVM vs ZFS something else... ?

    - by privatehuff
    We are a small company that does video editing, among other things, and need a place to keep backup copies of large media files and make it easy to share them. I've got a box set up with Ubuntu Server and 4 x 500 GB drives. They're currently set up with Samba as four shared folders that Mac/Windows workstations can see fine, but I want a better solution. There are two major reasons for this: 500 GB is not really big enough (some projects are larger) It is cumbersome to manage the current setup, because individual hard drives have different amounts of free space and duplicated data (for backup). It is confusing now and that will only get worse once there are multiple servers. ("the project is on sever2 in share4" etc) So, I need a way to combine hard drives in such a way as to avoid complete data loss with the failure of a single drive, and so users see only a single share on each server. I've done linux software RAID5 and had a bad experience with it, but would try it again. LVM looks ok but it seems like no one uses it. ZFS seems interesting but it is relatively "new". What is the most efficient and least risky way to to combine the hdd's that is convenient for my users? Edit: The Goal here is basically to create servers that contain an arbitrary number of hard drives but limit complexity from an end-user perspective. (i.e. they see one "folder" per server) Backing up data is not an issue here, but how each solution responds to hardware failure is a serious concern. That is why I lump RAID, LVM, ZFS, and who-knows-what together. My prior experience with RAID5 was also on an Ubuntu Server box and there was a tricky and unlikely set of circumstances that led to complete data loss. I could avoid that again but was left with a feeling that I was adding an unnecessary additional point of failure to the system. I haven't used RAID10 but we are on commodity hardware and the most data drives per box is pretty much fixed at 6. We've got a lot of 500 GB drives and 1.5 TB is pretty small. (Still an option for at least one server, however) I have no experience with LVM and have read conflicting reports on how it handles drive failure. If a (non-striped) LVM setup could handle a single drive failing and only loose whichever files had a portion stored on that drive (and stored most files on a single drive only) we could even live with that. But as long as I have to learn something totally new, I may as well go all the way to ZFS. Unlike LVM, though, I would also have to change my operating system (?) so that increases the distance between where I am and where I want to be. I used a version of solaris at uni and wouldn't mind it terribly, though. On the other end on the IT spectrum, I think I may also explore FreeNAS and/or Openfiler, but that doesn't really solve the how-to-combine-drives issue.

    Read the article

  • Serving Compressed Files Amazon vs Lightty

    - by tike
    We are currently using amazon CloudFront to serve css and according to Amazon itself, Amazon CloudFront can serve both compressed and uncompressed files from an origin server. But while i check compression it shows everything fine in origin server but it shows notcompressed checking in the link with cloudfront. e.g. http://www.port80software.com/tools/compresscheck.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgsrv.mydomain.com%2Fen-UK%2Fsomething.css it would result with Compression status: (gzip) while with cloudfront http://www.port80software.com/tools/compresscheck.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2hereisit.cloudfront.net%2F%2Fsomething.css Compression status: Uncompressed Origin server is running lighttpd with mod_deflate however, allowed config is: deflate.allowed_encodings = ("bzip2", "gzip", "deflate") [i would think, putting extra allowed encoding wont affect as such.] Here i am clueless, what is the real issue.

    Read the article

  • TCP Windows Size vs Socket Buffer Size on Windows

    - by Patrick L
    I am new to Windows networking. When people talk about TCP tuning on Windows platform, they always mention about TCP Window Size. I am wondering whether Windows uses the concept of "Socket Buffer Size"? On Windows XP, the TCP window size is fixed. We can set it using the TCPWindowSize registry value. How about Socket Buffer Size? How can we set Socket Buffer size on Windows? Can we set it to a value different from TCP window size?

    Read the article

  • Linux servers vs Windows IIS sense of usage "free" solutions

    - by Rob
    I wonder what is the sense of using "free" open source solutions for serious webstie applications? Crawled and read many testing of servers performance and there is one conclusion: IIS seems to be the best choice for high load applicatiom. I mean cost effective. Especially this concers to Nginx PLUS and LiteSpeed Users where subscriptions paid for e.g. LoadBalacer and extra support cost a lot in fact. I'm asking then where it's "free" then or "cheap" in this case? Assuming even little higher cost of dedicated servers with Windows still seems like Windows looks cheaper. At it's basic setup Windows 2012 with IIS offer much more than std LAMP, or other NGINX config.... Maybe am I missing sth ? I mean only general case for someone who did not already started his app. I know exactly that the cheapest solution is the one someone is skilled. Has anyone done already such real costs calculation for example scenarios?

    Read the article

  • Font rendering in Internet Explorer vs other browsers on Windows XP

    - by Ben McCormack
    I have four browsers installed on my Windows XP SP3 machine: Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, and Google Chrome. For whatever reason, fonts appeared to be rendered differently in IE than in the other browsers. It seems the fonts are anti-aliased in IE but not in the others. Why might this be? Is this an issue with the browsers or my operating system? I've noticed this issue on several Windows XP machines that I've used. While it may seem like no big deal, the lack of font smoothing in the other browsers keeps me from using them as my primary browser. Most importantly, what can I do to get the other browsers to render fonts smoothly?

    Read the article

  • Unmanaged Network Switch vs Managed Network Switch

    - by David
    Currently I have an unmanaged POE switch connected to a Linksys router. I am thinking of upgrading my POE switch to a gigabit POE switch, the only problem is that the switch that I want to get is a managed switch. So here's my question: with a managed switch, can I still connect all of my devices to it and have the devices request IP addresses from the DHCP server within the Linksys router or will the devices request IPs from the managed switch since I believe the switch has its own DHCP server as well?

    Read the article

  • scp vs netatalk, samba, and/or vsftpd with External USB drive

    - by KitsuneYMG
    I set up a ubuntu server machine to share an ext2 formatted external usb drive. When attempting to copy a single 275MB files from said device through netatalk, I get estimated download rates at around 45 min. With samba and ftp (using vsftpd) I get 1+ hours! Using scp to copy the file results in complete download within 5 minutes. Another option, ssh+cp from external device to ~ and then using netatalk to grab it from there results in a total time of arounf 7 minutes. Does anyone have a clue what is misconfigured? Assuming that nothing is, is there any fs/pseudo-fs that would use the internal hdd as an intermediate location/onion-layer for the external hdd (for reads only)? Details: AppleVolumes.default: /mnt/ext USB allow:username cnidscheme:cdb options:usedots,upriv

    Read the article

  • 32 vs 64-bit software for same machine?

    - by GorillaSandwich
    What is the difference between 32 and 64-bit software? My understanding is that 64-bit can use more RAM, if it's available, because it has a larger address space for it. Is this correct? And, specifically: If I have a 64-bit operating system with lots of RAM, and I install, say, the 32-bit version of MySQL instead of the 64-bit version, will it be unable to use all the available RAM and therefore run slower than the 64-bit version might on the same machine (assuming RAM becomes the bottleneck before processing speed or disk access speed or whatever)? If I have a 32-bit operating system and I install a 64-bit piece of software on it, will it (probably) fail to run?

    Read the article

  • Router vs switch in a LAN [closed]

    - by servernewbie
    If I have a LAN and and connect it with a switch, I understand it uses a CAM table to route packets in layer 2 (by saving mac to port relations). So far all good. However, when using a router for a LAN (ONLY for a LAN, not to connect it to "the outside" WAN/internet/etc) I get a bit confused as to how it internally processes packets. I would first split this into two router scenarios: Router with buit-in switch In this scenario, I would expect that it will act exactly as a switch with a CAM table internally. This would probably benefit a bit in speed (guessing here?) compared to the next option. Router without built-in switch Here is where I get confused. If hostA wants to send a packet to hostB, it will ARP to find hostB's MAC address and send it there. Now, if we had a switch (above scenario) this would be easy. But how does it work now in a router WITHOUT a switch? If I would guess, hostA would send an Ethernet frame with hostB's MAC address to the line. The router would fetch the packet (even though the router has another MAC address, it would still fetch this packet even if it only contains hostB's MAC address). It would strip the Ethernet frame header and check the IP, and then check its own internal ARP table again for the MAC address. Now, this would seem like a waste of resources compared to a router with a built-in switch. But maybe it does not work like that at all. Does it also contain a CAM table? If that would be true, what would then the difference between these two routers really be?

    Read the article

  • Tape vs SSDs backups regarding long-term storage reliability

    - by user66131
    My question is very specifically about solid state drives, not regular hard drives. I would like to put in place a grandfather-father-son backup scheme, with the SSDs being used for the grandfather and father portions, and the yearly grandfather would be locked in a safe offsite for maybe 5-10 years. Can I expect that after this period of time the data would be preserved as well as it would be on a tape?

    Read the article

  • File store: CouchDB vs SQL Server + file system

    - by Andrey
    I'm exploring different ways of storing user-uploaded files (all are MS Office documents or alikes) on our high load web site. It's currently designed to store documents as files and have a SQL database store all metadata for those files. I'm concerned about growing out of the storage server and SQL server performance when number of documents reaches hundreds of millions. I was reading a lot of good information about CouchDB including its built-in scalability and performance, but I'm not sure how storing files as attachments in CouchDB would compare to storing files on a file system in terms of performance. Anybody used CouchDB clusters for storing LARGE amounts of documents and in high load environment?

    Read the article

  • Mutliple VMs for Tomcat cluster vs Multiple Tomcat instances on one physical box

    - by Greymeister
    I'm working on a project that will be implemented into production using a cluster of Apache Tomcat instances and I'm looking for the best Hardware/OS solutions and VMs have come up as one option. I have run ESXi/ESX instances before for development and testing, but I'm curious for a hosting environment if having multiple VMs is actually worse than just configuring a server to host multiple instances of Tomcat. These are my guesses: Pros for VMWare Easier Maintenance/Backup for individual VMs (VMWare makes this easy) Can remote login to individual VMs without having to give host access (security?) Easier way to re-purpose machine for OS/Hardware changes Pros for running on one Physical Machine Overhead of only one OS (also no VMWare footprint) Update OS/security changes once One less administrative layer (No VM expertise required) I'm curious if anyone has any other ideas about what the benefits would be for either option.

    Read the article

  • Amazon EC2- many micro-instances vs single small/medium instance

    - by shashankaholic
    I have a chat application using stack of Openfire, Tomcat6 and MySQL. Currently, i have installed all these servers on single Linux micro-instance(613 MB memory). Even in low user base 10-20 i am encountering CPU overload which is quite obvious here. As, i am new to Amazon EC2 can somebody suggest me how to scale up my architecture according to traffic use? should i use separate micro instances for every app server(openfire,mysql,tomcat6) should i use single small or medium instance for whole server stack. Some factors in context: high reliance on MYSQL high memory usage due to file transfer web-application interacting with other Amazon service like S3,SES

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >