Search Results

Search found 5436 results on 218 pages for 'transfer rate'.

Page 69/218 | < Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >

  • Facebook Sponsored Results: Is It Getting Results?

    - by Mike Stiles
    Social marketers who like to focus on the paid aspect of the paid/earned hybrid Facebook represents may want to keep themselves aware of how the network’s new Sponsored Results ad product is performing. The ads, which appear when a user conducts a search from the Facebook search bar, have only been around a week or so. But the first statistics coming out of them are not bad. Marketer Nanigans says click-through rates on the Sponsored Results have been nearly 23 times better than regular Facebook ads. Some click-through rates have even gone over 3%. Just to give you some perspective, a TechCrunch article points out that’s the same kind of click-through rates that were being enjoyed during the go-go dot com boom of the 90’s. The average across the Internet in its entirety is now somewhere around .3% on a good day, so a 3% number should be enough to raise an eyebrow. Plus the cost-per-click price is turning up 78% lower than regular Facebook ads, so that should raise the other eyebrow. Marketers have gotten pretty used to being able to buy ads against certain keywords. Most any digital property worth its salt that sells ads offers this, and so does Facebook with its Sponsored Results product. But the unique prize Facebook brings to the table is the ability to also buy based on demographic and interest information gleaned from Facebook user profiles. With almost 950 million logging in, this is exactly the kind of leveraging of those users conventional wisdom says is necessary for Facebook to deliver on its amazing potential. So how does the Facebook user fit into this? Notorious for finding out exactly where sponsored marketing messages are appearing and training their eyeballs to avoid those areas, will the Facebook user reject these Sponsored Results? Well, Facebook may have found an area in addition to the News Feed where paid elements can’t be avoided and will be tolerated. If users want to read their News Feed, and they do, they’re going to see sponsored posts. Likewise, if they want to search for friends or Pages, and they do, they’re going to see Sponsored Results. The paid results are clearly marked as such. As long as their organic search results are not tainted or compromised, they will continue using search. But something more is going on. The early click-through rate numbers say not only do users not mind seeing these Sponsored Results, they’re finding them relevant enough to click on. And once they click, they seem to be liking what they find, with a reported 14% higher install rate than Marketplace Ads. It’s early, and obviously the jury is still out. But this is a new social paid marketing opportunity that’s well worth keeping an eye on, and that may wind up hitting the trifecta of being effective for the platform, the consumer, and the marketer.

    Read the article

  • An XEvent a Day (12 of 31) – Using the Extended Events SSMS Addin

    - by Jonathan Kehayias
    The lack of SSMS support for Extended Events, coupled with the fact that a number of the existing Events in SQL Trace were not implemented in SQL Server 2008, has no doubt been a key factor in its slow adoption rate. Since the release of SQL Server Denali CTP1, I have already seen a number of blog posts that talk about the introduction of Extended Events in SQL Server, because there is now a stub for it inside of SSMS. Don’t get excited yet, the functionality in CTP1 is very limited at this point,...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Internet Protocol Suite: Transition Control Protocol (TCP) vs. User Datagram Protocol (UDP)

    How do we communicate over the Internet?  How is data transferred from one machine to another? These types of act ivies can only be done by using one of two Internet protocols currently. The collection of Internet Protocol consists of the Transition Control Protocol (TCP) and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP).  Both protocols are used to send data between two network end points, however they both have very distinct ways of transporting data from one endpoint to another. If transmission speed and reliability is the primary concern when trying to transfer data between two network endpoints then TCP is the proper choice. When a device attempts to send data to another endpoint using TCP it creates a direct connection between both devices until the transmission has completed. The direct connection between both devices ensures the reliability of the transmission due to the fact that no intermediate devices are needed to transfer the data. Due to the fact that both devices have to continuously poll the connection until transmission has completed increases the resources needed to perform the transmission. An example of this type of direct communication can be seen when a teacher tells a students to do their homework. The teacher is talking directly to the students in order to communicate that the homework needs to be done.  Students can then ask questions about the assignment to ensure that they have received the proper instructions for the assignment. UDP is a less resource intensive approach to sending data between to network endpoints. When a device uses UDP to send data across a network, the data is broken up and repackaged with the destination address. The sending device then releases the data packages to the network, but cannot ensure when or if the receiving device will actually get the data.  The sending device depends on other devices on the network to forward the data packages to the destination devices in order to complete the transmission. As you can tell this type of transmission is less resource intensive because not connection polling is needed,  but should not be used for transmitting data with speed or reliability requirements. This is due to the fact that the sending device can not ensure that the transmission is received.  An example of this type of communication can be seen when a teacher tells a student that they would like to speak with their parents. The teacher is relying on the student to complete the transmission to the parents, and the teacher has no guarantee that the student will actually inform the parents about the request. Both TCP and UPD are invaluable when attempting to send data across a network, but depending on the situation one protocol may be better than the other. Before deciding on which protocol to use an evaluation for transmission speed, reliability, latency, and overhead must be completed in order to define the best protocol for the situation.  

    Read the article

  • Mercurial Conversion from Team Foundation Server

    - by mhawley
    I’m using Twitter. Follow me @matthawley One of my many (almost) daily tasks when working on the CodePlex platform since releasing Mercurial as a supported version control system, is converting projects from Team Foundation Server (TFS) to Mercurial. I'm happy to say that of all the conversions I have done since mid-January, the success rate of migrating full source history is about 95%. To get to this success point, I have had to learn and refine several techniques utilizing a few different tools… (read more)

    Read the article

  • HTTP 2.0 serait bloqué par l'ajout de SPDY de Google, un ingénieur de FreeBSD traite le projet de « fiasco » et demande son abandon pour HTTP 3.0

    HTTP 2.0 serait bloqué par l'intégration de SPDY de Google Un ingénieur de FreeBSD traite le projet de « fiasco »et demande son abandon au profit de HTTP 3.0Le groupe de travail de l'IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) sur la version 2.0 de la norme HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) fait face à une crise qui pourrait entrainer un retard de la publication de celle-ci.Pour rappel, HTTP 2.0 est conçu pour permettre aux navigateurs de charger des pages Web plus rapidement. La sortie de la version...

    Read the article

  • SPARC T4-4 Beats 8-CPU IBM POWER7 on TPC-H @3000GB Benchmark

    - by Brian
    Oracle's SPARC T4-4 server delivered a world record TPC-H @3000GB benchmark result for systems with four processors. This result beats eight processor results from IBM (POWER7) and HP (x86). The SPARC T4-4 server also delivered better performance per core than these eight processor systems from IBM and HP. Comparisons below are based upon system to system comparisons, highlighting Oracle's complete software and hardware solution. This database world record result used Oracle's Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays (rotating disk) connected to a SPARC T4-4 server running Oracle Solaris 11 and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 demonstrating the power of Oracle's integrated hardware and software solution. The SPARC T4-4 server based configuration achieved a TPC-H scale factor 3000 world record for four processor systems of 205,792 QphH@3000GB with price/performance of $4.10/QphH@3000GB. The SPARC T4-4 server with four SPARC T4 processors (total of 32 cores) is 7% faster than the IBM Power 780 server with eight POWER7 processors (total of 32 cores) on the TPC-H @3000GB benchmark. The SPARC T4-4 server is 36% better in price performance compared to the IBM Power 780 server on the TPC-H @3000GB Benchmark. The SPARC T4-4 server is 29% faster than the IBM Power 780 for data loading. The SPARC T4-4 server is up to 3.4 times faster than the IBM Power 780 server for the Refresh Function. The SPARC T4-4 server with four SPARC T4 processors is 27% faster than the HP ProLiant DL980 G7 server with eight x86 processors on the TPC-H @3000GB benchmark. The SPARC T4-4 server is 52% faster than the HP ProLiant DL980 G7 server for data loading. The SPARC T4-4 server is up to 3.2 times faster than the HP ProLiant DL980 G7 for the Refresh Function. The SPARC T4-4 server achieved a peak IO rate from the Oracle database of 17 GB/sec. This rate was independent of the storage used, as demonstrated by the TPC-H @3000TB benchmark which used twelve Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays (rotating disk) and the TPC-H @1000TB benchmark which used four Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array devices (flash storage). [*] The SPARC T4-4 server showed linear scaling from TPC-H @1000GB to TPC-H @3000GB. This demonstrates that the SPARC T4-4 server can handle the increasingly larger databases required of DSS systems. [*] The SPARC T4-4 server benchmark results demonstrate a complete solution of building Decision Support Systems including data loading, business questions and refreshing data. Each phase usually has a time constraint and the SPARC T4-4 server shows superior performance during each phase. [*] The TPC believes that comparisons of results published with different scale factors are misleading and discourages such comparisons. Performance Landscape The table lists the leading TPC-H @3000GB results for non-clustered systems. TPC-H @3000GB, Non-Clustered Systems System Processor P/C/T – Memory Composite(QphH) $/perf($/QphH) Power(QppH) Throughput(QthH) Database Available SPARC Enterprise M9000 3.0 GHz SPARC64 VII+ 64/256/256 – 1024 GB 386,478.3 $18.19 316,835.8 471,428.6 Oracle 11g R2 09/22/11 SPARC T4-4 3.0 GHz SPARC T4 4/32/256 – 1024 GB 205,792.0 $4.10 190,325.1 222,515.9 Oracle 11g R2 05/31/12 SPARC Enterprise M9000 2.88 GHz SPARC64 VII 32/128/256 – 512 GB 198,907.5 $15.27 182,350.7 216,967.7 Oracle 11g R2 12/09/10 IBM Power 780 4.1 GHz POWER7 8/32/128 – 1024 GB 192,001.1 $6.37 210,368.4 175,237.4 Sybase 15.4 11/30/11 HP ProLiant DL980 G7 2.27 GHz Intel Xeon X7560 8/64/128 – 512 GB 162,601.7 $2.68 185,297.7 142,685.6 SQL Server 2008 10/13/10 P/C/T = Processors, Cores, Threads QphH = the Composite Metric (bigger is better) $/QphH = the Price/Performance metric in USD (smaller is better) QppH = the Power Numerical Quantity QthH = the Throughput Numerical Quantity The following table lists data load times and refresh function times during the power run. TPC-H @3000GB, Non-Clustered Systems Database Load & Database Refresh System Processor Data Loading(h:m:s) T4Advan RF1(sec) T4Advan RF2(sec) T4Advan SPARC T4-4 3.0 GHz SPARC T4 04:08:29 1.0x 67.1 1.0x 39.5 1.0x IBM Power 780 4.1 GHz POWER7 05:51:50 1.5x 147.3 2.2x 133.2 3.4x HP ProLiant DL980 G7 2.27 GHz Intel Xeon X7560 08:35:17 2.1x 173.0 2.6x 126.3 3.2x Data Loading = database load time RF1 = power test first refresh transaction RF2 = power test second refresh transaction T4 Advan = the ratio of time to T4 time Complete benchmark results found at the TPC benchmark website http://www.tpc.org. Configuration Summary and Results Hardware Configuration: SPARC T4-4 server 4 x SPARC T4 3.0 GHz processors (total of 32 cores, 128 threads) 1024 GB memory 8 x internal SAS (8 x 300 GB) disk drives External Storage: 12 x Sun Storage 2540-M2 array storage, each with 12 x 15K RPM 300 GB drives, 2 controllers, 2 GB cache Software Configuration: Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition Audited Results: Database Size: 3000 GB (Scale Factor 3000) TPC-H Composite: 205,792.0 QphH@3000GB Price/performance: $4.10/QphH@3000GB Available: 05/31/2012 Total 3 year Cost: $843,656 TPC-H Power: 190,325.1 TPC-H Throughput: 222,515.9 Database Load Time: 4:08:29 Benchmark Description The TPC-H benchmark is a performance benchmark established by the Transaction Processing Council (TPC) to demonstrate Data Warehousing/Decision Support Systems (DSS). TPC-H measurements are produced for customers to evaluate the performance of various DSS systems. These queries and updates are executed against a standard database under controlled conditions. Performance projections and comparisons between different TPC-H Database sizes (100GB, 300GB, 1000GB, 3000GB, 10000GB, 30000GB and 100000GB) are not allowed by the TPC. TPC-H is a data warehousing-oriented, non-industry-specific benchmark that consists of a large number of complex queries typical of decision support applications. It also includes some insert and delete activity that is intended to simulate loading and purging data from a warehouse. TPC-H measures the combined performance of a particular database manager on a specific computer system. The main performance metric reported by TPC-H is called the TPC-H Composite Query-per-Hour Performance Metric (QphH@SF, where SF is the number of GB of raw data, referred to as the scale factor). QphH@SF is intended to summarize the ability of the system to process queries in both single and multiple user modes. The benchmark requires reporting of price/performance, which is the ratio of the total HW/SW cost plus 3 years maintenance to the QphH. A secondary metric is the storage efficiency, which is the ratio of total configured disk space in GB to the scale factor. Key Points and Best Practices Twelve Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays were used for the benchmark. Each Sun Storage 2540-M2 array contains 12 15K RPM drives and is connected to a single dual port 8Gb FC HBA using 2 ports. Each Sun Storage 2540-M2 array showed 1.5 GB/sec for sequential read operations and showed linear scaling, achieving 18 GB/sec with twelve Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays. These were stand alone IO tests. The peak IO rate measured from the Oracle database was 17 GB/sec. Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 required very little system tuning. Some vendors try to make the point that storage ratios are of customer concern. However, storage ratio size has more to do with disk layout and the increasing capacities of disks – so this is not an important metric in which to compare systems. The SPARC T4-4 server and Oracle Solaris efficiently managed the system load of over one thousand Oracle Database parallel processes. Six Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays were mirrored to another six Sun Storage 2540-M2 arrays on which all of the Oracle database files were placed. IO performance was high and balanced across all the arrays. The TPC-H Refresh Function (RF) simulates periodical refresh portion of Data Warehouse by adding new sales and deleting old sales data. Parallel DML (parallel insert and delete in this case) and database log performance are a key for this function and the SPARC T4-4 server outperformed both the IBM POWER7 server and HP ProLiant DL980 G7 server. (See the RF columns above.) See Also Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC) Home Page Ideas International Benchmark Page SPARC T4-4 Server oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition oracle.com OTN Sun Storage 2540-M2 Array oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement TPC-H, QphH, $/QphH are trademarks of Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC). For more information, see www.tpc.org. SPARC T4-4 205,792.0 QphH@3000GB, $4.10/QphH@3000GB, available 5/31/12, 4 processors, 32 cores, 256 threads; IBM Power 780 QphH@3000GB, 192,001.1 QphH@3000GB, $6.37/QphH@3000GB, available 11/30/11, 8 processors, 32 cores, 128 threads; HP ProLiant DL980 G7 162,601.7 QphH@3000GB, $2.68/QphH@3000GB available 10/13/10, 8 processors, 64 cores, 128 threads.

    Read the article

  • Updated Release of Windows Azure Service Management Cmdlets Now Available

    - by kaleidoscope
    An updated release of the Windows Azure Service Management (WASM) Cmdlets for PowerShell is now available. These cmdlets enable developers to effectively automate and manage all services in Windows Azure such as: Deploy new Hosted Services Upgrade your Services Remove your Hosted Services Manage your Storage accounts Manage your Certificates Configure your Diagnostics Transfer your Diagnostics Information More details can be found at http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsazure/   Anish

    Read the article

  • Apple IIGS emulator?

    - by xiaohouzi79
    What is the best quality Apple IIGS emulator for Ubuntu that is relatively easy to install? I have tried KEGS, but get the following (working without probs on my Windows partition): Preparing X Windows graphics system Visual 0 id: 00000021, screen: 0, depth: 24, class: 4 red: 00ff0000, green: 0000ff00, blue: 000000ff cmap size: 256, bits_per_rgb: 8 Chose visual: 0, max_colors: -1 Will use shared memory for X pipes: pipe_fd = 4, 5 pipe2_fd: 6,7 open /dev/dsp failed, ret: -1, errno:2 parent dying, could not get sample rate from child ret: 0, fd: 6 errno:11

    Read the article

  • SSAS Native v .net Provider

    - by ACALVETT
    Recently I was investigating why a new server which is in its parallel running phase was taking significantly longer to process the daily data than the server its due to replace. The server has SQL & SSAS installed so the problem was not likely to be in the network transfer as its using shared memory. As i dug around the SQL dmv’s i noticed in sys.dm_exec_connections that the SSAS connection had a packet size of 8000 bytes instead of the usual 4096 bytes and from there i found that the datasource...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Where are gnome keyboard shortcuts stored

    - by Evan Plaice
    I usually load a new version for every release to keep my OS fresh while preserving the last version on another partition as backup. I also employ a lot of custom key mappings (IMHO, the defaults suck). I've figured out how to transfer the majority of my configuration across systems so far but I can't figure out where the custom keyboard shortcut mappings are stored. Does anybody know where gnome puts these? Are there separate user config (Ie. ~/) and system config (Ie. /etc) files?

    Read the article

  • SPARC T3-1 Record Results Running JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Day in the Life Benchmark with Added Batch Component

    - by Brian
    Using Oracle's SPARC T3-1 server for the application tier and Oracle's SPARC Enterprise M3000 server for the database tier, a world record result was produced running the Oracle's JD Edwards EnterpriseOne applications Day in the Life benchmark run concurrently with a batch workload. The SPARC T3-1 server based result has 25% better performance than the IBM Power 750 POWER7 server even though the IBM result did not include running a batch component. The SPARC T3-1 server based result has 25% better space/performance than the IBM Power 750 POWER7 server as measured by the online component. The SPARC T3-1 server based result is 5x faster than the x86-based IBM x3650 M2 server system when executing the online component of the JD Edwards EnterpriseOne 9.0.1 Day in the Life benchmark. The IBM result did not include a batch component. The SPARC T3-1 server based result has 2.5x better space/performance than the x86-based IBM x3650 M2 server as measured by the online component. The combination of SPARC T3-1 and SPARC Enterprise M3000 servers delivered a Day in the Life benchmark result of 5000 online users with 0.875 seconds of average transaction response time running concurrently with 19 Universal Batch Engine (UBE) processes at 10 UBEs/minute. The solution exercises various JD Edwards EnterpriseOne applications while running Oracle WebLogic Server 11g Release 1 and Oracle Web Tier Utilities 11g HTTP server in Oracle Solaris Containers, together with the Oracle Database 11g Release 2. The SPARC T3-1 server showed that it could handle the additional workload of batch processing while maintaining the same number of online users for the JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Day in the Life benchmark. This was accomplished with minimal loss in response time. JD Edwards EnterpriseOne 9.0.1 takes advantage of the large number of compute threads available in the SPARC T3-1 server at the application tier and achieves excellent response times. The SPARC T3-1 server consolidates the application/web tier of the JD Edwards EnterpriseOne 9.0.1 application using Oracle Solaris Containers. Containers provide flexibility, easier maintenance and better CPU utilization of the server leaving processing capacity for additional growth. A number of Oracle advanced technology and features were used to obtain this result: Oracle Solaris 10, Oracle Solaris Containers, Oracle Java Hotspot Server VM, Oracle WebLogic Server 11g Release 1, Oracle Web Tier Utilities 11g, Oracle Database 11g Release 2, the SPARC T3 and SPARC64 VII+ based servers. This is the first published result running both online and batch workload concurrently on the JD Enterprise Application server. No published results are available from IBM running the online component together with a batch workload. The 9.0.1 version of the benchmark saw some minor performance improvements relative to 9.0. When comparing between 9.0.1 and 9.0 results, the reader should take this into account when the difference between results is small. Performance Landscape JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Day in the Life Benchmark Online with Batch Workload This is the first publication on the Day in the Life benchmark run concurrently with batch jobs. The batch workload was provided by Oracle's Universal Batch Engine. System RackUnits Online Users Resp Time (sec) BatchConcur(# of UBEs) BatchRate(UBEs/m) Version SPARC T3-1, 1xSPARC T3 (1.65 GHz), Solaris 10 M3000, 1xSPARC64 VII+ (2.86 GHz), Solaris 10 4 5000 0.88 19 10 9.0.1 Resp Time (sec) — Response time of online jobs reported in seconds Batch Concur (# of UBEs) — Batch concurrency presented in the number of UBEs Batch Rate (UBEs/m) — Batch transaction rate in UBEs/minute. JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Day in the Life Benchmark Online Workload Only These results are for the Day in the Life benchmark. They are run without any batch workload. System RackUnits Online Users ResponseTime (sec) Version SPARC T3-1, 1xSPARC T3 (1.65 GHz), Solaris 10 M3000, 1xSPARC64 VII (2.75 GHz), Solaris 10 4 5000 0.52 9.0.1 IBM Power 750, 1xPOWER7 (3.55 GHz), IBM i7.1 4 4000 0.61 9.0 IBM x3650M2, 2xIntel X5570 (2.93 GHz), OVM 2 1000 0.29 9.0 IBM result from http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/advantages/oracle/, IBM used WebSphere Configuration Summary Hardware Configuration: 1 x SPARC T3-1 server 1 x 1.65 GHz SPARC T3 128 GB memory 16 x 300 GB 10000 RPM SAS 1 x Sun Flash Accelerator F20 PCIe Card, 92 GB 1 x 10 GbE NIC 1 x SPARC Enterprise M3000 server 1 x 2.86 SPARC64 VII+ 64 GB memory 1 x 10 GbE NIC 2 x StorageTek 2540 + 2501 Software Configuration: JD Edwards EnterpriseOne 9.0.1 with Tools 8.98.3.3 Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Oracle 11g WebLogic server 11g Release 1 version 10.3.2 Oracle Web Tier Utilities 11g Oracle Solaris 10 9/10 Mercury LoadRunner 9.10 with Oracle Day in the Life kit for JD Edwards EnterpriseOne 9.0.1 Oracle’s Universal Batch Engine - Short UBEs and Long UBEs Benchmark Description JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is an integrated applications suite of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. Oracle offers 70 JD Edwards EnterpriseOne application modules to support a diverse set of business operations. Oracle's Day in the Life (DIL) kit is a suite of scripts that exercises most common transactions of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne applications, including business processes such as payroll, sales order, purchase order, work order, and other manufacturing processes, such as ship confirmation. These are labeled by industry acronyms such as SCM, CRM, HCM, SRM and FMS. The kit's scripts execute transactions typical of a mid-sized manufacturing company. The workload consists of online transactions and the UBE workload of 15 short and 4 long UBEs. LoadRunner runs the DIL workload, collects the user’s transactions response times and reports the key metric of Combined Weighted Average Transaction Response time. The UBE processes workload runs from the JD Enterprise Application server. Oracle's UBE processes come as three flavors: Short UBEs < 1 minute engage in Business Report and Summary Analysis, Mid UBEs > 1 minute create a large report of Account, Balance, and Full Address, Long UBEs > 2 minutes simulate Payroll, Sales Order, night only jobs. The UBE workload generates large numbers of PDF files reports and log files. The UBE Queues are categorized as the QBATCHD, a single threaded queue for large UBEs, and the QPROCESS queue for short UBEs run concurrently. One of the Oracle Solaris Containers ran 4 Long UBEs, while another Container ran 15 short UBEs concurrently. The mixed size UBEs ran concurrently from the SPARC T3-1 server with the 5000 online users driven by the LoadRunner. Oracle’s UBE process performance metric is Number of Maximum Concurrent UBE processes at transaction rate, UBEs/minute. Key Points and Best Practices Two JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Application Servers and two Oracle Fusion Middleware WebLogic Servers 11g R1 coupled with two Oracle Fusion Middleware 11g Web Tier HTTP Server instances on the SPARC T3-1 server were hosted in four separate Oracle Solaris Containers to demonstrate consolidation of multiple application and web servers. See Also SPARC T3-1 oracle.com SPARC Enterprise M3000 oracle.com Oracle Solaris oracle.com JD Edwards EnterpriseOne oracle.com Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition oracle.com Disclosure Statement Copyright 2011, 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 6/27/2011.

    Read the article

  • Is your test method self-validating ?

    - by mehfuzh
    Writing state of art unit tests that can validate your every part of the framework is challenging and interesting at the same time, its like becoming a samurai. One of the key concept in this is to keep our test synced all the time as underlying code changes and thus breaking them to the furthest unit as possible.  This also means, we should avoid  multiple conditions embedded in a single test. Let’s consider the following example of transfer funds. [Fact] public void ShouldAssertTranserFunds() {     var currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>();     //// current rate     Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("AUS", "CAD")).Returns(0.88f);       Account to = new Account { Currency = "AUS", Balance = 120 };     Account from = new Account { Currency = "CAD" };       AccountService accService = new AccountService(currencyService);       Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(() => accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 200f));       accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 100f);       Assert.Equal(from.Balance, 88);     Assert.Equal(20, to.Balance); } At first look,  it seems ok but as you look more closely , it is actually doing two tasks in one test. At line# 10 it is trying to validate the exception for invalid fund transfer and finally it is asserting if the currency conversion is successfully made. Here, the name of the test itself is pretty vague. The first rule for writing unit test should always reflect to inner working of the target code, where just by looking at their names it is self explanatory. Having a obscure name for a test method not only increase the chances of cluttering the test code, but it also gives the opportunity to add multiple paths into it and eventually makes things messy as possible. I would rater have two test methods that explicitly describes its intent and are more self-validating. ShouldThrowExceptionForInvalidTransferOperation ShouldAssertTransferForExpectedConversionRate Having, this type of breakdown also helps us pin-point reported bugs easily rather wasting any time on debugging for something more general and can minimize confusion among team members. Finally, we should always make our test F.I.R.S.T ( Fast.Independent.Repeatable.Self-validating.Timely) [ Bob martin – Clean Code]. Only this will be enough to ensure, our test is as simple and clean as possible.   Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • PowerPivot Workshop: new announcement and early bird expiring soon #ppws #PowerPivot

    - by AlbertoFerrari
    As always, I am a bit later than Marco in producing news. Nevertheless, I am very excited to tell you  the new date for the Frankfurt workshop on PowerPivot: February 21-22, 2011 . Save the date and find all the relevant information on www.powerpivotworkshop.com , where you can also register a seat for the workshop with the early bird rate. Moreover, the early bird for the London date is quickly approaching: it will expire on January, 17 ., Thus, hurry up and don’t miss the opportunity to save...(read more)

    Read the article

  • How do I keep my Huawei E3131 3G modem from unmounting?

    - by John Perez
    I need help getting my Huawei E3131 modem to (consistently) work. I am currently running Ubuntu 12.04.2 and 3G dongles have worked many times before. However, my newly acquired Huawei E3131 is causing problems. When plugged in, Ubuntu detects the device as a CD-ROM and a modem. I can browse the dongle's contents using Nautilus and Network Manager is able to configure and work the dongle out-of-the-box. I can even get to surf. However, within minutes, the connection drops and the CD-ROM is unmounted. I wait about 15 seconds, then the CD-ROM mounts again and Network Manager is able to connect again with short-lived surfing. Rinse, lather and repeat. It's strange that the device mounts as a CD-ROM, but works as a modem, too, suggesting that mode switching happens somewhere. It's not a signal coverage problem, either because I tested the same SIM card using 3 other different dongles (2 ZTEs and another Huawei) and it is only this E3131 that has this problem. If pertinent, the other dongles weren't being detected as CD-ROMs. Output of lsusb Bus 001 Device 002: ID 8087:0020 Intel Corp. Integrated Rate Matching Hub Bus 002 Device 002: ID 8087:0020 Intel Corp. Integrated Rate Matching Hub Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 001 Device 003: ID 0ac8:c342 Z-Star Microelectronics Corp. Bus 001 Device 010: ID 12d1:1506 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. E398 LTE/UMTS/GSM Modem/Networkcard Bus 001 Device 004: ID 0a5c:219b Broadcom Corp. Bluetooth 2.1 Device I tried installing the drivers found here, but no fish. Furthermore, my device is an E3131, but lsusb for some reason detects it as an E398. I'm not sure how that plays a role for this problem, though. I hope someone out there can help me. I'm out of ideas already. Thank you very much!

    Read the article

  • How do I limit the game loop?

    - by user1758938
    How do I make a game update at a consistent speed? For example, this would loop too fast: while(true) { GetInput(); Render(); } This just wont work (hard to explain): while(true) { GetInput(); Render(); Sleep(16); } How do I sync my game to a certain framerate and still have input and functions going at a consistent rate?

    Read the article

  • Migration from one domain to another - Transfering the social media stats

    - by Dipak Saraf
    I am planning to move my site from one domain to another i.e from domain a.com to b.com . The site also has a lot of content and the migration of content is not an issue. The 301 redirect will take care of all the backlinks also. But my real worry is transfer the social media shares links and stats from domain a.com to b.com. I need some insight or any way in which the same can be migrated seamlessly from domain a.com to b.com

    Read the article

  • export emails from open-xchnage webmail and import them to horde webmail

    - by sam
    Im moving hosting and need to move the emails stored with the old domain/hosting, the hosting i want to transfer from uses open-xchange for its webmail and the hosting i want to move to uses horde for their webmail. Is their an automated way from inside of the open xchange webmail, or is there a way i can do it from inside of outlook / mac mail ? not sure if this is the right place for this, if not please advise..

    Read the article

  • Announcing a functional best practices White Paper for SIM and RMS integration

    - by Oracle Retail Documentation Team
    Oracle Retail has published a document on My Oracle Support (https://support.oracle.com) that provides you with guidance on how to adopt best practices that best facilitate the integration between the Oracle Retail Merchandising System (RMS) and the Oracle Retail Store Inventory Management System (SIM). Doc ID: 1424596.1This paper highlights some specific functional best practices when integrating Oracle Retail Merchandising System (RMS) and Oracle Retail Store Inventory Management (SIM). The list in this paper is not comprehensive. Topics include: Inventory adjustments Returns to vendor (RTV) Transfer shipping Receipts Receipt unit adjustments Stock order reconcoliation Stock counts Transformable items

    Read the article

  • Acommodation deal annoucced for SQLBits 6

    - by simonsabin
    The details of our acommodation deal have been announced. We are going to be using the Park Paza on Westminster Bridge. http://www.parkplaza.com/hotels/gbwestmi The speakers are going to be based there so why not join us, its a short walk from the venue. We have a promotion code SQL6 which gives you a greatly reduced rate of £139 + VAT.  If you want cheaper then consider using Laterooms

    Read the article

  • Acommodation deal annoucced for SQLBits 6

    - by simonsabin
    The details of our acommodation deal have been announced. We are going to be using the Park Paza on Westminster Bridge. http://www.parkplaza.com/hotels/gbwestmi The speakers are going to be based there so why not join us, its a short walk from the venue. We have a promotion code SQL6 which gives you a greatly reduced rate of £139 + VAT.  If you want cheaper then consider using Laterooms

    Read the article

  • Increase Google SERP Rank by Improving Your PageRank

    Having a good search engines results page (SERP) rank is the goal of SEO, this means higher organic traffic, more visitors and increased conversion rate. But how do we improve our SERP rank specially with Google who provides more than 70% of relevant search results? Well one of them is improving your website's PageRank, if you think SERP and PR are not related, keep on reading to find out.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >