Search Results

Search found 2565 results on 103 pages for 'reduce'.

Page 72/103 | < Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >

• btrfs: can i create a btrfs file system with data as jbod and metadata mirrored

  - by Yogi

  I am trying to build a home server that will be my NAS/Media server as well a the XBMC front end. I am planning on using Ubuntu with btrfs for the NAS part of it. The current setup consists of 1TB hdd for the OS etc and two 2TB hdd's for data. I plan to have the 2TB hdd's used as JBOD btrfs system in which i can add hdd's as needed later, basically growing the filesystem online. They way I had setup the file system for testing was while installing the OS just have one of the HDD's connected and have btrfs on it mounted as /data. Later on add another hdd to this file system. When the second disk was added btrfs made as RAID 0, with metadata being RAID 1. However, this presents a problem: even if one of the disk fails I loose all my data (mostly media). Also most of the time the server will be running without doing any disk access, i.e. the HDD's can be spun down, when a access request comes in this with the current RAID 0 setup both disks will spin up. in case I manage a JBOD only the disk that has the file needs to be spun up. This should hopefully reduce the MTBF for each disk. So, is there a way in which I can have btrfs setup such that metadata is mirrored but data stays in a JBOD formation? Another question I have is this, I understand that a full drive failure in JBOD will lose data on the drive, but having metadeta mirrored across all drives, will this help the filesytem correct errors that migh creep in (ex bit rot?) and is btrfs capable of doing this.

  Read the article

• 24TB RAID 6 configuration

  - by Phil

  I am in charge of a new website in a niche industry that stores lots of data (10+ TB per client, growing to 2 or 3 clients soon). We are considering ordering about $5000 worth of 3TB drives (10 in a RAID 6 configuration and 10 for backup), which will give us approximately 24 TB of production storage. The data will be written once and remain unmodified for the lifetime of the website, so we only need to do a backup one time. I understand basic RAID theory, however I am not experienced with it. My question is, does this sound like a good configuration? What potential problems could this setup cause? Also, what is the best way to do a one-time backup? Have two RAID 6 arrays, one for offsite backup and one for production? Or should I backup the RAID 6 production array to a JBOD? EDIT: The data server is running Windows 2008 Server x64. EDIT 2: To reduce rebuild time, what would you think about using two RAID 5's instead of one RAID 6?

  Read the article

• Computer turns off unexpectedly

  - by Shahar

  My computer turns itself off unexpectedly after some time of use. It appears that this might be temperature related, but not for sure. I installed 2 tools that monitor temperature: SpeedFan and CPU Thermometer. The only definite finding is that there is a sensor (labelled temp1 in SpeedFan and CPU in CPU thermometer), which shows a temperature of 108C a second before the computer powers down. Until that moment, this sensor shows a constant temperature of 40C. I can usually reproduce the shutdown by viewing a few movies together, which cause another sensor (labelled CPU in SpeedFan) to go up to 60sC, but I do experience the problem even at times when this sensor remains low and cool. It does seem that the problem is more frequent if the computer is turned back on immediately after shutdown, but not always. I have had other hardware problems recently, which might be related: My hard disk heated up. I installed a fan on it, which worked to reduce the heat. The hard disk sensor shows around 40C. I had occasional blue screens and hard disk failures. Replacing the power supply seems to solve both these issues, but then this powerdown problem began appearing. I would appreciate any suggestions as to how to determine where the fault is, or what needs to be replaced.

  Read the article

• How to utilize Varnish for A/B Testing and Feature Rollout?

  - by Ken

  Hi all, wasn't really sure if this should go here on or stackoverlow - admins, please move if i'm mistaken (and sorry). Today we have our web layer exposed to the world. We would like to add Varnish in front of our web layer to accelerate the site and reduce calls to the backend. However, we have some concerns and i was wondering how most people approach them: A/B Testing - How do you test two "versions" of each page and compare? I mean, how does varnish know which page to serve up? If and how do you save seperate versions on each page? Feature rollout - how would you set up a simple feature rollout mechanism? Let's say i want to open a new feature/page to just 10% of the traffic.. and then later increase that to 20%? How do you handle code deployments? Do you purge your entire varnish cache every deployment? (We have deployments on a daily basis). Or do you just let it slowly expire (using TTL)? Any ideas and examples regarding these issues is greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. Ken.

  Read the article

• How to compress .pdfs in word 2007?

  - by chobo2

  Hi I am trying to send my cover letter and resume away but apparently it is too big to send through craigs list(my computer says the total size is 500kb) as it has a 600kb limit(so small should be at least a meg). Hi there. You recently tried to email Some job Email, an anonymous craigslist address. However, your message was too big to be sent through our system. Craigslist has a 600KB limit on the messages we'll send. Please reduce the size of your mail and try again. Thanks for using craigslist. So when I convert my word 2007(.docx) files to pdf they become huge. Like they got from 32kb to 320kb. So is there a way I can either get around craigslist limits or compress my pdfs a bit to make it happy. I don't want to send zips and stuff since the person who gets it might not even know what to do. I rather not send .docx since not sure if will have office 2007 or the compatibility view installed and I rather just send it as pdf(as some place require it anyways to be in pdfs). Thanks

  Read the article

• Nginx proxy with Redmine SVN authentication.

  - by Omegaice

  I am attempting to setup a system where I have an nginx server running as a reverse proxy for multiple websites that I want to run. To separate the websites I have created a Linux container which contains each site to allow me to reduce conflicts in database usage etc. I am currently trying to get my main site working and have nginx with passenger setup and connecting to redmine and I have an Apache install specifically setup for serving the SVN over HTTP and am attempting to use the redmine authentication with that. I have set everything up as described in the redmine howtos, but when I check a project out from the SVN it always works even if the project is private and whenever I try and commit to the repositories it fails saying "Could not open the requested SVN filesystem", the Apache error log related to that event is "(20014)Internal error: Can't open file '/srv/rcs/svn/error/format': No such file or directory". If I take out the redmine authentication I can checkout and check-in repositories fine but there is no authentication. Does anyone have any ideas? Edit I tried to solve this problem another way by attempting to have the authentication work by LDAP, I managed to get it so that my user could log into the redmine website but as soon as I tried to check anything out it said that access was forbidden to the repository.

  Read the article

• Reducing IO caused by nginx

  - by glumbo

  I have a lot of free RAM but my IO is always 100 %util or very close. What ways can I reduce IO by using more RAM? My iotop shows nginx worker processes with the highest io rate. This is a file server serving files ranging from 1mb to 2gb. Here is my nginx.conf #user nobody; worker_processes 32; worker_rlimit_nofile 10240; worker_rlimit_sigpending 32768; error_log logs/error.log crit; #pid logs/nginx.pid; events { worker_connections 51200; } http { include mime.types; default_type application/octet-stream; access_log off; limit_conn_log_level info; log_format xfs '$arg_id|$arg_usr|$remote_addr|$body_bytes_sent|$status'; sendfile off; tcp_nopush off; tcp_nodelay on; directio 4m; output_buffers 3 512k; reset_timedout_connection on; open_file_cache max=5000 inactive=20s; open_file_cache_valid 30s; open_file_cache_min_uses 2; open_file_cache_errors on; client_body_buffer_size 32k; server_tokens off; autoindex off; keepalive_timeout 0; #keepalive_timeout 65;

  Read the article

• Server Directory Not Accessible

  - by GusDeCooL

  I got strange things happen on live server, but normal in local server. My local server is using mac, and my live server is linux. Consider i try to access some files http://redddor.babonmultimedia.com/assets/images/map-1.jpg This work correctly. http://redddor.babonmultimedia.com/assets/modules/evogallery/check.php Return 404, I'm pretty sure my file is in there and there is no typo mistake. How come it give me 404? There is only one .htaccess on the root server and it's configuration is like this. # For full documentation and other suggested options, please see # http://svn.modxcms.com/docs/display/MODx096/Friendly+URL+Solutions # including for unexpected logouts in multi-server/cloud environments # and especially for the first three commented out rules #php_flag register_globals Off #AddDefaultCharset utf-8 #php_value date.timezone Europe/Moscow Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / <IfModule mod_security.c> SecFilterEngine Off </IfModule> # Fix Apache internal dummy connections from breaking [(site_url)] cache RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^.*internal\ dummy\ connection.*$ [NC] RewriteRule .* - [F,L] # Rewrite domain.com -> www.domain.com -- used with SEO Strict URLs plugin #RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} . #RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.example\.com [NC] #RewriteRule (.*) http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L] # Exclude /assets and /manager directories and images from rewrite rules RewriteRule ^(manager|assets)/*$ - [L] RewriteRule \.(jpg|jpeg|png|gif|ico)$ - [L] # For Friendly URLs RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule ^(.*)$ index.php?q=$1 [L,QSA] # Reduce server overhead by enabling output compression if supported. #php_flag zlib.output_compression On #php_value zlib.output_compression_level 5

  Read the article

• Software to clean up photos of whiteboards and documents?

  - by Norman Ramsey

  I take a lot of photos of whiteboards, blackboards, and so on for teaching purposes (examples online through May 2010). I'm interested in cleaning them up for archival purposes, preferably using Linux. Commercial products ClearBoard and PhotoNote are priced a little aggressively for my purposes, plus my students would like to have this capability too. Does anyone know of any good, open source software for Converting photographs to images with just a few colors? Eliminating perspective distortion? Removing unwanted junk from around the edges of an image? or anything like that? I'm imagining that I start out with a picture of my whiteboard using red and black markers, and I end up with a three-color image using just white, red, and black. Or I photograph a laser-printed document and end up with a clean black-and-white image. I have tried standard tools that reduce the number of colors in an image, and they do a terrible job—probably because they are trying to reproduce the uneven illumination of the original image. Command-line Linux tools would be ideal.

  Read the article

• Limiting bandwith on an Windows 7 machine

  - by Mihai Damian

  I need to limit the bandwidth on my Windows 7 x64 machine. In the past (on XP) I've been able to use NetLimiter for similar tasks. However for some reason I can't get it to work anymore. For lower limits the bandwidth tests are able to exceed the limit by 10-50%; higher limits seem to be ignored completely and the bandwidth tests report download speeds of over 10 times the speed I set. I'm using speedtest.net and some similar service from my ISP for these tests. Anyway, I don't necessarily need a program as complex as NetLimiter since I only need to throttle my machine's bandwidth, not a specific program's. In case you are wondering why in the world I'd want to cripple my Internet speed, there is a funny story behind this. Long story short, my modem gets random disconnects. Tech support comes in, says my Internet speed is abnormally high and I must be using some tools to somehow make it go faster than it's supposed to and this messes up my modem. I check the connection with another computer and it seems that my PC is the only one in my network that gets abnormal speeds. I reinstall my OS, speed looks normal at first, after I install the batch of 50 or so updates, it goes back to abnormally high speeds and the disconnect problems are not solved. Now I don't have a clue if the explanation the tech team gave me was just a strategy to lay the blame on someone else, but I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens if I really reduce my speed to their specification. Any help appreciated.

  Read the article

• MySQL-Cluster or Multi-Master for production? Performance issues?

  - by Phillip Oldham

  We are expanding our network of webservers on EC2 to a number of different regions and currently use master/slave replication. We've found that over the past couple of months our slave has stopped replicating a number of times which required us to clear the db and initialise the replication again. As we're now looking to have servers in 3 different regions we're a little concerned about these MySQL replication errors. We believe they're due to auto_increment values, so we're considering a number of approaches to quell these errors and stabilise replication: Multi-Master replication; 3 masters (one in each region), with the relevant auto_increment offsets, regularly backing up to S3. Or, MySQL-Cluster; 3 nodes (one in each region) with a separate management node which will also aggregate logs and statistics. After investigating it seems they both have down-sides (replication errors for the former, performance issues for the latter). We believe the cluster approach would allow us to manage and add new nodes more easily than the Multi-Master route, and would reduce/eliminate the replication issues we're currently seeing. But performance is a priority. Are the performance issues of MySQL-Cluster as bad as people say?

  Read the article

• Is basing storage requirements based on IOPS sufficient?

  - by Boden

  The current system in question is running SBS 2003, and is going to be migrated on new hardware to SBS 2008. Currently I'm seeing on average 200-300 disk transfers per second total across all the arrays in the system. The array seeing the bulk of activity is a 6 disk 7200RPM RAID 6 and it struggles to keep up during high traffic times (idle time often only 10-20%; response times peaking 20-50+ ms). Based on some rough calculations this makes sense (avg ~245 IOPS on this array at 70/30 read to write ratio). I'm considering using a much simpler disk configuration using a single RAID 10 array of 10K disks. Using the same parameters for my calculations above, I'm getting 583 average random IOPS / sec. Granted SBS 2008 is not the same beast as 2003, but I'd like to make the assumption that it'll be similar in terms of disk performance, if not better (Exchange 2007 is easier on the disk and there's no ISA server). Am I correct in believing that the proposed system will be sufficient in terms of performance, or am I missing something? I've read so much about recommended disk configurations for various products like Exchange, and they often mention things like dedicating spindles to logs, etc. I understand the reasoning behind this, but if I've got more than enough random I/O overhead, does it really matter? I've always at the very least had separate spindles for the OS, but I could really reduce cost and complexity if I just had a single, good performing array. So as not to make you guys do my job for me, the generic version of this question is: if I have a projected IOPS figure for a new system, is it sufficient to use this value alone to spec the storage, ignoring "best practice" configurations? (given similar technology, not going from DAS to SAN or anything)

  Read the article

• What speed are Wi-Fi management and control frames sent at?

  - by Bryce Thomas

  There are a bunch of different 802.11 Wi-Fi standards, e.g. 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n etc. that all support different speeds. Wi-Fi frames are generally categorised as one of the following: Data frames - carry the actual application data Control frames - coordinate when its safe to send/reduce collisions Management frames - handle connection discovery/setup/tear down (e.g. AP discovery, association, disassociation) My question is about whether all these frames, and specifically management frames, are transmitted at the fastest supported speed available, or whether certain classes of frames are transmitted at some lowest common denominator speed. I have noticed that when I put an 802.11b/g only device into monitor mode and capture traffic over the air, I still see management frames (e.g. association/disassociation) being transmitted between my phone and AP which are both 802.11n, even though 802.11n has a higher transfer rate. So I am imagining one of two possibilities: My 802.11n phone/AP had to negotiate a slower speed for some reason and that's why I can see their frames on my 802.11b/g monitoring device. Management frames (and perhaps control frames also?) are sent at a lower speed, and it's only data frames that are transmitted faster with newer 802.11 standards. The reason I would like to know which one of these two possibilities (or perhaps a third possibility) is the case is that I want to capture management frames, and need to know whether using an 802.11b/g card is going to lead to me missing some frames sent at higher speeds than the monitoring card can observe. If management frames are indeed sent at a slower rate, then it's all good. If I just happen to be seeing the management frames because my phone/AP have negotiated a slower rate though, then I need to reconsider what card I use for packet capture.

  Read the article

• Lotus Domino - DAOS not reducing file size?

  - by SydxPages

  I have implemented DAOS on a Lotus Domino Server (8.5.3 FP2) as follows: Lotus Domino Server Document: Store file attachments in DAOS: Enabled Minimum size of object before Domino will store in DAOS: 64000 bytes DAOS base path: E:\DAOS Defer object deletion for: 30 days Transaction logging is running, and the specific test database has the following advanced properties set: Domino Attachment and Object Service (ticked) Use LZ1 compression for atachments Compress Database Design Compress Data I have restarted the server. When I run a compact -c, it compacts the database, but does not reduce the size. I have checked the DB in Windows Explorer (60Gb) and the size is the same pre and post. I have checked the directory (E:\DAOS) and it is 35Gb in size. When I run the command 'Tell DAOSMgr Status tmp\test.nsf', I get the following response. From looking up on the net, I believe ticket count = 0 means that the db is not really DAOS'ed? Admin Process: Searching Administration Requests database DAOSMGR: Status tmptest.nsf started DAOS database status: Database: E:\Lotus\Domino\Data\tmp\test.nsf Database state = Synchronized Last resynchronized: 03/09/2012 02:49:13 PM Ticket count: 0 DAOSMGR: Status tmp\test.nsf completed I have run fixup on the database. When I have tried to run the DAOS estimator it has always crashed. This was a problem with larger databases on earlier versions of domino, but not anymore. Can anyone tell me why the size has not reduced? Am I missing anything?

  Read the article

• Creating basic, redundant gigE or IB storage network for Xen?

  - by StaringSkyward

  With only a modest budget, I want to move my 4 xen servers over to network storage -either NFS or iSCSI which will be determined based on how well it performs when we test it (we need good throughput and it must continue to work through link and switch failure tests). We may add another couple of xen servers at some point when this is done. I don't know much about the design and operation of storage networks, so would really appreciate some hints from those with experience. The budget is around $3,800 excluding the storage appliance. I am currently thinking these are my options to remain on budget: 1) Go for used infiniband hardware and aim for 10gb performance. 2) Stick with gig ethernet and buy some new switches (cisco or procurve) to create a storage-only ethernet LAN. Upgrade to 10gigE later but try to use hardware capable of it where possible to reduce upgrade costs. I have seen used, warrantied infiniband switches at reasonable prices (presumably because big companies are converging on 10gbit ethernet?) and the promise of cheap 10gb is attractive. I know nothing about IB, so here come the questions: Can I buy 2 x switches and have multiple HBAs in my xen and storage nodes to get redundancy and increased performance without complexity or expensive management software costs? If so, can you point me to some examples? Do NFS and iSCSI work just the same regardless? Is IB a sensible choice or could/should I use ethernet or FC on the same budget - I'm keen not to get boxed into a corner for future upgrades, however. For the storage I am likely to build a storage server using nexentastor with the intention that I can later add more disks, SSDs and add another server to provide a failover option at the storage level. An HP LeftHand starter SAN is also under consideration, too. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Gmail.com detect mail as spam, but the server is not on any BlackList

  - by Tomer W

  I have an issue with Google. (GMail to be exact) About 1 month ago, we had a security breach, and mail was relayed through our servers. we got listed in almost ALL Black-Lists :( we fixed the problem, and requested removal from Black-lists, which was granted easily. currently (over 3 weeks), we are not sending any spam anymore. furthermore, we got clear from all the Black-lists (MxToolBox Black-List Search Result) But, GMail still refuse to get Anything from the server, stating '550 Spam'. Following, Telnet attempt to send to gmail: 220 mx.google.com ESMTP g47si45436208eep.123 helo megatec.co.il 250 mx.google.com at your service mail from: <[email protected]> 250 2.1.0 OK g47si45436208eep.123 rcpt to: <[email protected]> 250 2.1.5 OK g47si45436208eep.123 Data 354 Go ahead g47si45436208eep.123 Test123 . 550-5.7.1 [62.219.123.33 11] Our system has detected that this message is 550-5.7.1 likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam sent to Gmail, 550-5.7.1 this message has been blocked. Please visit 550-5.7.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188131 for 550 5.7.1 more information. g47si45436208eep.123 Connection to host lost. i tried filling the form @ Gmail - Report Delivery Problem i also tried reaching Google by phone, but the message was to go to the Link mentioned above. I Checked ReverseDNS and is ok... We dont have TLS, but that shouldn't be a problem, shouldn't it? Note: we are not a Bulk sender. Anyone has an idea? what can be blocking our IP? Anyone know whom can be contacted in order to resolve this BL listing?

  Read the article

• Surprising corruption and never-ending fsck after resizing a filesystem.

  - by Steve Kemp

  System in question has Debian Lenny installed, running a 2.65.27.38 kernel. System has 16Gb memory, and 8x1Tb drives running behind a 3Ware RAID card. The storage is managed via LVM. Short version: Running a KVM guest which had 1.7Tb storage allocated to it. The guest was reaching a full-disk. So we decided to resize the disk that it was running upon We're pretty familiar with LVM, and KVM, so we figured this would be a painless operation: Stop the KVM guest. Extend the size of the LVM partition: "lvextend -L+500Gb ..." Check the filesystem : "e2fsck -f /dev/mapper/..." Resize the filesystem: "resize2fs /dev/mapper/" Start the guest. The guest booted successfully, and running "df" showed the extra space, however a short time later the system decided to remount the filesystem read-only, without any explicit indication of error. Being paranoid we shut the guest down and ran the filesystem check again, given the new size of the filesystem we expected this to take a while, however it has now been running for 24 hours and there is no indication of how long it will take. Using strace I can see the fsck is "doing stuff", similarly running "vmstat 1" I can see that there are a lot of block input/output operations occurring. So now my question is threefold: Has anybody come across a similar situation? Generally we've done this kind of resize in the past with zero issues. What is the most likely cause? (3Ware card shows the RAID arrays of the backing stores as being A-OK, the host system hasn't rebooted and nothing in dmesg looks important/unusual) Ignoring brtfs + ext3 (not mature enough to trust) should we make our larger partitions in a different filesystem in the future to avoid either this corruption (whatever the cause) or reduce the fsck time? xfs seems like the obvious candidate?

  Read the article

• Using UDF on a USB flash drive

  - by CesarB

  After failing to copy a file bigger than 4G to my 8G USB flash drive, I formatted it as ext3. While this is working fine for me so far, it will cause problems if I want to use it to copy files to someone which does not use Linux. I am thinking of formatting it as UDF instead, which I hope would allow it to be read (and possibly even written) on the three most popular operating systems (Windows, MacOS, and Linux), without having to install any extra drivers. However, from what I found on the web already, there seem to be several small gotchas related to which parameters are used to create the filesystem, which can reduce the compability (but most of the pages I found are about optical media, not USB flash drives). I would like to know: Which utility should I use to create the filesystem? (So far I have found mkudffs and genisoimage, and mkudffs seems the best option.) Which parameters should I use with the chosen utility for maximum compability? How compatible with the most common versions of these three operating systems UDF actually is? Is using UDF actually the best idea? Is there another filesystem which would have better compatibility, with no problematic restrictions like the FAT32 4G file size limit, and without having to install special drivers in every single computer which touches it?

  Read the article

• Router recommendation to virtualize 800 IPs

  - by delerious010

  I've recently been looking at getting some new load balancers for our environment as we are expecting to double our client base in the next 12 months. Currently we have 400 public IPS serving 800 clusters ( 2 clusters / IP due to ports ) on Coyote Point Balancers, and distributing connections to 3 web servers serving about 6GBytes outgoing, 2Gbytes in per day. If we double, this would be about 800 IPs, possibly 1600 clusters, and about 6 servers per cluster ( for a total of 9600 so called "real servers" using Barracuda's lingo ). Due to the amount of clusters, most solutions I've looked at ( Coyote, Barracuda, Loadbalancer.org ) seem to be unsure whether they'll be able to handle our planned growth, mostly due to health checks performed on the servers ... which makes total sense when you think of it. So the fine folk at loadbalancer.org recommended that we may be better off offload the 400-800 public IPs, which we require for SSL eCommerce solutions, over to a forward facing router. From that point on, the router could do some mangling to route EXT_IP:443 to INT_IP:INT_PORT which would then allow us to reduce the Load Balancer configuration to 1 or 2 clusters, thus resolving the health check problem. Does this idea make sense to yall ? Or would you have other recommendations to make ? Secondly, what router would you recommend for such an undertaking ? I'd be looking at something that has some form of failover mechanism built in. On a totally unrelated note, I've got to admit that I'm extremely pleased with the responses I got from loadbalancer.org. Their responses to my inquiries were surprisingly helpful ( i.e. I didn't feel as if I was taking to a sales guy trying to push something ). ( No I don't work for them, and sadly nor are they sending me free gear ).

  Read the article

• Is there an IE8 setting or policy to make it work like IE7 with respect to persistent connections?

  - by Stephen Pace

  I am working with a commercial application running on XP using IIS 5.1. Periodically the application is returning an IIS error "There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time." This is caused by Microsoft artificially limiting the number of connections (10) under IIS 5.1 under Windows XP, but in this case, there is really only one user (albeit a few tabs open at a time). Microsoft suggests you can reduce the problem by turning off HTTP Keep-Alives for that particular web site: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/262635 If you use IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 Professional or IIS 5.1 on Microsoft Windows XP Professional, disable HTTP keep-alives in the properties of the Web site. When you do this, a limit of 10 concurrent connections still exists, but IIS does not maintain connections for inactive users. I may do that; however, I'm worried about performance degradation. However, I also notice that IE8 appears to handle this differently than IE7. By default, IE6 and IE7 use 2 persistent connections while IE8 uses 6. Perhaps in this case IE8 itself is generating multiple connections in an attempt to be faster, but those additional connections are overwhelming the artificially limited IIS 5.1 on XP? Assuming that is the case, is there an Internet Explorer option, registry setting, or policy I can set to force IE8 to behave like IE7 with respect to persistent connections? I would not set this for all users, but for the small number of users that used this application, it might solve their intermittent problem until the application can be rehosted on Windows Server 2008. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Recommendations for hosting large videos

  - by Clinton Blackmore

  I recently created and put a 45-minute, 300 MB video file on my website and told a mailing list about it. Checking my site stats, I see that I've used 20% of my "unlimited" bandwidth for the month. As I want to be able to have several videos like this, clearly, I need to consider other options. The appeal to hosting files as my own site (aside from the supposedly unlimited disk space and bandwidth), is to be able to have control over the format, resolution, and quality of the video(s), as well as to ensure that it is clear that I'm the copyright holder (although the videos will be under a creative commons license). I find that for the screencasts I'm making, having a high resolution (say 3/4 of 1024 * 768) really makes seeing what is going on on the screen easier. It is also always a plus to not have the experience marred by advertisements. One more wrench to throw in is that while the videos are non-commercial, they do promote a club, and it seems that that falls afoul of some terms of services (especially for free services; while free is very nice, I will certainly consider putting up some money.) What recommendations do you have for (fairly) long, high-resolution videos? Should I look in depth at sites like YouTube and Vimeo, should I be considering a filesharing site [I have no qualms with someone downloading the entire video first -- I wouldn't want to watch 45 minutes in my browser!], hosting files with Bittorent (ugh -- I think that'd reduce my audience), or should I be looking into other web hosts (and if so, who?)

  Read the article

• Managing multiple Apache proxies simultaneously (mod_proxy_balancer)

  - by Hank

  The frontend of my web application is formed by currently two Apache reverse proxies, using mod_proxy_balancer to distribute traffic over a number of backend application servers. Both frontend reverse proxies, running on separate hosts, are accessible from the internet. DNS round robin distributes traffic over both. In the future, the number of reverse proxies is likely to grow, since the webapplication is very bandwidth-heavy. My question is: how do I keep the state of both reverse balancers / proxies in sync? For example, for maintenance purposes, I might want to reduce the load on one of the backend appservers. Currently I can do that by accessing the Balancer-Manager web form on each proxy, and change the distribution rules. But I have to do that on each proxy manually and make sure I enter the same stuff. Is it possible to "link" multiple instances of mod_proxy_balancer? Or is there a tool out there that connects to a number of instances, and updates all with the same information? Update: The tool should retrieve the runtime status and make runtime changes, just like the existing Balancer-Manager, only for a number of proxies - not just for one. Modification of configuration files is not what I'm interested in (as there are plenty tools for that).

  Read the article

• Server nearly unusable when doing disk writes

  - by Wikser

  My question closely relates to my last question here on serverfault. I was copying about 5GB from a 10 year old desktop computer to the server. The copy was done in Windows Explorer. In this situation I would assume the server to be bored by the dataflow. But as usual with this server, it really slowed down. At least I could work with the remote session, even there was some serious latency. The copy took its time (20min?). In this time I went to a colleague and he tried to log in in the same server via remote desktop (for some other reason). It took about a minute to get to the login screen, a minute to open the control panel, a minute to open the performance monitor, ... Icons were loading maybe one per second. We saw the following (from memory): CPU: 2% Avg. Queue Length: 50 Pages/sec: 115 (?) There was no other considerable activity on the server. The server seldom serves some ASP.NET pages, which became also very slow in this time. The relevant configuration is as follows: Windows 2003 SEAGATE ST3500631NS (7200 rpm, 500 GB) LSI MegaRAID based RAID 5 4 disks, 1 hot spare Write Through No read-ahead Direct Cache Mode Harddisk-Cache-Mode: off Is this normal behaviour for such a configuration? What measurements could give further clues? Is it reasonable to reduce the priority of such copy I/O and favour other processes like the remote desktop? How would you do that? Many thanks!

  Read the article

• Using UDF on a USB flash drive

  - by CesarB

  After failing to copy a file bigger than 4G to my 8G USB flash drive, I formatted it as ext3. While this is working fine for me so far, it will cause problems if I want to use it to copy files to someone which does not use Linux. I am thinking of formatting it as UDF instead, which I hope would allow it to be read (and possibly even written) on the three most popular operating systems (Windows, MacOS, and Linux), without having to install any extra drivers. However, from what I found on the web already, there seem to be several small gotchas related to which parameters are used to create the filesystem, which can reduce the compability (but most of the pages I found are about optical media, not USB flash drives). I would like to know: Which utility should I use to create the filesystem? (So far I have found mkudffs and genisoimage, and mkudffs seems the best option.) Which parameters should I use with the chosen utility for maximum compability? How compatible with the most common versions of these three operating systems UDF actually is? Is using UDF actually the best idea? Is there another filesystem which would have better compatibility, with no problematic restrictions like the FAT32 4G file size limit, and without having to install special drivers in every single computer which touches it?

  Read the article

• Four disks - RAID 10 or two mirrored pairs?

  - by ewwhite

  I have this discussion with developers quite often. The context is an application running in Linux that has a medium amount of disk I/O. The servers are HP ProLiant DL3x0 G6 with four disks of equal size @ 15k rpm, backed with a P410 controller and 512MB of battery or flash-based cache. There are two schools of thought here, and I wanted some feedback... 1). I'm of the mind that it makes sense to create an array containing all four disks set up in a RAID 10 (1+0) and partition as necessary. This gives the greatest headroom for growth, has the benefit of leveraging the higher spindle count and better fault-tolerance without degradation. 2). The developers think that it's better to have multiple RAID 1 pairs. One for the OS and one for the application data, citing that the spindle separation would reduce resource contention. However, this limits throughput by halving the number of drives and in this case, the OS doesn't really do much other than regular system logging. Additionally, the fact that we have the battery RAID cache and substantial RAM seems to negate the impact of disk latency... What are your thoughts?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >