Search Results

Search found 9381 results on 376 pages for 'vs macros'.

Page 69/376 | < Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >

• OpenVZ vs KVM for Linux VMs

  - by Eliasdx

  Hardware: Intel® Core™ i7-920, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 2 x 1500 GB SATA-II HDD (no SoftRaid because Proxmox developers don't support softraid and they are sure you'll run into problems) Software: Proxmox VE with KVM and OpenVZ support and debian everywhere I want to run multiple Linux VMs on this server. One for a firewall (I want to try pfSense), one for MySQL, one VM for nginx (my stuff) and ~2 VMs with nginx for other people's web sites. I don't think that pfSense will run in an OpenVZ environment but it should run in KVM. The question is if I should setup the other VMs using KVM or OpenVZ. In OpenVZ they should have less overhead for the OS itself but I don't know about the performance. I heard that KVM is more stable but needs more RAM and CPU. I found this diagram showing a OpenVZ setup on the same hardware I'm using. This guy uses an own VM for each and every website which is running on his server. I can't think of any advantage why he's using so many VMs.

  Read the article

• Renting an "EC2" server VS buying one (for a start up in initial stages)

  - by krish p

  We are a small start up in the early stages and are working on a SaaS-based Rails product. Currently, we use EC2 for a small instance and have a need for another large/extra-large instance as we are beginning to deploy to the Cloud and get ready to release our "alpha" version. While EC2 was my choice for numerous reasons (reliability, accessibility - small team is geographically dispersed, maintainability, and things of that nature), it appears to be rather expensive. While the product will ultimately be deployed in the Cloud (be it EC2 or otherwise) and that experience would help the development team, would it make sense to purchase a physical server and stick it in the basement or bite the bullet and pay the price for EC2 (or other Cloud Providers)? While such decisions are driven by numerous factors, it would certainly help to get the thoughts of other folks who may have been in similar situations. Hence, the post. Thanks much!

  Read the article

• Mac OS: "Minimize" vs "Hide" - what's the difference?

  - by pix0r

  Why does OS X have both a "Hide" and a "Minimize" feature? This seems somewhat redundant to me, and also introduces some inconsistency when I am trying to find an arbitrary window. If it's hidden, I need to activate the application and use the "Windows" menu to bring it up; if the window is minimized, it appears in the dock. What are some scenarios in which you'd use these two features differently?

  Read the article

• Intel Pentium 4 vs. Faster Celeron

  - by Synetech inc.

  A few months ago my motherboard died, so I bought a used computer that had a 2.4GHz Celeron. My old system had a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, so now I’m trying to decide which CPU to use. Obviously a P4 is preferable over a Celeron, but the Celeron is (significantly?) faster than the P4. I’m wondering if the faster Celeron might be better for certain tasks (ie, stronger but dumber is better at some things than smarter but weaker). I tried Googling for some reviews and comparisons for graphs to get a clear depiction of which is better overall, but found nothing that helped. (I did manage to find one page that indicates (apparently by poll, not benchmark) that the Celeron is better.) So which CPU should I use? Does anyone know of some graphs that I can use to compare the two?

  Read the article

• ASA and cisco vs NSA sonic firewall

  - by Lbaker101

  Currently I’m trying to structure our network to fully support and be redundant with BGP/Multi homing. Our current company size is 40 employees but the major part of that is our Development department. We are a software company and continued connection to the internet is a requirement as 90% of work stops when the net goes down. The only thing hosted on site (that needs to remain up) is our exchange server. Right now i'm faced with 2 different directions and was wondering if I could get your opinions on this. We will have 2 ISPs that are both 20meg up/down and dedicated fiber (so 40megs combined). This is handed off as an Ethernet cable into our server room. ISP#1 first digital ISP#2 CenturyLink we currently have 2x ASA5505s but the 2nd one is not in use. It was there to be a failover and it just needs the security+ license to be matched with the primary device. But this depends on the network structure. I have been looking into the hardware that would be required to be fully redundant and I found that we will either of the following. 2x Cisco 2921+ series routers with failover licenses. They will go in front of the ASAs and either connects in a failover state or 1 ISP into each of the 2921 series routers and then 1 line into each of the ASAs (thus all 4 hardware components will be used actively). So 2x Cisco 2921+ series routers 2x Cisco ASA5505 firewalls The other route 2x SonicWalls NSA2400MX series. 1 primary and the secondary will be in a failover state. This will remove the ASAs from the network and be about 2k cheaper than the cisco route. This also brings down the points of failure because it’s just the 2x sonicwalls It will also allow us to scale all the way up to 200-400 users (depending on their configuration). This also makes so the Sonic walls. So the real question is with the added functionality ect of the sonicwall is there a point in paying so much more to stay the cisco route? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Wireshark vs Netmon for precise time tagging

  - by Nic

  I'm using Wireshark to time tag and get some statistics on multicast traffic. When there is not much traffic, the stats looks good, but as soon as there is a bunch of packets arriving at the same time, I have stats that are not even possible (e.g. round trip time of 0ms) I'm wondering if Netmon could be more precise in time tagging packet because it is not relying on the Winpcap driver? Does anybody already faced the same situation? Thanks a lot, Nic

  Read the article

• Track at once vs. Disc at once

  - by Mehper C. Palavuzlar

  I see two burn methods in the options menu of all disc burning programs: "Track at once" and "Disc at once". What is the difference between these two methods? Which one do you recommend for regular data recording? Edit: Please provide a non-copy-paste answer which briefly describes the differences and pros.

  Read the article

• varnish vs squid? caching solution

  - by alexus

  squid : Optimising Web Delivery - http://www.squid-cache.org/ Varnish : http://varnish-cache.org/ which one is better to use and why?

  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

• OPTIONS request vs GET in Ajax

  - by user41172

  I have a PHP/javascript app that queries and returns info using an ajax request. On every server I've used so far, this works as expected, passing an Ajax GET request to the server and returning json data. On a new install, the query fails and returns nothing-- I inspected the request and it turns out that rather than passing the query as a GET, the server is passing it as an OPTIONS request. Is there any reason for this? I have no idea why this might happen. THanks!

  Read the article

• CentOS Vs Windows Server 2008

  - by Steve

  Hi, Apologies if the question appears ambiguous, I have little experience in this area and was after some informed opinions. I am deploying a test scenario of a server/client network and need to make some choices for Server. The client will be a Windows system as it meets the requirements for the client, the server choice has more room for selection. From my experience with Linux in general and the appealing nature of open source for low cost, security etc and the availability and performance of database and web server programs I have been considering CentOS as a server choice. I have the ability to make most of the choices of what software / server packages I wish to install. This includes Active Directory (something I have no experience with). How well does this operate with Windows clients? Am I being too selective and creating unnecessary complication by setting out not to use a Windows Server OS?

  Read the article

• Forefront TMG vs pfSense

  - by JD01

  Hi all, We currently run pfSense with no problems, however we are looking at TMG as it is included in our partner subscription to MS and allows Windows 7 DirectConnect features to our domain for off-site users. I have had a google, but there don't seem to be any comparisons of TMG to pfSense. Anyone have experience/knowledge of this? Our infrastructure is Windows Server 2008 R2 behind pfSense at the moment.

  Read the article

• FTP Sites vs Sites in IIS 7.0

  - by NealWalters

  We have one FTP site set up (and working) basically like the instructions here: http://www.iis.net/learn/publish/using-the-ftp-service/creating-a-new-ftp-site-in-iis-7 It shows up under "Sites" and then the name of our FTP Site. However, above "Sites" (in the left navigation tree view), we see a node called "FTP Sites". When we click on it, it says "FTP Management is provided by IIS 6.0". Can someone give me the big picture of why this node appears, and why IIS 6 is involved? Is is some backward compatible feature? I didn't build these machines, so don't know the reasoning of what was done before I arrived on the scene. Also, is the tree view icon for websites and FTP sites the same?

  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

• 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

• Puppet yum repo - Pull down 2.7.x vs 3.0.x

  - by Mike Purcell

  So a few weeks ago I started on the path to using puppet to automate all the configs/services. At the time I was using the EPEL repo, which installed version 2.6.x. After some reading I was trying to gain access to the flatten method available via the puppet stdlib, and thought it was available by default in the newer 2.7.x version. So I added a puppet repo with the following settings: [puppetlabs] name=Puppet Labs Packages baseurl=http://yum.puppetlabs.com/el/$releasever/products/$basearch/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=http://yum.puppetlabs.com/RPM-GPG-KEY-puppetlabs The problem with this, is it installed v3.0.x instead of 2.7.x. And apparently 3.0.x is a major upgrade which was released only a few weeks ago. Obviously I would prefer to use the 2.7.x for the next few months while PuppetLabs fix any defects which will inevitably arise after a major version. So my question is, what setting can I add to the puppet repo config to pull down only the 2.7.x branch and not the 3.0.x branch?

  Read the article

• Software/FakeRAID: Windows 8 Disk Mirroring vs Intel Onboard

  - by Johnny W

  So Windows 8 is out and I have a new motherboard. I wish to create a RAID 1 coupling between two HDDs -- for storage purposes only (my OS is on an SSD) -- but I don't know which is the best route to take. My motherboard (Z77 chipset) comes with the age old Intel Fake RAID, but since I only wish to use my RAID for storage, I wondered if I might be better to use Windows 8 Disk Mirroring. Can anyone advise which is better? Or perhaps the pros and cons of each, if that's too contentious? I just can't see the benefit of FakeRAID. You can see my current setup here, if that might change things(?): Thanks!

  Read the article

• Broker vs. SQLPLUS to manage Data Guard configuration

  - by Sarith

  Hi all, Can anyone tell me the link to the comparison between using SQLPLUS and Data Guard Broker to manage data guard configuration? Advantages and disadvantages of those two command line interfaces? Thanks, Sarith

  Read the article

• Performance SAS vs SSD

  - by omoto

  When it comes to speed of development, very important thing is your hardware. I need suggestion to choice between hard drives. What is a best solution: price/value

  Read the article

• Which ports to open on domain vs internet

  - by zsharp

  I have a web server/database/domainController. I notice that ports 137 and 138 on the public IP AND private IP are open on all machines there are also other open ports on 0.0.0.0.(ie. 135, 2002) Can and should I close 137-139 on the public IP only? will that interfere with any services.

  Read the article

• SQL Server: Statements vs. Batches vs. Transactions vs. Connections

  - by Sleepless

  My question is simple: What are the differences / similarities / cardinalities between Transactions Batches Connections and Statements in SQL Server? As far as I understand a connection is a single communications channel between a SQL Server instance and a client within which collections of statements grouped as batches are executed. A batch is either implicitly or explicitly mapped to one or several transactions. Is this correct?

  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

• Using terminal vs KDE in linux?

  - by Ke

  Im used to using nautilus within centos but have recently just got a VPS and quickly realising that using a KDE is unacceptable in this environment. Although I do find it so much quicker doing things like folder permissions in KDE rather than typing it all out in the terminal? Everyone I speak to says, use the terminal and I should learn this way as opposed to using the KDE, but theres certain things I just dont get How is it possible to make quick changes to scripts and viewing them in a browser etc , without a mouse or using KDE? and only using a terminal?? I am wondering how to develop websites just using the terminal??? How can it be quicker to type out/view permissions etc in the terminal when its instant and just a few clicks in the KDE? Any thoughts are much appreciated. I would love to understand the benefits but just cant seem to see them right now. Cheers Ke.

  Read the article

• Bacula vs. BackupPC

  - by chronoz

  I have been googling about the differences between them. Bacula has lots of roles BackupPC is easier to configure Bacula works with agent, not rsync (great for Windows backups) It seems that Bacula is most often compared to Amanda though, while BackupPC seems a perfectly lovely and popular backup distribution to. I currently backup my servers with rsnapshot, but I am looking for a professional scalable solution that could also back-up 50 hosts without problems. Preferably a solution that can offer bare metal restores for my Linux servers. I am not looking to reinstall the exact same version of Plesk, the software, etc...

  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

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