Search Results

Search found 13403 results on 537 pages for 'epm performance tuning'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 76/537 | < Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >

  • Java 1.4 Class performance on 1.5 JVM

    - by user222164
    Switching from JVM 1.4 to 1.5 has performance benefits as per release notes. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/features.html#performance We have Java 1.4 compiled classes which are run on 1.5 JVM, will these classes suffer in performance because they were compiled using 1.4 ?

    Read the article

  • Linq-to-SQL and Performance.

    - by jalpesh
    HI, I am developing asp.net mvc site with linq-to-sql we are having 1000 cocurrent users and we are having performance problems. I have found that stackovewflow is also build on linq-to-sql? So can anybody know how they improved performance. Without line performance was good each page are loaded in 3 seconds but after migrating to linq as per our client requirement page comes in 8 to 10 seconds which is not acceptable performance. Our HTML is very clear but we are having very complex database operations. Any tip or code will be best answer. Thanks in advance,

    Read the article

  • Netbook performance - 1.33 GHz vs 1.6/1.66 GHz Atom

    - by Imran
    All new 11" netbooks seem to carry 1.33 GHz Atom Z520 CPU instead of 1.6/1.66 GHz Atom N270/N280. The screen resolution of 11" netbooks make them very appealing, but I'm a bit concerned about their performance as they carry a slower CPU than the 1.6GHz Atom, which isn't a great performer in the first place. Is there any significant difference in performance between 1.33 GHz and 1.6/1.66 GHz Atom processors in day to day usage? Are any of those fast enough to decode 720p x264 video? (When paired with typical Intel GMA platform and software decoder like ffdshow/CoreAVC of course, not with Nvidia Ion platform)

    Read the article

  • Best use of a RAM disk?

    - by JamesHannah
    Just wondering, have you ever made anything useful with a RAM disk in production? I wonder if the performance benefit they afford possibly outweighs their temporary nature in a specific circumstance. I've only ever used one once, and it wasn't for performance. It was when I needed some writable disk space on a server showing hard drive errors – it gave just enough space for me to install the 3ware RAID utility to identify the dodgy disk. How have you used a RAM disk in production?

    Read the article

  • MD3200 - 3 to 4x less throughput than MD1220. Am I missing something here?

    - by Igor Polishchuk
    I have two R710 servers with similar configuration. One in my office has MD1220 attached. Another one in the datacenter of my hosting services vendor has MD3200. I'm getting significantly worse throughput from MD3200 at my vendors setup. I'm mostly interested in sequential writes, and I'm getting these results in bonnie++ and dd tests: Seq. writes on MD1220 in my office: 1.1 GB/s - bonnie++, 1.3GB/s - dd Seq. writes on MD3200 at my vendor's: 240MB/s - bonnie++, 310MB/s - dd Unfortunately, I could not test the exactly the same configurations, but the two I have should be comparable. If anything, my good performing environment is cheaper than the bad performing. I expect at least similar throughput from these two setups. My vendor cannot really help me. Hopefully, somebody more familiar with the DAS performance can look at it and tell if I'm missing something here and my expectations are too high. To summarize, the question here is it reasonable to expect about 100MB/s of sequential write throughput per each couple of drives in RAID10 on MD3200? Is there any trick to enable such performance in MD3200 with dual controller as opposed to simple MD1220 with a single H800 adapter? More details about the configurations: A good one in my office: Dell R710 2CPU X5650 @ 2.67GHz 12 cores 96GB DDR3, OS: RHEL 5.5, kernel 2.6.18-194.26.1.el5 x86_64 20x300GB 2.5" SAS 10K in a single RAID10 1MB chunk size on MD1220 + Dell H800 I/O controller with 1GB cache in the host Not so good one at my vendor's: Dell R710 2CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz 8 cores 144GB DDR3, OS: RHEL 5.5, kernel 2.6.18-194.11.4.el5 x86_64 20x146GB 2.5" SAS 15K in a single RAID10 512KB chunk size, Dell MD3200, 2 I/O controllers in array with 1GB cache each Additional information. I've also ran the same tests on the same vendor's host, but the storage was: two raids of 14x146GB 15K RPM drives RAID 10, striped together on the OS level on MD3000+MD1000. The performance was about 25% worse than on MD3200 despite having more drives. When I ran similar tests on the internal storage of my vendor's host (2x146GB 15K RPM drives RAID1, Perc 6i) I've got about 128MB/s seq. writes. Just two internal drives gave me about a half of 20 drives' throughput on MD3200. The random I/O performance of the MD3200 setup is ok, it gives me at least 1300 IOPS. I'm mostly have problems with sequentioal I/O throughput. Thank you for looking into it. Regards Igor

    Read the article

  • Mysql performance problem & Failed DIMM

    - by murdoch
    Hi I have a dedicated mysql database server which has been having some performance problems recently, under normal load the server will be running fine, then suddenly out of the blue the performance will fall off a cliff. The server isn't using the swap file and there is 12GB of RAM in the server, more than enough for its needs. After contacting my hosting comapnies support they have discovered that there is a failed 2GB DIMM in the server and have scheduled to replace it tomorow morning. My question is could a failed DIMM result in the performance problems I am seeing or is this just coincidence? My worry is that they will replace the ram tomorrow but the problems will persist and I will still be lost of explanations so I am just trying to think ahead. The reason I ask is that there is plenty of RAM in the server, more than required and simply missing 2GB should be a problem, so if this failed DIMM is causing these performance problems then the OS must be trying to access the failed DIMM and slowing down as a result. Does that sound like a credible explanation? This is what DELLs omreport program says about the RAM, notice one dimm is "Critical" Memory Information Health : Critical Memory Operating Mode Fail Over State : Inactive Memory Operating Mode Configuration : Optimizer Attributes of Memory Array(s) Attributes : Location Memory Array 1 : System Board or Motherboard Attributes : Use Memory Array 1 : System Memory Attributes : Installed Capacity Memory Array 1 : 12288 MB Attributes : Maximum Capacity Memory Array 1 : 196608 MB Attributes : Slots Available Memory Array 1 : 18 Attributes : Slots Used Memory Array 1 : 6 Attributes : ECC Type Memory Array 1 : Multibit ECC Total of Memory Array(s) Attributes : Total Installed Capacity Value : 12288 MB Attributes : Total Installed Capacity Available to the OS Value : 12004 MB Attributes : Total Maximum Capacity Value : 196608 MB Details of Memory Array 1 Index : 0 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_A1 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 1 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_A2 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 2 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_A3 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 3 Status : Critical Connector Name : DIMM_B1 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 4 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_B2 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB Index : 5 Status : Ok Connector Name : DIMM_B3 Type : DDR3-Registered Size : 2048 MB the command free -m shows this, the server seems to be using more than 10GB of ram which would suggest it is trying to use the DIMM total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 12004 10766 1238 0 384 4809 -/+ buffers/cache: 5572 6432 Swap: 2047 0 2047 iostat output while problem is occuring avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 52.82 0.00 11.01 0.00 0.00 36.17 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 47.00 0.00 576.00 0 576 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 1.00 0.00 32.00 0 32 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 46.00 0.00 544.00 0 544 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 53.12 0.00 7.81 0.00 0.00 39.06 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 49.00 0.00 592.00 0 592 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 49.00 0.00 592.00 0 592 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 56.09 0.00 7.43 0.37 0.00 36.10 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 232.00 0.00 64520.00 0 64520 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 159.00 0.00 63728.00 0 63728 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 73.00 0.00 792.00 0 792 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 52.18 0.00 9.24 0.06 0.00 38.51 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 49.00 0.00 600.00 0 600 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 49.00 0.00 600.00 0 600 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.82 0.00 8.64 0.00 0.00 36.55 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 100.00 0.00 2168.00 0 2168 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 100.00 0.00 2168.00 0 2168 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.78 0.00 6.75 0.00 0.00 38.48 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 84.00 0.00 896.00 0 896 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 84.00 0.00 896.00 0 896 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.34 0.00 7.31 0.00 0.00 38.35 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 81.00 0.00 840.00 0 840 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 81.00 0.00 840.00 0 840 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 55.18 0.00 5.81 0.44 0.00 38.58 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 317.00 0.00 105632.00 0 105632 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 224.00 0.00 104672.00 0 104672 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 93.00 0.00 960.00 0 960 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 55.38 0.00 7.63 0.00 0.00 36.98 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 74.00 0.00 800.00 0 800 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 74.00 0.00 800.00 0 800 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 56.43 0.00 7.80 0.00 0.00 35.77 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 72.00 0.00 784.00 0 784 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 72.00 0.00 784.00 0 784 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 54.87 0.00 6.49 0.00 0.00 38.64 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 80.20 0.00 855.45 0 864 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 80.20 0.00 855.45 0 864 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 57.22 0.00 5.69 0.00 0.00 37.09 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 33.00 0.00 432.00 0 432 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 33.00 0.00 432.00 0 432 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 56.03 0.00 7.93 0.00 0.00 36.04 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 41.00 0.00 560.00 0 560 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 2.00 0.00 88.00 0 88 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 39.00 0.00 472.00 0 472 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 55.78 0.00 5.13 0.00 0.00 39.09 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 29.00 0.00 392.00 0 392 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 29.00 0.00 392.00 0 392 avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 53.68 0.00 8.30 0.06 0.00 37.95 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 78.00 0.00 4280.00 0 4280 sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 sda5 78.00 0.00 4280.00 0 4280

    Read the article

  • Quantifying the effects of partition mis-alignment

    - by Matt
    I'm experiencing some significant performance issues on an NFS server. I've been reading up a bit on partition alignment, and I think I have my partitions mis-aligned. I can't find anything that tells me how to actually quantify the effects of mis-aligned partitions. Some of the general information I found suggests the performance penalty can be quite high (upwards of 60%) and others say it's negligible. What I want to do is determine if partition alignment is a factor in this server's performance problems or not; and if so, to what degree? So I'll put my info out here, and hopefully the community can confirm if my partitions are indeed mis-aligned, and if so, help me put a number to what the performance cost is. Server is a Dell R510 with dual E5620 CPUs and 8 GB RAM. There are eight 15k 2.5” 600 GB drives (Seagate ST3600057SS) configured in hardware RAID-6 with a single hot spare. RAID controller is a Dell PERC H700 w/512MB cache (Linux sees this as a LSI MegaSAS 9260). OS is CentOS 5.6, home directory partition is ext3, with options “rw,data=journal,usrquota”. I have the HW RAID configured to present two virtual disks to the OS: /dev/sda for the OS (boot, root and swap partitions), and /dev/sdb for a big NFS share: [root@lnxutil1 ~]# parted -s /dev/sda unit s print Model: DELL PERC H700 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 134217599s Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 63s 465884s 465822s primary ext2 boot 2 465885s 134207009s 133741125s primary lvm [root@lnxutil1 ~]# parted -s /dev/sdb unit s print Model: DELL PERC H700 (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 5720768639s Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 34s 5720768606s 5720768573s lvm Edit 1 Using the cfq IO scheduler (default for CentOS 5.6): # cat /sys/block/sd{a,b}/queue/scheduler noop anticipatory deadline [cfq] noop anticipatory deadline [cfq] Chunk size is the same as strip size, right? If so, then 64kB: # /opt/MegaCli -LDInfo -Lall -aALL -NoLog Adapter #0 Number of Virtual Disks: 2 Virtual Disk: 0 (target id: 0) Name:os RAID Level: Primary-6, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-3 Size:65535MB State: Optimal Stripe Size: 64kB Number Of Drives:7 Span Depth:1 Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Current Cache Policy: WriteThrough, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Access Policy: Read/Write Disk Cache Policy: Disk's Default Number of Spans: 1 Span: 0 - Number of PDs: 7 ... physical disk info removed for brevity ... Virtual Disk: 1 (target id: 1) Name:share RAID Level: Primary-6, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-3 Size:2793344MB State: Optimal Stripe Size: 64kB Number Of Drives:7 Span Depth:1 Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Current Cache Policy: WriteThrough, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Access Policy: Read/Write Disk Cache Policy: Disk's Default Number of Spans: 1 Span: 0 - Number of PDs: 7 If it's not obvious, virtual disk 0 corresponds to /dev/sda, for the OS; virtual disk 1 is /dev/sdb (the exported home directory tree).

    Read the article

  • How to test TempDB performance?

    - by Matt Penner
    I'm getting some conflicting advice on how to best configure our SQL storage with our current SAN. I would like to do some of my own performance testing with a few different configurations. I looked at using SQLIOSim but it doesn't seem to simulate TempDB. Can anyone recommend a way to test data, log and TempDB performance? What about using a SQL profiler trace file from our production system? How would I use This to run against my test server? Thanks, Matt

    Read the article

  • 4096 and 8192 block size read slower than write? by using lsi 9361-8i RAID10

    - by Min Hong Tan
    is it possible that 1024 and 2048 block size read speed is faster than 4096 and 8192 block? I'm using lsi 9361-8i with RAID 10 , with 8 x Kingston E50 250G. result: 1024 = Write: 2,251 MB/s Read: 2,625 MB/s 2048 = Write: 2,141 MB/s Read: 3,672 MB/s 4096 = Write: 2,147 MB/s Read: 231 MB/s 8192 = Write: 2,147 MB/s Read: 442 MB/s is there any possible? and below is the reading when i simply want to test out the RAID 10 function and disaster test by taking out one of the 250G harddisk. the result is different like below: Result: 1024 = Write: 825 MB/s Read: 1,139 MB/s 2048 = Write: 797 MB/s Read: 1,312 MB/s 4096 = Write: 911 MB/s Read: 1,342 MB/s 8192 = Write: 786 MB/s Read: 1,204 MB/s and the result for 4096 and 8192block are different? can any one explain to me is it normal? or I need to do some tuning/configuration? will it affect my host linux performance?

    Read the article

  • What are the performance differences between PCI-Express x16 and x4

    - by Cestarian
    I have two PCI-Express 2.0 x16 slots on my motherboard, but one of them is actually just x4. For passing through my graphics card to a virtual machine I need to use both slots simultaneously and unfortunately, the easiest way for me to achieve that is putting the stronger card in the x4 slot (secondary slot; I need the stronger card to be in the secondary slot, not the primary). As such I am wondering what sort of noticable performance differences I can expect from using the x4 slot with a strong card as opposed to having it in the true x16 slot. Does it limit the performance so much that the strong card in the x4 slot will actually perform worse than the significantly weaker card in the x16 slot? (For spec comparison I am using a GTX-670 in the x4 slot and GTX-550-Ti in the x16 slot) What implications does this have?

    Read the article

  • Using SSD as disk cache

    - by casualcoder
    Is there software for Linux to use an SSD as disk cache? I believe that Sun does something like this with ZFS, though not sure. A quick search provides nothing suitable. The goal would be to put frequently requested files on the SSD on-the-fly. Since the SSD has more capacity than RAM for less money and better performance than hard disk, this should provide an efficient performance boost.

    Read the article

  • Zero-channel RAID for High Performance MySQL Server (IBM ServeRAID 8k) : Any Experience/Recommendati

    - by prs563
    We are getting this IBM rack mount server and it has this IBM ServeRAID8k storage controller with Zero-Channel RAID and 256MB battery backed cache. It can support RAID 10 which we need for our high performance MySQL server which will have 4 x 15000K RPM 300GB SAS HDD. This is mission-critical and we want as much bandwidth and performance. Is this a good card or should we replace with another IBM RAID card? IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS Controller option provides 256 MB of battery backed 533 MHz DDR2 standard power memory in a fixed mounting arrangement. The device attaches directly to IBM planar which can provide full RAID capability. Manufacturer IBM Manufacturer Part # 25R8064 Cost Central Item # 10025907 Product Description IBM ServeRAID 8k SAS - Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - RAID 0, 1, 5, 6, 10, 1E Device Type Storage controller (zero-channel RAID) - plug-in module Buffer Size 256 MB Supported Devices Disk array (RAID) Max Storage Devices Qty 8 RAID Level RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 6, RAID 10, RAID 1E Manufacturer Warranty 1 year warranty

    Read the article

  • optimizing file share performance on Win2k8?

    - by Kirk Marple
    We have a case where we're accessing a RAID array (drive E:) on a Windows Server 2008 SP2 x86 box. (Recently installed, nothing other than SQL Server 2005 on the server.) In one scenario, when directly accessing it (E:\folder\file.xxx) we get 45MBps throughput to a video file. If we access the same file on the same array, but through UNC path (\server\folder\file.xxx) we get about 23MBps throughput with the exact same test. Obviously the second test is going through more layers of the stack, but that's a major performance hit. What tuning should we be looking at for making the UNC path be closer in performance to the direct access case? Thanks, Kirk (corrected: it is CIFS not SMB, but generalized title to 'file share'.) (additional info: this happens during the read from a single file, not an issue across multiple connections. the file is on the local machine, but exposed via file share. so client and file server are both same Windows 2008 server.)

    Read the article

  • Defragment / Performance Monitor without Task Scheduler

    - by mjaggard
    My organisation has a policy of disabling Task Scheduler on all servers and workstations (don't ask, I tried once to wrestle the pig). I need to collect performance stats using Data Collector Sets in Windows 7 or Windows 2008 but the Performance Monitor interface requires Task Scheduler to be running. Is this possible because I'm not trying to schedule anything (except the collection of WMI information every 15 seconds but I doubt it hands that task off to the task scheduler)? Is there any way to trick it into thinking Task Scheduler is running? If not, is there any way to temporarily override the group policy to allow Task Scheduler to run? I've found that most group policy can be overridden in this way by an Administrator by editing the registry. On exactly the same vein, I want to defragment a hard disk on one of my workstations, but I can't get it to start because of the dependancy on Task Scheduler - is it possible to overcome this?

    Read the article

  • Any reason not to disable the Windows pagefile given enough physical RAM?

    - by Evgeny
    The question of disabling the Windows pagefile has already been discussed quite a bit, for example here and here and here. People continue to upvote answers that say "you should not disable your pagefile even if you have plenty of RAM", but I have yet to see any concrete, verifiable reasons being given for this advice. As far as I can see, if you never need to read from the pagefile (because you have enough RAM) then performance could only be worse with it enabled due to Windows pre-emptively writing to it. At best, performance would be the same. I can't see how it could possibly be improved by writing data you never need to read. So my question is: Assuming that I have enough physical RAM for everything I do, is there any reason I should not disable the pagefile? Let's say the version of Windows is Windows XP x64 SP2 or Windows Server 2003 x64 SP2 (same thing). If it's different for Windows Server 2008 x64 I'd be interested to hear an answer for that as well. I'm looking for specific, objective reasons from good sources, not just opinions. Something like "here are the benchmarks done with and without a pagefile and the results were better with a pagefile, even with enough RAM" or "according to this MS KB article problem X occurs if you disable the pagefile". So far the only reasons I've seen mentioned are: Even if you think you have enough RAM you might run out. OK, but for the purposes of this question, let's just take it as a given that I have enough. Maybe I only ever read my email and I have 16GB RAM. Or 128GB. Or 1TB. Or whatever - but it's enough for 100% of what I do, 100% of the time. Another way to think of it is: if I have x MB physical RAM and y MB pagefile and I never run out of RAM in that configuration, would I not be better off, performance-wise, with x+y MB physical RAM and no pagefile? Windows is "used to" having a paging file and it might not function as reliably (from Understanding the Impact of RAM on Overall System Performance That's rather vague and I find it hard to believe, given that MS has provided the option to disable the pagefile. Windows knows what it's doing better than you. No - it doesn't know that I won't run more programs or load more data, but I do.

    Read the article

  • Peforming an Audit for SQL Server 2008

    - by Nai
    Hi all, Do you guys have any good step by step type links for performing an SQL Server 2008 Performance Audit? I know Brad McGehee has written extensively on this but for SQL Server 2005 over at http://www.sql-server-performance.com. But are any such articles for SQL Server 2008? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can ASP.NET's "Request Wait Time" be 0 when "Requests Queued" is consistently in the hundreds?

    - by ondrej
    I'm curious why Performance Monitor claims I always have a few hundred ASP.NET 3.5 requests "queued". The "Requests Queued" "ASP.NET v2.0.50727" performance counter is hovering in the few-hundred range despite the fact "Request Wait Time" is consistently 0. If each and every request never waits even a fraction of a millisecond, how could it be in the queue? The "ASP.NET Apps v2.0.50727" counters for "Requests In Application Queue" and "Request Wait Time" are always 0.

    Read the article

  • increase performance of virtual machines on the 27" imac

    - by evan
    I'm using a 27" iMac (i7, 8GB RAM) at work and normally run two or three virtual machines at the same time, which hurts the performance of each virtual machine. I've learned on these forums the best way to increase virtual machine performance (aside from RAM) is to have them running on a separate hard drive from the one the OS is on. Of course with the iMac you can only have one hard drive and not even an SAS or solid state drive (well you could probably take it apart and put one in yourself but I wouldn't be permitted to do that). That being said, do you think it would help to run one or more virtual machines from a firewire external drive (or a usb 2.0)? Thanks for your input!

    Read the article

  • MD3200i Slow Performance and Queue Depth

    - by Caleb_S
    Read performance on our SAN is slow under certain workloads. When we compare this to some local storage, we find the local storage performing 2x as fast. The SAN performs well with a high Queue Depth, and poorly with a low queue depth. However, the local storage performs well with a low Queue Depth. I'd like to know the reason for this occurring and find out what the specific limiting factor is in this situation. MD3200i iSCSI SAN ($15,000) 6 x 600GB 15k SAS RAID5 6 x 2TB 7.2k NLS RAID5 XCOPY /j Benchmark: (Slow) 15k Array - 71MB/s (Queue Depth 1) 7.2k Array- 71MB/s (Queue Depth 1) Robycopy /MT:32 Benchmark: (Fast) 15k Array - 171MB/s (Queue Depth ~12) 7.2k Array- 128MB/s (Queue Depth ~12) , , Read Performance on a Local controller is fast under the workload the SAN is slow at. , HighPoint 2230 RAID Controller ($600) 4 x 1TB 7.2k SATA RAID5 XCOPY /j Benchmark: 7.2k Array - 145MB/s (Queue Depth 1) (appears to max out the SATA bus)

    Read the article

  • Tools to monitor guest OS performance in vSphere

    - by Quick Joe Smith
    I am looking for some tool or way to retrieve performance data from guest VMs running under vSphere 4.1. I am currently interested in the 4 basic metrics: CPU(%), Memory(%), Disk availability(%) & Network utilisation(Kb/s). The issue I have is that all of vSphere's performance data is from a ESXi host perspective (active, shared, consumed, overhead, swapped etc.) which is far removed from the data from the VM's own perspective. For instance, I have a Windows server VM idling, using around 410MB (~25% of its allocated 2GB) as reported by Task Manager, and this is the value I'm after. vSphere's metrics seem unable to arrive at this figure by any reliable and repeatable means. Is anyone aware of tools that can obtain this kind of data? The simpler, the better.

    Read the article

  • Cassandra on heterogeneous servers

    - by happy-coding
    I am currently running 4 cassandra nodes with the following hardware in a Apache Cassandra cluster: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 8G RAM 750G hard disk It shows not such a good writing performance and a really bad read performance with sometimes also timeouts. I was wondering if it makes sense to add 2 nodes with a different hardware (8 CPUs and more RAM) to improve this. Or does a cassandra cluster works best with the same hardware in every node? Thanks & best regards

    Read the article

  • a load balancing scenario using HAProxy and keepalived shows no performance advantage

    - by chakoshi
    Hi, I am trying to setup a load balanced web server scenario, using two HAproxy load balancers and two debian web servers following this guide http://www.howtoforge.com/setting-up-a-high-availability-load-balancer-with-haproxy-keepalived-on-debian-lenny. the setup is working but the results of simple performance benchmarking is not what I expected. I tried apache benchmark tool to send lots of requests to servers (one time directly testing one of the web servers and the other time testing through the load balancer) using the command "ab -n 1000000 -c 500 http://IP/index.html", but the test results shows better performance for the single server without load balancer. can any one tell me if I'm going wrong on some thing?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >