Search Results

Search found 7019 results on 281 pages for 'adaptive systems'.

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 8/281 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Strategy to use two different measurement systems in software

    - by Dennis
    I have an application that needs to accept and output values in both US Custom Units and Metric system. Right now the conversion and input and output is a mess. You can only enter in US system, but you can choose the output to be US or Metric, and the code to do the conversions is everywhere. So I want to organize this and put together some simple rules. So I came up with this: Rules user can enter values in either US or Metric, and User Interface will take care of marking this properly All units internally will be stored as US, since the majority of the system already has most of the data stored like that and depends on this. It shouldn't matter I suppose as long as you don't mix unit. All output will be in US or Metric, depending on user selection/choice/preference. In theory this sounds great and seems like a solution. However, one little problem I came across is this: There is some data stored in code or in the database that already returns data like this: 4 x 13/16" screws, which means "four times screws". I need the to be in either US or Metric. Where exactly do I put the conversion code for doing the conversion for this unit? The above already mixing presentation and data, but the data for the field I need to populate is that whole string. I can certainly split it up into the number 4, the 13/16", and the " x " and the " screws", but the question remains... where do I put the conversion code? Different Locations for Conversion Routines 1) Right now the string is in a class where it's produced. I can put conversion code right into that class and it may be a good solution. Except then, I want to be consistent so I will be putting conversion procedures everywhere in the code at-data-source, or right after reading it from the database. The problem though is I think that my code will have to deal with two systems, all throughout the codebase after this, should I do this. 2) According to the rules, my idea was to put it in the view script, aka last change to modify it before it is shown to the user. And it may be the right thing to do, but then it strikes me it may not always be the best solution. (First, it complicates the view script a tad, second, I need to do more work on the data side to split things up more, or do extra parsing, such as in my case above). 3) Another solution is to do this somewhere in the data prep step before the view, aka somewhere in the middle, before the view, but after the data-source. This strikes me as messy and that could be the reason why my codebase is in such a mess right now. It seems that there is no best solution. What do I do?

    Read the article

  • Runge-Kutta Method with adaptive step

    - by infoholic_anonymous
    I am implementing Runge-Kutta method with adaptive step in matlab. I get different results as compared to matlab's own ode45 and my own implementation of Runge-Kutta method with fixed step. What am I doing wrong in my code? Is it possible? function [ result ] = rk4_modh( f, int, init, h, h_min ) % % f - function handle % int - interval - pair (x_min, x_max) % init - initial conditions - pair (y1(0),y2(0)) % h_min - lower limit for h (step length) % h - initial step length % x - independent variable ( for example time ) % y - dependent variable - vertical vector - in our case ( y1, y2 ) function [ k1, k2, k3, k4, ka, y ] = iteration( f, h, x, y ) % core functionality performed within loop k1 = h * f(x,y); k2 = h * f(x+h/2, y+k1/2); k3 = h * f(x+h/2, y+k2/2); k4 = h * f(x+h, y+k3); ka = (k1 + 2*k2 + 2*k3 + k4)/6; y = y + ka; end % constants % relative error eW = 1e-10; % absolute error eB = 1e-10; s = 0.9; b = 5; % initialization i = 1; x = int(1); y = init; while true hy = y; hx = x; %algorithm [ k1, k2, k3, k4, ka, y ] = iteration( f, h, x, y ); % error estimation for j=1:2 [ hk1, hk2, hk3, hk4, hka, hy ] = iteration( f, h/2, hx, hy ); hx = hx + h/2; end err(:,i) = abs(hy - y); % step adjustment e = abs( hy ) * eW + eB; a = min( e ./ err(:,i) )^(0.2); mul = a * s; if mul >= 1 % step length admitted keepH(i) = h; k(:,:,i) = [ k1, k2, k3, k4, ka ]; previous(i,:) = [ x+h, y' ]; %' i = i + 1; if floor( x + h + eB ) == int(2) break; else h = min( [mul*h, b*h, int(2)-x] ); x = x + keepH(i-1); end else % step length requires further adjustments h = mul * h; if ( h < h_min ) error('Computation with given precision impossible'); end end end result = struct( 'val', previous, 'k', k, 'err', err, 'h', keepH ); end The function in question is: function [ res ] = fun( x, y ) % res(1) = y(2) + y(1) * ( 0.9 - y(1)^2 - y(2)^2 ); res(2) = -y(1) + y(2) * ( 0.9 - y(1)^2 - y(2)^2 ); res = res'; %' end The call is: res = rk4( @fun, [0,20], [0.001; 0.001], 0.008 ); The resulting plot for x1 : The result of ode45( @fun, [0, 20], [0.001, 0.001] ) is:

    Read the article

  • What are the functionalities of Distributed File systems and Distributed Storage Systems?

    - by Berkay
    i'm reading cloud vendors solutions for the distributed storage systems such as Amazon Dynamo and Google Big Table. and really confused in two terms : what is Distrubuted file systems for in cloud ? what is Distributed storage systems for? what are differences of these terms and functionalities ? if i understand these terms i will create the general architecture of the cloud vendors, any good tutorial or web page will be appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Security for university research lab systems

    - by ank
    Being responsible for security in a university computer science department is no fun at all. And I explain: It is often the case that I get a request for installation of new hw systems or software systems that are really so experimental that I would not dare put them even in the DMZ. If I can avoid it and force an installation in a restricted inside VLAN that is fine but occasionally I get requests that need access to the outside world. And actually it makes sense to have such systems have access to the world for testing purposes. Here is the latest request: A newly developed system that uses SIP is in the final stages of development. This system will enable communication with outside users (that is its purpose and the research proposal), actually hospital patients not so well aware of technology. So it makes sense to open it to the rest of the world. What I am looking for is anyone who has experience with dealing with such highly experimental systems that need wide outside network access. How do you secure the rest of the network and systems from this security nightmare without hindering research? Is placement in the DMZ enough? Any extra precautions? Any other options, methodologies?

    Read the article

  • Enterprise integration of disparate systems

    - by Chris Latta
    We're about to embark on a fairly large integration effort to kill off a bunch of Access and Sql Server databases and get everything into one coherent enterprise system. There are also a number of other systems (accounting, CRM, payroll, MS Exchange) that hold critical data that we need to integrate (use for data validation in other systems), report on and otherwise expose. It is likely that some of these systems will change in the next few years, so we need to isolate our systems to be ready for change. Ideally we would be able to expose our forms in a consistent manner across as many of our our systems as possible without having to re-develop them for each system. We are currently targeting SharePoint (2007 and soon 2010), Office (2007 and soon 2010 - Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook), Reporting Services, .Net console applications, .Net Windows applications, shell extensions, and with the possibility of exposing some functionality on mobile devices (BlackBerries currently, maybe iPhones later) and via our website. We're moving development to Visual Studio 2010 (from 2005) ahead of migrating to SharePoint 2010 and Office 2010. Given that most of our development is presently targeted to the .Net framework (mostly in C#) it seems logical to stick with this unless there is some compelling reason to switch frameworks/platform for some aspects. We're thinking of your standard Database-Data Integration layer-Business Objects Layer-Web Services (or REST) layer-Client Application plus doing our own client application with WPF (or something else?) forms that can also be exposed in the MS systems (SharePoint, Office, Windows). So, we don't want much, just everything :) Basically we need to isolate ourselves from database and systems changes, create an API that can be used throughout our systems and then make this functionality available in our client applications. I'm very keen to get pointers from anyone who has tips on how to pull this off. Should we look at the Enterprise Library as a place to start? Is REST with ASP.Net MVC2 a better solution than Web Services for a system like this? Will WPF deliver forms re-use or is there something better?

    Read the article

  • Interested in embedded systems. Where to begin?

    - by Ala ABUDEEB
    Hello, i'm a computer systems engineering student. i'm interested in designing embedded systems but i don't know where to begin learning this, and what topics are essentially needed to proceed in this domain. So can you please tell me what topics do i have to study, and what books are available there in market or online that can help me??? please help me p.s. normally as an engineering student i have basic knowledge of circuit theory and microcontroller realm. thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Thread placement policies on NUMA systems - update

    - by Dave
    In a prior blog entry I noted that Solaris used a "maximum dispersal" placement policy to assign nascent threads to their initial processors. The general idea is that threads should be placed as far away from each other as possible in the resource topology in order to reduce resource contention between concurrently running threads. This policy assumes that resource contention -- pipelines, memory channel contention, destructive interference in the shared caches, etc -- will likely outweigh (a) any potential communication benefits we might achieve by packing our threads more densely onto a subset of the NUMA nodes, and (b) benefits of NUMA affinity between memory allocated by one thread and accessed by other threads. We want our threads spread widely over the system and not packed together. Conceptually, when placing a new thread, the kernel picks the least loaded node NUMA node (the node with lowest aggregate load average), and then the least loaded core on that node, etc. Furthermore, the kernel places threads onto resources -- sockets, cores, pipelines, etc -- without regard to the thread's process membership. That is, initial placement is process-agnostic. Keep reading, though. This description is incorrect. On Solaris 10 on a SPARC T5440 with 4 x T2+ NUMA nodes, if the system is otherwise unloaded and we launch a process that creates 20 compute-bound concurrent threads, then typically we'll see a perfect balance with 5 threads on each node. We see similar behavior on an 8-node x86 x4800 system, where each node has 8 cores and each core is 2-way hyperthreaded. So far so good; this behavior seems in agreement with the policy I described in the 1st paragraph. I recently tried the same experiment on a 4-node T4-4 running Solaris 11. Both the T5440 and T4-4 are 4-node systems that expose 256 logical thread contexts. To my surprise, all 20 threads were placed onto just one NUMA node while the other 3 nodes remained completely idle. I checked the usual suspects such as processor sets inadvertently left around by colleagues, processors left offline, and power management policies, but the system was configured normally. I then launched multiple concurrent instances of the process, and, interestingly, all the threads from the 1st process landed on one node, all the threads from the 2nd process landed on another node, and so on. This happened even if I interleaved thread creating between the processes, so I was relatively sure the effect didn't related to thread creation time, but rather that placement was a function of process membership. I this point I consulted the Solaris sources and talked with folks in the Solaris group. The new Solaris 11 behavior is intentional. The kernel is no longer using a simple maximum dispersal policy, and thread placement is process membership-aware. Now, even if other nodes are completely unloaded, the kernel will still try to pack new threads onto the home lgroup (socket) of the primordial thread until the load average of that node reaches 50%, after which it will pick the next least loaded node as the process's new favorite node for placement. On the T4-4 we have 64 logical thread contexts (strands) per socket (lgroup), so if we launch 48 concurrent threads we will find 32 placed on one node and 16 on some other node. If we launch 64 threads we'll find 32 and 32. That means we can end up with our threads clustered on a small subset of the nodes in a way that's quite different that what we've seen on Solaris 10. So we have a policy that allows process-aware packing but reverts to spreading threads onto other nodes if a node becomes too saturated. It turns out this policy was enabled in Solaris 10, but certain bugs suppressed the mixed packing/spreading behavior. There are configuration variables in /etc/system that allow us to dial the affinity between nascent threads and their primordial thread up and down: see lgrp_expand_proc_thresh, specifically. In the OpenSolaris source code the key routine is mpo_update_tunables(). This method reads the /etc/system variables and sets up some global variables that will subsequently be used by the dispatcher, which calls lgrp_choose() in lgrp.c to place nascent threads. Lgrp_expand_proc_thresh controls how loaded an lgroup must be before we'll consider homing a process's threads to another lgroup. Tune this value lower to have it spread your process's threads out more. To recap, the 'new' policy is as follows. Threads from the same process are packed onto a subset of the strands of a socket (50% for T-series). Once that socket reaches the 50% threshold the kernel then picks another preferred socket for that process. Threads from unrelated processes are spread across sockets. More precisely, different processes may have different preferred sockets (lgroups). Beware that I've simplified and elided details for the purposes of explication. The truth is in the code. Remarks: It's worth noting that initial thread placement is just that. If there's a gross imbalance between the load on different nodes then the kernel will migrate threads to achieve a better and more even distribution over the set of available nodes. Once a thread runs and gains some affinity for a node, however, it becomes "stickier" under the assumption that the thread has residual cache residency on that node, and that memory allocated by that thread resides on that node given the default "first-touch" page-level NUMA allocation policy. Exactly how the various policies interact and which have precedence under what circumstances could the topic of a future blog entry. The scheduler is work-conserving. The x4800 mentioned above is an interesting system. Each of the 8 sockets houses an Intel 7500-series processor. Each processor has 3 coherent QPI links and the system is arranged as a glueless 8-socket twisted ladder "mobius" topology. Nodes are either 1 or 2 hops distant over the QPI links. As an aside the mapping of logical CPUIDs to physical resources is rather interesting on Solaris/x4800. On SPARC/Solaris the CPUID layout is strictly geographic, with the highest order bits identifying the socket, the next lower bits identifying the core within that socket, following by the pipeline (if present) and finally the logical thread context ("strand") on the core. But on Solaris on the x4800 the CPUID layout is as follows. [6:6] identifies the hyperthread on a core; bits [5:3] identify the socket, or package in Intel terminology; bits [2:0] identify the core within a socket. Such low-level details should be of interest only if you're binding threads -- a bad idea, the kernel typically handles placement best -- or if you're writing NUMA-aware code that's aware of the ambient placement and makes decisions accordingly. Solaris introduced the so-called critical-threads mechanism, which is expressed by putting a thread into the FX scheduling class at priority 60. The critical-threads mechanism applies to placement on cores, not on sockets, however. That is, it's an intra-socket policy, not an inter-socket policy. Solaris 11 introduces the Power Aware Dispatcher (PAD) which packs threads instead of spreading them out in an attempt to be able to keep sockets or cores at lower power levels. Maximum dispersal may be good for performance but is anathema to power management. PAD is off by default, but power management polices constitute yet another confounding factor with respect to scheduling and dispatching. If your threads communicate heavily -- one thread reads cache lines last written by some other thread -- then the new dense packing policy may improve performance by reducing traffic on the coherent interconnect. On the other hand if your threads in your process communicate rarely, then it's possible the new packing policy might result on contention on shared computing resources. Unfortunately there's no simple litmus test that says whether packing or spreading is optimal in a given situation. The answer varies by system load, application, number of threads, and platform hardware characteristics. Currently we don't have the necessary tools and sensoria to decide at runtime, so we're reduced to an empirical approach where we run trials and try to decide on a placement policy. The situation is quite frustrating. Relatedly, it's often hard to determine just the right level of concurrency to optimize throughput. (Understanding constructive vs destructive interference in the shared caches would be a good start. We could augment the lines with a small tag field indicating which strand last installed or accessed a line. Given that, we could augment the CPU with performance counters for misses where a thread evicts a line it installed vs misses where a thread displaces a line installed by some other thread.)

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages of version control systems that version each file separately?

    - by Mike Daniels
    Over the past few years I have worked with several different version control systems. For me, one of the fundamental differences between them has been whether they version files individually (each file has its own separate version numbering and history) or the repository as a whole (a "commit" or version represents a snapshot of the whole repository). Some "per-file" version control systems: CVS ClearCase Visual SourceSafe Some "whole-repository" version control systems: SVN Git Mercurial In my experience, the per-file version control systems have only led to problems, and require much more configuration and maintenance to use correctly (for example, "config specs" in ClearCase). I've had many instances of a co-worker changing an unrelated file and breaking what would ideally be an isolated line of development. What are the advantages of these per-file version control systems? What problems do "whole-repository" version control systems have that per-file version control systems do not?

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages of version control systems that version each file separately?

    - by Mike Daniels
    Over the past few years I have worked with several different version control systems. For me, one of the fundamental differences between them has been whether they version files individually (each file has its own separate version numbering and history) or the repository as a whole (a "commit" or version represents a snapshot of the whole repository). Some "per-file" version control systems: CVS ClearCase Visual SourceSafe Some "whole-repository" version control systems: SVN Git Mercurial In my experience, the per-file version control systems have only led to problems, and require much more configuration and maintenance to use correctly (for example, "config specs" in ClearCase). I've had many instances of a co-worker changing an unrelated file and breaking what would ideally be an isolated line of development. What are the advantages of these per-file version control systems? What problems do "whole-repository" version control systems have that per-file version control systems do not?

    Read the article

  • Comparison of Code Review Tools/Systems

    - by SytS
    There are a number of tools/systems available aimed at streamlining and enhancing the code review process, including: CodeStriker Review Board, code review system in use at VMWare Code Collaborator, commercial product by SmartBear Rietveld, based on Modrian, the code review system in use at Google Crucible, commercial product by Atlassian These systems all have varying feature sets, and differ in degrees of maturity and polish; the selection is a little bewildering for someone who is evaluating code review systems for the frist time. Some of these tools have already been mentioned in other questions/answers on StackOverflow, but I would like to see a more comprehensive comparison of the more popular systems, especially with respect to: integration with source control systems integration with bug tracking systems supported workflow (reviews pre/post commit, review or contiguous/non-contigous revision ranges, etc) deployment/maintenance requirements

    Read the article

  • Integrating HP Systems Insight Manager into an existing environment

    - by ewwhite
    I'm working with an environment that spans multiple data centers/sites and consists primarily of HP ProLiant servers (G5-G7) running Linux. The mix is 30% RHEL/CentOS, the rest are Gentoo :(. I also have a few dozen virtual machines running back-office and Windows servers on VMWare ESX hosts. I run OpenNMS to pull SNMP data from the various server nodes and networking devices. While OpenNMS works wonderfully for up/down, thresholds and notifications, it's native handling of traps is a little rough and the graphs are not particularly pretty. I use Orca/RRD graphs for performance trending and nice graphs. I'm tasked with inventorying the environment and wanted to come up with a clean way to organize server information. Since my environment is mostly HP, I've been playing with HP Systems Insight Manager as a way to extract server data and to deploy HP health/monitoring packages and firmware. The Gentoo systems eventually have to be converted to CentOS, so getting a quick assessment of what hardware is where would be great. Although I've read through a few hundred pages of HP manuals, I'm having a difficult time understanding how to get HP SIM to do what I want, though. My main problems are: I have about 40 subnets to deal with; 98% connected with private lines to facilities across the globe. I don't want to initiate an HP SIM discovery only to pull back every piece of intermediate networking hardware and equipment from all of the locations. I'd like this to focus on the servers. I have OpenNMS configured to accept traps. I don't want HP SIM to duplicate that effort. It seems like the built-in software deployment tool wants to overwrite the trapsink parameters for the systems it encounters during discovery. I have about 10 administrative username/password combinations in use across this infrastructure. Is there a more efficient way to get HP SIM to do the discovery or break discovery into manageable chunks? In terms of general workflow, do people typically install the HP Management Agents during the initial OS deployment (e.g. kickstart post script) or afterwards from HP SIM? Is HP SIM too thick/fat to be an inventory tool? I can't tell if it's meant to be used standalone or alongside other monitoring products. Since the majority of the systems I'm trying to track are those running Gentoo (in order to plan the move to CentOS), is there any way for HP SIM to extract system model information from them ( like dmidecode)? I have systems here where I may have an SSH key established, but not direct user or login access. Is there a way for me to import an SSH private/public key pair into HP SIM to reach out to the servers that can't accept standard credentials? There are a handful of sites where I have inconsistent access or have a double-NAT situation. I may be able to poke a server, but it may not be able to find its way back to the management system. Is there a workaround for this? The certificate configuration for HP SIM seems complicated. What is the preferred setup for trust between systems? I'd also appreciate any notes or recommendations to using this product. Or if there's a better way to do this, I'd like to know.

    Read the article

  • Does your organization still use the term "screens" to describe a user interface?

    - by bit-twiddler
    I have been in the field long enough to remember when the term "screen" entered our lexicon. As difficult as it is to believe, the early systems on which I worked had no user interface (UI), that is, unless one counts a keypunch machine and job listings as a user interface. These systems ran as "card image" production jobs back in a day when being a computer operator required a reasonably deep understanding of how computers worked. Flashing forward to today: I cringe every time I hear a systems practitioner use the term "screen." The metaphor no longer fits the medium. The term somewhat fit back when the user dialog consumed 100% of available monitor real estate; however, the term lost its relevance the moment we moved to windowed environments. With the above said, does your organization still use the term "screens" to describe an application's UI? Has anyone successfully purged the term from an organization? For those who do not use the term to describe UI dialog elements, what term do you use in place of “screen.”

    Read the article

  • TestDriven.Net 3.0 – All Systems Go

    - by Jamie Cansdale
    I’m pleased to announce that TestDriven.Net 3.0 is now available. Finally! I know many of you will already be using the Beta and RC versions, but if you look at the release notes you’ll see there’s been many refinements since then, so I highly recommend you install the RTM version. Here is a quick summary of a few new features: Visual Studio 2010 supports targeting multiple versions of the .NET framework (multi-targeting). This means you can easily upgrade your Visual Studio 2005/2008 solutions without necessarily converting them to use .NET 4.0. TestDriven.Net will execute your tests using the .NET version your test project is targeting (see ‘Properties > Application > Target framework’). There is now first class support for MSTest when using Visual Studio 2008 & 2010. Previous versions of TestDriven.Net had support for a limited number of MSTest attributes. This version supports virtually all MSTest unit testing related attributes, including support for deployment item and data driven test attributes. You should also find this test runner is quick. ;) There is a new ‘Go To Test/Code’ command on the code context menu. You can think of this as Ctrl-Tab for test driven developers; it will quickly flip back and forth between your tests and code under test. I recommend assigning a keyboard shortcut to the ‘TestDriven.NET.GoToTestOrCode’ command. NCover can now be used for code coverage on .NET 4.0. This is only officially supported since NCover 3.2 (your mileage may vary if you’re using the 1.5.8 version). Rather than clutter the ‘Output’ window, ignored or skipped tests will be placed on the ‘Task List’. You can double-click on these items to navigate to the offending test (or assign a keyboard shortcut to ‘View.NextTask’). If you’re using a Team, Premium or Ultimate edition of Visual Studio 2005-2010, a new ‘Test With > Performance’ command will be available. This command will perform instrumented performance profiling on your target code. A particular focus of this version has been to make it more keyboard friendly. Here’s a list of commands you will probably want to assign keyboard shortcuts to: Name Default What I use TestDriven.NET.RunTests Run tests in context   Alt + T TestDriven.NET.RerunTests Repeat test run   Alt + R TestDriven.NET.GoToTestOrCode Flip between tests and code   Alt + G TestDriven.NET.Debugger Run tests with debugger   Alt + D View.Output Show the ‘Output’ window Ctrl+ Alt + O   Edit.BreakLine Edit code in stack trace Enter   View.NextError Jump to next failed test Ctrl + Shift + F12   View.NextTask Jump to next skipped test   Alt + S   By default the ‘Output’ window will automatically activate when there is test output or a failed test (this is an option). The cursor will be positioned on the stack trace of the last failed test, ready for you to hit ‘Enter’ to jump to the fail point or ‘Esc’ to return to your source (assuming your ‘Output’ window is set to auto-hide).  If your ‘Output’ window isn’t set to auto-hide, you’ll need to hit ‘Ctrl + Alt + O’ then ‘Enter’. Alternatively you can use ‘Ctrl + Shift + F12’ (View.NextError) to navigate between all failed tests.   For more frequent updates or to give feedback, you can find me on twitter here. I hope you enjoy this version. Let me know how you get on. :)

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems – Create Knowledge and Amplify Learning

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this post, we’ll continue the series by concentrating on Principle #2: Create Knowledge and Amplify Learning In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #3: Build Integrity and Quality In. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention.  

    Read the article

  • Oracle UPK Customer Roundtable - Featuring Medtronic's Journey To Support Global Systems Implementat

    - by [email protected]
    Hear Medtronic's journey of adopting Oracle UPK globally across their SAP, Siebel, and PeopleSoft applications. Register Now for this free webinar! Thursday, April 29, 2010 -- 9:00 am PT Medtronic's success story highlights how Oracle UPK improved workforce effectiveness, addressed compliance, and ensured end user adoption. From starting out with a small group of developers using Oracle UPK to having 35 developers creating 18,000 topics, Oracle UPK has become part of Medtronic's learning infrastructure with multi-languages, help menu integration and much more.

    Read the article

  • Sun Fire X4800 M2 Delivers World Record TPC-C for x86 Systems

    - by Brian
    Oracle's Sun Fire X4800 M2 server equipped with eight 2.4 GHz Intel Xeon Processor E7-8870 chips obtained a result of 5,055,888 tpmC on the TPC-C benchmark. This result is a world record for x86 servers. Oracle demonstrated this world record database performance running Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition with Partitioning. The Sun Fire X4800 M2 server delivered a new x86 TPC-C world record of 5,055,888 tpmC with a price performance of $0.89/tpmC using Oracle Database 11g Release 2. This configuration is available 06/26/12. The Sun Fire X4800 M2 server delivers 3.0x times better performance than the next 8-processor result, an IBM System p 570 equipped with POWER6 processors. The Sun Fire X4800 M2 server has 3.1x times better price/performance than the 8-processor 4.7GHz POWER6 IBM System p 570. The Sun Fire X4800 M2 server has 1.6x times better performance than the 4-processor IBM x3850 X5 system equipped with Intel Xeon processors. This is the first TPC-C result on any system using eight Intel Xeon Processor E7-8800 Series chips. The Sun Fire X4800 M2 server is the first x86 system to get over 5 million tpmC. The Oracle solution utilized Oracle Linux operating system and Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 2 with Partitioning to produce the x86 world record TPC-C benchmark performance. Performance Landscape Select TPC-C results (sorted by tpmC, bigger is better) System p/c/t tpmC Price/tpmC Avail Database MemorySize Sun Fire X4800 M2 8/80/160 5,055,888 0.89 USD 6/26/2012 Oracle 11g R2 4 TB IBM x3850 X5 4/40/80 3,014,684 0.59 USD 7/11/2011 DB2 ESE 9.7 3 TB IBM x3850 X5 4/32/64 2,308,099 0.60 USD 5/20/2011 DB2 ESE 9.7 1.5 TB IBM System p 570 8/16/32 1,616,162 3.54 USD 11/21/2007 DB2 9.0 2 TB p/c/t - processors, cores, threads Avail - availability date Oracle and IBM TPC-C Response times System tpmC Response Time (sec) New Order 90th% Response Time (sec) New Order Average Sun Fire X4800 M2 5,055,888 0.210 0.166 IBM x3850 X5 3,014,684 0.500 0.272 Ratios - Oracle Better 1.6x 1.4x 1.3x Oracle uses average new order response time for comparison between Oracle and IBM. Graphs of Oracle's and IBM's response times for New-Order can be found in the full disclosure reports on TPC's website TPC-C Official Result Page. Configuration Summary and Results Hardware Configuration: Server Sun Fire X4800 M2 server 8 x 2.4 GHz Intel Xeon Processor E7-8870 4 TB memory 8 x 300 GB 10K RPM SAS internal disks 8 x Dual port 8 Gbs FC HBA Data Storage 10 x Sun Fire X4270 M2 servers configured as COMSTAR heads, each with 1 x 3.06 GHz Intel Xeon X5675 processor 8 GB memory 10 x 2 TB 7.2K RPM 3.5" SAS disks 2 x Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array storage (1.92 TB each) 1 x Brocade 5300 switches Redo Storage 2 x Sun Fire X4270 M2 servers configured as COMSTAR heads, each with 1 x 3.06 GHz Intel Xeon X5675 processor 8 GB memory 11 x 2 TB 7.2K RPM 3.5" SAS disks Clients 8 x Sun Fire X4170 M2 servers, each with 2 x 3.06 GHz Intel Xeon X5675 processors 48 GB memory 2 x 300 GB 10K RPM SAS disks Software Configuration: Oracle Linux (Sun Fire 4800 M2) Oracle Solaris 11 Express (COMSTAR for Sun Fire X4270 M2) Oracle Solaris 10 9/10 (Sun Fire X4170 M2) Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition with Partitioning Oracle iPlanet Web Server 7.0 U5 Tuxedo CFS-R Tier 1 Results: System: Sun Fire X4800 M2 tpmC: 5,055,888 Price/tpmC: 0.89 USD Available: 6/26/2012 Database: Oracle Database 11g Cluster: no New Order Average Response: 0.166 seconds Benchmark Description TPC-C is an OLTP system benchmark. It simulates a complete environment where a population of terminal operators executes transactions against a database. The benchmark is centered around the principal activities (transactions) of an order-entry environment. These transactions include entering and delivering orders, recording payments, checking the status of orders, and monitoring the level of stock at the warehouses. Key Points and Best Practices Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition with Partitioning scales easily to this high level of performance. COMSTAR (Common Multiprotocol SCSI Target) is the software framework that enables an Oracle Solaris host to serve as a SCSI Target platform. COMSTAR uses a modular approach to break the huge task of handling all the different pieces in a SCSI target subsystem into independent functional modules which are glued together by the SCSI Target Mode Framework (STMF). The modules implementing functionality at SCSI level (disk, tape, medium changer etc.) are not required to know about the underlying transport. And the modules implementing the transport protocol (FC, iSCSI, etc.) are not aware of the SCSI-level functionality of the packets they are transporting. The framework hides the details of allocation providing execution context and cleanup of SCSI commands and associated resources and simplifies the task of writing the SCSI or transport modules. Oracle iPlanet Web Server middleware is used for the client tier of the benchmark. Each web server instance supports more than a quarter-million users while satisfying the response time requirement from the TPC-C benchmark. See Also Oracle Press Release -- Sun Fire X4800 M2 TPC-C Executive Summary tpc.org Complete Sun Fire X4800 M2 TPC-C Full Disclosure Report tpc.org Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC) Home Page Ideas International Benchmark Page Sun Fire X4800 M2 Server oracle.com OTN Oracle Linux oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition oracle.com OTN Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement TPC Benchmark C, tpmC, and TPC-C are trademarks of the Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC). Sun Fire X4800 M2 (8/80/160) with Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition with Partitioning, 5,055,888 tpmC, $0.89 USD/tpmC, available 6/26/2012. IBM x3850 X5 (4/40/80) with DB2 ESE 9.7, 3,014,684 tpmC, $0.59 USD/tpmC, available 7/11/2011. IBM x3850 X5 (4/32/64) with DB2 ESE 9.7, 2,308,099 tpmC, $0.60 USD/tpmC, available 5/20/2011. IBM System p 570 (8/16/32) with DB2 9.0, 1,616,162 tpmC, $3.54 USD/tpmC, available 11/21/2007. Source: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc, results as of 7/15/2011.

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems – Defer Commitment and Decide As Late A

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this post, we’ll continue the series by concentrating on Principle #4: Defer Commitment and Decide As Late As Possible.   In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #5: Deliver As Fast As Possible. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention.  

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems – Build Integrity and Quality In

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this post, we’ll continue the series by concentrating on Principle #3: Build Integrity and Quality In.   In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #4: Defer Commitment and Decide As Late As Possible. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention.  

    Read the article

  • Striving to be boring - or at least have boring systems

    - by merrillaldrich
    A developer I work with, whom I respect a great deal, reminded me of this truism today. I'm not sure who came up with the original, but they deserve credit wherever they are: “A good system administrator is a bored system administrator.” As a DBA, this really rings true for me. Being a DBA should not be a thrilling job. Within reason, there should not be myriad surprises, nor a roller coaster ride, wondering what will break each day. There should not be numerous 2 AM calls or frantic fixes. If there...(read more)

    Read the article

  • FBX SDK Not Converting Child Node Coordinate Systems

    - by Al Bundy
    I am trying to import a scene into my application from an fbx file. In 3DS Max, the scene and it’s local translations are as follows: Root (0, 0, 0) '-Sphere001 (-15, 30, 0) ' '-Sphere002 (-2, -30, 0) ' '-Sphere003 (-30, -20, 0) '-Cube001 (35, -15, 0) This is the code that I am using to get the translations of each node: FbxDouble3 fbxPosition = pChild->LclTranslation.Get(); FbxDouble3 fbxRotation = pChild->LclRotation.Get(); FbxDouble3 fbxScale = pChild->LclScaling.Get(); When I try to import the scene, the first node from the scene is getting converted to a right handed system, using this conversion: (X, Z, -Y), but none of their child nodes are. after importing the scene, the local translations I get are as follows: Root (0, 0, 0) --Sphere001 (-15, 0, -30) - converted ----Sphere002 (-2, -30, 0) - not converted ------Sphere003 (-30, -20, 0) - not converted --Cube001 (35, 0, 15) - converted Can anybody help me make sense of this? Thanks

    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 | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >