Search Results

Search found 4946 results on 198 pages for 'proper benchmarking'.

Page 7/198 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Is there an objective way to measure slowness of PC/WINDOWS?

    - by ekms
    We've a lot of users that usually complain about that his PC is "slow". (we use win XP). We usually check startup programs, virus, fragmentation, disk health and common problems that causes slowness (Symantec AV drops disk to 1mb/s , or a seagate HD firmware error in certain models), but in those cases the slowness is pretty evident. In other hand, the most common is the user complaining about his pc but for us looks OK, even in 6 years old desktops. People sometimes even complains about his new quad core desktops speed!!! So, we are asking if there's a way to OBJECTIVELY check that a computer didn't dropped its performance, compared with similar ones o previous measures, specially for work use (I don't think that 3dmark benchmark o similar may help). The only thing that I found that was useful is HDTune, but it only check hard disk performance. Basically, what we want is something that enable us to say to our users "see? your PC is as slow as was three years ago! stop complaining! Is all in your head!"

    Read the article

  • Iozone: sensible settings for a server with lots of RAM

    - by Frank Brenner
    I have just acquired a server with: 2x quadcore Xeons 48G ECC RAM 5x 160GB SSDs on an LSI 9260-8i Before deploying the target platform, I'd like to collect as much benchmark data as possible, testing I/O with hardware RAID in various configurations, ZFS zRAID, as well as I/O performance on vSphere and with KVM virtualization. In order to see real disk I/O performance without cache effects, I tried running Iozone with a maximum file of more than twice the physical RAM as recommended in the documentation, so: iozone -a -g100G However, as one might expect, this takes far too long to be practicable. (I stopped the run after seven hours..) I'd like to reduce the range of record and file sizes to values that might reflect realistic performance for an application server, hopefully getting the run times to under an hour or so. Any ideas? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to tell, before buying, if a given graphics card will play Full HD video?

    - by Dominykas Mostauskis
    I am looking for the cheapest video card that would be capable of smooth playback of Full HD (1080p) video on a Full HD screen. An answer by @Mikhail on a related question briefly mentioned that: performance of video playback is largely dependent on the video accelerators present [in the card] Is this true? Could anyone expand on that? Are there any benchmarks or specifications that could be used to tell if a given (low-end) card can play Full HD video smoothly? Benchmarks I encountered are oriented towards computer games, and using them to evaluate video playback performance may be less-than-optimal, I imagine.

    Read the article

  • Are there any benchmarks showing difference between hardware virtualisation enabled/disabled?

    - by Wil
    I have a 13" sub-laptop/large-netbook, it has an AMD Athlon Neo X2 L335, and I chose this one because it supports hardware virtualisation. In the end, I hardly do any virtualisation on it, however, when I do... it is fast. To my shock, I went in to the BIOS and saw that virtualisation was disabled! I turned this on and, I see no speed difference.... or at least none that I can tell. I do not have time to do a full set of benchmarks - and I run quite a bit of software on the host, so it wouldn't be scientific. I have searched quite a few places and I just can not find any benchmarks showing the difference of virtualisation bit enabled/disabled on the same hardware. Does anyone have any benchmarks they have seen that they can share? In addition, I know there was an uproar a while ago as Sony disable the hardware virtualisation on some models and only offer it in their higher models as a premium feature, however, apart from forcing an up-sell, are there any benefits to having it disabled e.g. battery/heat? I just can't find any information and can't work out why it would be disabled by default. Edit--- To add, The only thing I can find is that without it, you can not perform x64 virtualisation as fast. This is the only down side I can find. However, if this is the only difference, then I am still interested in the second part of the question - why offer the option to disable it?

    Read the article

  • Does chunk size affect the read performance of a Linux md software RAID1 array?

    - by OldWolf
    This came up in relation to this question on determining chunk size of an existing RAID array. The general consensus seems to be that chunk size does not apply to RAID1 as it is not striped. On the other hand, the Linux RAID Wiki claims that it will have an affect on read performance. However, I cannot find any benchmarks testing/proving that. Can anyone point to conclusive documentation that it either does or does not affect read performance?

    Read the article

  • Benchmark virtual machines?

    - by evan
    I'm looking for a good way to benchmark the performance of Ubuntu machines (preferably from the command line - only care about harddrive speed, memory, and cpu - not graphics). Are there any programs that could also be used on Mac or Windows so I could compare the results against an Apple or PC Desktop? Ultimately I'd like to use these benchmarks to compare different virtual machine configurations (speeds on different hosts and different hardware to get practical idea of the differences between different setups a rigs). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can I rent exclusive time on a powerful server running linux? [closed]

    - by Mark Borgerding
    My company is involved in a proposal that requires speed estimates of our software on a server with the latest & greatest processors. This is not the first time we've been in this situation. The servers themselves are too expensive to buy a new one every time, so we end up extrapolating from what we have. There are so many variables: processor generation & speed, memory speed, memory channels, cache configurations; it makes extrapolation difficult and error-prone. Is there a business that rents time on the newest servers? At least part of the time we'd need exclusive access to an otherwise quiescent system either via ssh shell access or unattended batch jobs. I am not looking for general cloud computing services. I don't need much time on the server, but it needs to be exclusive. And the server needs to be pretty cutting edge for a solid basis of estimate.

    Read the article

  • How come Core i7 (desktop) dominates Xeon (server)?

    - by grant tailor
    I have been using this performance benchmark results to select what CPUs to use on my web server and to my surprise, looks like Core i7 CPUs dominates the list pushing Xeon CPUs into the bush. Why is this? Why is Intel making the Core i7 perform better than the Xeon. Are Desktop CPUs supposed to perform better than server grade Xeon CPUs? I really don't get this and will like to know what you think or why this is so. Also I am thinking about getting a new web server and thinking between the i7-2600 VS the Xeon E3-1245. The i7-2600 is higher up in the performance benchmark but I am thinking the Xeon E3-1245 is server grade. What do you guys think? Should I go for the i7-2600? Or is the Xeon E3-1245 a server grade CPU for a reason?

    Read the article

  • How come i7 (desktop) dominates Xeon (server)?

    - by grant tailor
    I have been using this performance benchmark results http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html to select what CPUs to use on my web server and to my surprise...looks like i7 CPUs dominates the list pushing Xeon CPUs into the bush. Why is this? Why is Intel making the i7 perform better than the Xeon. Are Desktop CPUs supposed to perform better than server grade Xeon CPUs? I really don't get this and will like to know what you think or why this is so. Also i am thinking about getting a new web server and thinking between the i7-2600 VS the Xeon E3-1245. The i7-2600 is higher up in the performance benchmark but i am thinking the Xeon E3-1245 is server grade...so what do you guys think? Should i go for the i7-2600? Or is the Xeon E3-1245 a server grade CPU for a reason?

    Read the article

  • How benchmark server with load balancer

    - by Fajkowsky
    Hey I have four computers(with linux): two with mediawiki(mirror, both connected to one db) one with mysql one server(DHCP,DNS etc) I configured on my server load balancer and now hen I type in browser name.local for example I get one of my mediawiki servers. I press f5 really fast and then I see in top command both computers are being loaded but not much. I used tool ab (apache benchamrk) but if I run it always is connected to one server never alternately. I use this settings: ab -n 100 -c 10 http://name.local/

    Read the article

  • Transferring a Windows 8 license and proper un- and reinstallation

    - by Kiwi
    Long story short I have two computers: a laptop and a desktop computer. Both have Windows 7 on them. I buy the Windows 8 Pro upgrade. To see if it screws up anything, I install it on my laptop as a guinea pig. I intend to use Windows 8 for my main computer, my desktop, but I want to test it on the laptop, so I know I don’t risk losing access to my desktop and the data on it. I never use my laptop, and only used it, because it already has a Windows 7 installation on it. The problem At some point, I must have entered the license key on my laptop, because when I go to the activation screen on my desktop, I get this: Uh-oh. I can’t use the key on my desktop. Now how the hell do I transfer the key from my laptop to my desktop computer? Answers and suggestions so far Let’s just say that I tried everything possible to get some answers on this matter. The best response I got from Microsoft is this: To install Windows 8 on your desktop, do the following: Uninstall Windows 8 on your laptop Afterwards, install Windows 8 on your desktop If it won’t activate, call product activation at (...) I am not a fan of that last point. The error message does allude to such a solution, however: If you’ve reinstalled Windows or made changes to your hardware recently, you may be able to use your current key. The question My main question is this: has anyone been in a similar situation, and if so, what did you do to resolve this? Failing that, what is the proper way to uninstall the Windows 8 installation on my laptop, and reinstall the Windows 8 installation on my desktop? Ad 1 I have already tried using the “reset” feature on my laptop, but that only resulted in a new Windows 8 installation that was already activated. But which is the right way to uninstall the installation in a way that allows me to use the license key on the desktop computer? Ad 2 Which is the proper way to reinstall the Windows 8 installation on my desktop computer? Why do I even have to reinstall it in the first place? I won’t get around to do this, until my USB key with 3.0 support arrives in the mail, but it is going to be a while, until I find a assuaging response to the best way to go about this anyway.

    Read the article

  • Node.js vs PHP processing speed

    - by Cody Craven
    I've been looking into node.js recently and wanted to see a true comparison of processing speed for PHP vs Node.js. In most of the comparisons I had seen, Node trounced Apache/PHP set ups handily. However all of the tests were small 'hello worlds' that would not accurately reflect any webpage's markup. So I decided to create a basic HTML page with 10,000 hello world paragraph elements. In these tests Node with Cluster was beaten to a pulp by PHP on Nginx utilizing PHP-FPM. So I'm curious if I am misusing Node somehow or if Node is really just this bad at processing power. Note that my results were equivalent outputting "Hello world\n" with text/plain as the HTML, but I only included the HTML as it's closer to the use case I was investigating. My testing box: Core i7-2600 Intel CPU (has 8 threads with 4 cores) 8GB DDR3 RAM Fedora 16 64bit Node.js v0.6.13 Nginx v1.0.13 PHP v5.3.10 (with PHP-FPM) My test scripts: Node.js script var cluster = require('cluster'); var http = require('http'); var numCPUs = require('os').cpus().length; if (cluster.isMaster) { // Fork workers. for (var i = 0; i < numCPUs; i++) { cluster.fork(); } cluster.on('death', function (worker) { console.log('worker ' + worker.pid + ' died'); }); } else { // Worker processes have an HTTP server. http.Server(function (req, res) { res.writeHead(200, {'Content-Type': 'text/html'}); res.write('<html>\n<head>\n<title>Speed test</title>\n</head>\n<body>\n'); for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { res.write('<p>Hello world</p>\n'); } res.end('</body>\n</html>'); }).listen(80); } This script is adapted from Node.js' documentation at http://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/cluster.html PHP script <?php echo "<html>\n<head>\n<title>Speed test</title>\n</head>\n<body>\n"; for ($i = 0; $i < 10000; $i++) { echo "<p>Hello world</p>\n"; } echo "</body>\n</html>"; My results Node.js $ ab -n 500 -c 20 http://speedtest.dev/ This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking speedtest.dev (be patient) Completed 100 requests Completed 200 requests Completed 300 requests Completed 400 requests Completed 500 requests Finished 500 requests Server Software: Server Hostname: speedtest.dev Server Port: 80 Document Path: / Document Length: 190070 bytes Concurrency Level: 20 Time taken for tests: 14.603 seconds Complete requests: 500 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 95066500 bytes HTML transferred: 95035000 bytes Requests per second: 34.24 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 584.123 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 29.206 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 6357.45 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.2 0 2 Processing: 94 547 405.4 424 2516 Waiting: 0 331 399.3 216 2284 Total: 95 547 405.4 424 2516 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 424 66% 607 75% 733 80% 813 90% 1084 95% 1325 98% 1843 99% 2062 100% 2516 (longest request) PHP/Nginx $ ab -n 500 -c 20 http://speedtest.dev/test.php This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $> Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking speedtest.dev (be patient) Completed 100 requests Completed 200 requests Completed 300 requests Completed 400 requests Completed 500 requests Finished 500 requests Server Software: nginx/1.0.13 Server Hostname: speedtest.dev Server Port: 80 Document Path: /test.php Document Length: 190070 bytes Concurrency Level: 20 Time taken for tests: 0.130 seconds Complete requests: 500 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 95109000 bytes HTML transferred: 95035000 bytes Requests per second: 3849.11 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 5.196 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.260 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 715010.65 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.2 0 1 Processing: 3 5 0.7 5 7 Waiting: 1 4 0.7 4 7 Total: 3 5 0.7 5 7 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 5 66% 5 75% 5 80% 6 90% 6 95% 6 98% 6 99% 6 100% 7 (longest request) Additional details Again what I'm looking for is to find out if I'm doing something wrong with Node.js or if it is really just that slow compared to PHP on Nginx with FPM. I certainly think Node has a real niche that it could fit well, however with these test results (which I really hope I made a mistake with - as I like the idea of Node) lead me to believe that it is a horrible choice for even a modest processing load when compared to PHP (let alone JVM or various other fast solutions). As a final note, I also tried running an Apache Bench test against node with $ ab -n 20 -c 20 http://speedtest.dev/ and consistently received a total test time of greater than 0.900 seconds.

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't Microsoft release a 'proper' AJAX grid for ASP.Net

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Why doesn't Microsoft release a 'proper' AJAX grid for ASP.Net either as part of Visual Studio or the AJAX control toolkit? Has there been any discussion that anyone is aware of regarding this issue? Also does anyone have any open source suggestions for 'proper' AJAX gridviews? So far I have found one.... http://dotnetslackers.com/projects/AjaxDataControls/Default.aspx PS: By proper I mean a grid that actually uses XML responses rather than the nasty html javascript based injection that is the current nastyness of the gridview (EVEN IN VS 2010).

    Read the article

  • How to benchmark on multi-core processors

    - by Pascal Cuoq
    I am looking for ways to perform micro-benchmarks on multi-core processors. Context: At about the same time desktop processors introduced out-of-order execution that made performance hard to predict, they, perhaps not coincidentally, also introduced special instructions to get very precise timings. Example of these instructions are rdtsc on x86 and rftb on PowerPC. These instructions gave timings that were more precise than could ever be allowed by a system call, allowed programmers to micro-benchmark their hearts out, for better or for worse. On a yet more modern processor with several cores, some of which sleep some of the time, the counters are not synchronized between cores. We are told that rdtsc is no longer safe to use for benchmarking, but I must have been dozing off when we were explained the alternative solutions. Question: Some systems may save and restore the performance counter and provide an API call to read the proper sum. If you know what this call is for any operating system, please let us know in an answer. Some systems may allow to turn off cores, leaving only one running. I know Mac OS X Leopard does when the right Preference Pane is installed from the Developers Tools. Do you think that this make rdtsc safe to use again? More context: Please assume I know what I am doing when trying to do a micro-benchmark. If you are of the opinion that if an optimization's gains cannot be measured by timing the whole application, it's not worth optimizing, I agree with you, but I cannot time the whole application until the alternative data structure is finished, which will take a long time. In fact, if the micro-benchmark were not promising, I could decide to give up on the implementation now; I need figures to provide in a publication whose deadline I have no control over.

    Read the article

  • "Reboot and select proper boot device"?

    - by overtherainbow
    Hello I didn't find the answer in Clonezilla's site/mailing list archives. Maybe someone has already seen this issue and knows how to recover from it: On a test host, using www.partedmagic.com, I created two partitions: One to hold an OS I wish to use for testing (/sda1), and a second partition to hold images (/sda2) After trying out Windows7, I used CloneZilla to restore an XPSP3 image, but I get the following error message when rebooting: "Reboot and select proper boot device" Could it be that Clonezilla didn't save/restore the MBR? Gparted didn't let me set a partition as "active", so it could also be this, but I have no idea. Thank you for any help.

    Read the article

  • Proper procedure - sftp access to www folder - To be able to upload files

    - by Jay
    My www folder is root:root. What should it be? My site works perfectly but maybe I am doing something wrong. My nginx.conf says user is 'nginx'. Should I be changing the www onwership and group to that or something else? Mainly I want to be able to sftp into the www folder using FileZilla. Preferably only allow access to the www folder. I want to be able to upload the website files but I just don't know the proper procedure. I have tried changing owners and groups but I get worried some part of the stack will not like it. For example does nginx play along, and php? I thought about having a sftp group or even an sftp user. But I don't want to go down a path that should be avoided. What should I be doing with my setup?

    Read the article

  • Proper 16:9 video size for non-HD 4:3 video (for youtube/vimeo)

    - by Xeoncross
    Since High Definition video came out on all the online sites it has changed the default aspect ratio of the player from 4:3 to 16:9. This means that for people posting SD video you have to resize some of your videos to get them to fit right. For example, NTSC DVD quality (aka 480i/p) is 720x480 pixels (width x height). However, low-end High Definition (720i/p) is 1280x720. Anyway, now that the video players are built for HD you will find that uploading standard quality videos will result in videos that are "letter boxed" which means they have extra black bars on the top and bottom (or sides). Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to get a 720x480 video to fit a box that is designed for HD the best practice would be to crop some of it off so that it fits as 720x404 since: 16/9 = 1.78 (1.7777777777778) 720/405 = 1.78 405x1.78 = 720.9 The same would stand for 640x480 (old TV quality) video that would need to be 640x360 correct? I'm asking because I'm not sure about all this and whether this is the proper way to fix these letter-boxing/display problems.

    Read the article

  • Best and Proper Permissions Settings for Directory

    - by Dr. DOT
    I am interested in knowing the proper, yet security-conscious settings for a directory. Here's my scenario: I have a username for FTP access to my server called "user". For the purpose of the scenario, PHP runs as "nobody" on my server. I have a directory off the document root called "sample". The "sample" directory is chmod'd at 0755 (drwxr-xr-x) "Sample" is owned by "user" and the group is set to "user" The above is all very straight forward and standard. So I want to have a script be able to create (mkdir) and delete (rmdir) directories under "sample". Yet, I don't want to obviously overly expose my server by opening up the permissions (I could easily chmod sample to 0777 and make it world write-able). What is the best combination of permissions, owner settings and/or group settings to allow my script to create and delete directories under "sample" while retaining the ability for "user" to continue to FTP into the directory? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Proper line-ending for an open-source PHP project

    - by Mahdi
    What is the proper line-ending preferences for an open-source web project? Obviously it includes source code of PHP, HTML, CSS and Javascript. The source code is managing via Github now, and there are Windows (8 & 7), Linux (Ubuntu) and OSX developers inside the team, which means all the major operating systems. P.S. We are using "Windows" CRLF line-ending, plus "UTF-8 without BOM" right now, without facing any problem, however I think it might be better to use "*nix/OSX" LF style. I heard some stories about the problems that caused by the additional "CR" on Linux or OS X.

    Read the article

  • Is there a proper way to clear logs?

    - by John H.
    I was wondering if there was a proper way to clear logs in general? I'm new to Ubuntu and I'm trying to set up Postfix. The log in question is /var/log/mail.log. I was wondering if there was a correct way to clear it, rather than me going in it and deleting all the lines and saving it. I find that sometimes errors don't get written to it immediately after I clear the log and save it. Side note: I'm having trouble setting up Postfix and am trying to make it easier for me to read the logs hoping it can help me out, instead of having to scroll all the way down.

    Read the article

  • pathinfo vs fnmatch

    - by zaf
    There was a small debate regarding the speed of fnmatch over pathinfo here : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2692536/how-to-check-if-file-is-php I wasn't totally convinced so decided to benchmark the two functions. Using dynamic and static paths showed that pathinfo was faster. Is my benchmarking logic and conclusion valid? I include a sample of the results which are in seconds for 100,000 iterations on my machine : dynamic path pathinfo 3.79311800003 fnmatch 5.10071492195 x1.34 static path pathinfo 1.03921294212 fnmatch 2.37709188461 x2.29 Code: <pre> <?php $iterations=100000; // Benchmark with dynamic file path print("dynamic path\n"); $i=$iterations; $t1=microtime(true); while($i-->0){ $f='/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'.php'; if(pathinfo($f,PATHINFO_EXTENSION)=='php') $d=uniqid(); } $t2=microtime(true) - $t1; print("pathinfo $t2\n"); $i=$iterations; $t1=microtime(true); while($i-->0){ $f='/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'.php'; if(fnmatch('*.php',$f)) $d=uniqid(); } $t3 = microtime(true) - $t1; print("fnmatch $t3\n"); print('x'.round($t3/$t2,2)."\n\n"); // Benchmark with static file path print("static path\n"); $f='/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'/'.uniqid().'.php'; $i=$iterations; $t1=microtime(true); while($i-->0) if(pathinfo($f,PATHINFO_EXTENSION)=='php') $d=uniqid(); $t2=microtime(true) - $t1; print("pathinfo $t2\n"); $i=$iterations; $t1=microtime(true); while($i-->0) if(fnmatch('*.php',$f)) $d=uniqid(); $t3=microtime(true) - $t1; print("fnmatch $t3\n"); print('x'.round($t3/$t2,2)."\n\n"); ?> </pre>

    Read the article

  • Proper 16:9 video size for non-HD 4:3 video (for youtube/vimeo)

    - by Xeoncross
    Since High Definition video came out on all the online sites it has changed the default aspect ratio of the player from 4:3 to 16:9. This means that for people posting SD video you have to resize some of your videos to get them to fit right. For example, NTSC DVD quality (aka 480i/p) is 720x480 pixels (width x height). However, low-end High Definition (720i/p) is 1280x720. Resolution Chart Anyway, now that the video players are built for HD you will find that uploading standard quality videos will result in videos that are "letter boxed" which means they have extra black bars on the top and bottom (or sides). Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to get a 720x480 video to fit a box that is designed for HD the best practice would be to crop some of it off so that it fits as 720x404 since: 16/9 = 1.78 (1.7777777777778) 720/405 = 1.78 405x1.78 = 720.9 The same would stand for 640x480 (old TV quality) video that would need to be 640x360 correct? I'm asking because I'm not sure about all this and whether this is the proper way to fix these letter-boxing/display problems.

    Read the article

  • su not giving proper message for restricted LDAP groups

    - by user1743881
    I have configured PAM authentication on Linux box to restrict particular group only to login. I have enabled pam and ldap through authconfig and modified access.conf like below, [root@test root]# tail -1 /etc/security/access.conf - : ALL EXCEPT root test-auth : ALL Also modified sudoers file, to get su for this group <code> [root@test ~]# tail -1 /etc/sudoers %test-auth ALL=/bin/su</code> Now, only this ldap group members can login to system. However when from any of this authorized user, I tried for su, it asks for password and then though I enter correct password it gives message like Incorrect password and login failed. /var/log/secure shows that user is not having permission to get the access, but then it should print message like Access denied.The way it prints for console login. My functionality is working but its no giving proper messages. Could anyone please help on this. My /etc/pam.d/su file, [root@test root]# cat /etc/pam.d/su #%PAM-1.0 auth sufficient pam_rootok.so # Uncomment the following line to implicitly trust users in the "wheel" group. #auth sufficient pam_wheel.so trust use_uid # Uncomment the following line to require a user to be in the "wheel" group. #auth required pam_wheel.so use_uid auth include system-auth account sufficient pam_succeed_if.so uid = 0 use_uid quiet account include system-auth password include system-auth session include system-auth session optional pam_xauth.so

    Read the article

  • Why is an inverse loop faster than a normal loop (test included)

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have been running some small tests in PHP on loops. I do not know if my method is good. I have found that a inverse loop is faster than a normal loop. I have also found that a while-loop is faster than a for-loop. Setup <?php $counter = 10000000; $w=0;$x=0;$y=0;$z=0; $wstart=0;$xstart=0;$ystart=0;$zstart=0; $wend=0;$xend=0;$yend=0;$zend=0; $wstart = microtime(true); for($w=0; $w<$counter; $w++){ echo ''; } $wend = microtime(true); echo "normal for: " . ($wend - $wstart) . "<br />"; $xstart = microtime(true); for($x=$counter; $x>0; $x--){ echo ''; } $xend = microtime(true); echo "inverse for: " . ($xend - $xstart) . "<br />"; echo "<hr> normal - inverse: " . (($wend - $wstart) - ($xend - $xstart)) . "<hr>"; $ystart = microtime(true); $y=0; while($y<$counter){ echo ''; $y++; } $yend = microtime(true); echo "normal while: " . ($yend - $ystart) . "<br />"; $zstart = microtime(true); $z=$counter; while($z>0){ echo ''; $z--; } $zend = microtime(true); echo "inverse while: " . ($zend - $zstart) . "<br />"; echo "<hr> normal - inverse: " . (($yend - $ystart) - ($zend - $zstart)) . "<hr>"; echo "<hr> inverse for - inverse while: " . (($xend - $xstart) - ($zend - $zstart)) . "<hr>"; ?> Average Results The difference in for-loop normal for: 1.0908501148224 inverse for: 1.0212800502777 normal - inverse: 0.069570064544678 The difference in while-loop normal while: 1.0395669937134 inverse while: 0.99321985244751 normal - inverse: 0.046347141265869 The difference in for-loop and while-loop inverse for - inverse while: 0.0280601978302 Questions My question is can someone explain these differences in results? And is my method of benchmarking been correct?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >