Search Results

Search found 271 results on 11 pages for 'benchmarks'.

Page 8/11 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >

  • How to measure productivity loss from slow PCs running Visual Studio?

    - by sunpech
    Many PCs we have on the development team are out-dated and are very slow to run Visual Studio 2008. They should very much be replaced with newer machines. But there's a general reluctance on management/company to buy new machines. How do we come up with numbers and benchmarks to show that these slow PCs are causing a loss in productivity? Obviously we can't call them to sit down with us as we build solutions and/or open various files. Is there an objective way to come up with some kind of reliable numbers that non-technical people can understand? It'd be nice to have a way to measure this across an entire organization on many different PCs running Visual Studio. I'm looking for an answer that does better than using a physical stopwatch. :)

    Read the article

  • Are spinlocks a good choice for a memory allocator?

    - by dsimcha
    I've suggested to the maintainers of the D programming language runtime a few times that the memory allocator/garbage collector should use spinlocks instead of regular OS critical sections. This hasn't really caught on. Here are the reasons I think spinlocks would be better: At least in synthetic benchmarks that I did, it's several times faster than OS critical sections when there's contention for the memory allocator/GC lock. Edit: Empirically, using spinlocks didn't even have measurable overhead in a single-core environment, probably because locks need to be held for such a short period of time in a memory allocator. Memory allocations and similar operations usually take a small fraction of a timeslice, and even a small fraction of the time a context switch takes, making it silly to context switch in the case of contention. A garbage collection in the implementation in question stops the world anyhow. There won't be any spinning during a collection. Are there any good reasons not to use spinlocks in a memory allocator/garbage collector implementation?

    Read the article

  • C++ corrupt my thinking, how to trust auto garbage collector?

    - by SnirD
    I use to program mainly with C/C++, that's make me dealing with pointers and memory management daily. This days I'm trying to develop using other tools, such as Java, Python and Ruby. The problem is that I keep thinking C++ style, I'm writing code as C++ usually written in almost every programming language, and the biggest problem is the memory management, I keep writing bad code using references in Java and just get as close as I can to the C++ style. So I need 2 thinks here, one is to trust the garbage collector, let's say by seeing benchmarks and proofs that it's realy working in Java, and know what I should never do in order to get my code the best way it can be. And the second think is knowing how to write other languages code. I mean I know what to do, I'm just never write the code as most Java or Python programmers usually do, are there any books for C++ programmers just to introduce me to the writing conventions? (by the way, forgive me for my English mistakes)

    Read the article

  • How to pass a file (read from Java) most effectively to a native method?

    - by soc
    Hi, I have approx. 30000 files (1MB each) which I want to put into a native method, which requires just an byte array and the size of it as arguments. I looked through some examples and benchmarks (like http://nadeausoftware.com/articles/2008/02/java_tip_how_read_files_quickly) but all of them do some other fancy things. Basically I don't care about the contents of the file, I don't want to access something in that file or the byte array or do anything else with it. I just want to put a file into a native method which accepts an byte array as fast as possible. At the moment I'm using RandomAccessFile, but that's horribly slow (10MB/s). Is there anything like byte[] readTheWholeFile(File file){ ... } which I could put into native void fancyCMethod(readTheWholeFile(myFile), myFile.length()) What would you suggest?

    Read the article

  • Is Python Interpreted or Compiled?

    - by crodjer
    This is just a wondering I had while reading about interpreted and compiled languages. Ruby is no doubt an interpreted language, since source code is compiled by an interpreter at the point of execution. On the contrary C is a compiled language, as one have to compile the source code first according to the machine and then execute. This results is much faster execution. Now coming to Python: A python code (somefile.py) when imported creates a file (somefile.pyc) in the same directory. Let us say the import is done in a python shell or django module. After the import I change the code a bit and execute the imported functions again to find that it is still running the old code. This suggests that *.pyc files are compiled python files similar to executable created after compilation of a C file, though I can't execute *.pyc file directly. When the python file (somefile.py) is executed directly ( ./somefile.py or python somefile.py ) no .pyc file is created and the code is executed as is indicating interpreted behavior. These suggest that a python code is compiled every time it is imported in a new process to crate a .pyc while it is interpreted when directly executed. So which type of language should I consider it as? Interpreted or Compiled? And how does its efficiency compare to interpreted and compiled languages? According to wiki's Interpreted Languages page it is listed as a language compiled to Virtual Machine Code, what is meant by that? Update Looking at the answers it seems that there cannot be a perfect answer to my questions. Languages are not only interpreted or only compiled, but there is a spectrum of possibilities between interpreting and compiling. From the answers by aufather, mipadi, Lenny222, ykombinator, comments and wiki I found out that in python's major implementations it is compiled to bytecode, which is a highly compressed and optimized representation and is machine code for a virtual machine, which is implemented not in hardware, but in the bytecode interpreter. Also the the languages are not interpreted or compiled, but rather language implementations either interpret or compile code. I also found out about Just in time compilation As far as execution speed is concerned the various benchmarks cannot be perfect and depend on context and the task which is being performed. Please tell if I am wrong in my interpretations.

    Read the article

  • 4.8M wasn't enough so we went for 5.055M tpmc with Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel r2 :-)

    - by wcoekaer
    We released a new set of benchmarks today. One is an updated tpc-c from a few months ago where we had just over 4.8M tpmc at $0.98 and we just updated it to go to 5.05M and $0.89. The other one is related to Java Middleware performance. You can find the press release here. Now, I don't want to talk about the actual relevance of the benchmark numbers, as I am not in the benchmark team. I want to talk about why these numbers and these efforts, unrelated to what they mean to your workload, matter to customers. The actual benchmark effort is a very big, long, expensive undertaking where many groups work together as a big virtual team. Having the virtual team be within a single company of course helps tremendously... We already start with a very big server setup with tons of storage, many disks, lots of ram, lots of cpu's, cores, threads, large database setups. Getting the whole setup going to start tuning, by itself, is no easy task, but then the real fun starts with tuning the system for optimal performance -and- stability. A benchmark is not just revving an engine at high rpm, it's actually hitting the circuit. The tests require long runs, require surviving availability tests, such as surviving crashes -and- recovery under load. In the TPC-C example, the x4800 system had 4TB ram, 160 threads (8 sockets, hyperthreaded, 10 cores/socket), tons of storage attached, tons of luns visible to the OS. flash storage, non flash storage... many things at high scale that all have to be perfectly synchronized. During this process, we find bugs, we fix bugs, we find performance issues, we fix performance issues, we find interesting potential features to investigate for the future, we start new development projects for future releases and all this goes back into the products. As more and more customers, for Oracle Linux, are running larger and larger, faster and faster, more mission critical, higher available databases..., these things are just absolutely critical. Unrelated to what anyone's specific opinion is about tpc-c or tpc-h or specjenterprise etc, there is a ton of effort that the customer benefits from. All this work makes Oracle Linux and/or Oracle Solaris better platforms. Whether it's faster, more stable, more scalable, more resilient. It helps. Another point that I always like to re-iterate around UEK and UEK2 : we have our kernel source git repository online. Complete changelog of the mainline kernel, and our changes, easy to pull, easy to dissect, easy to know what went in when, why and where. No need to go log into a website and manually click through pages to hopefully discover changes or patches. No need to untar 2 tar balls and run a diff.

    Read the article

  • Benchmarking a file server

    - by Joel Coel
    I'm working on building a new file server... a simple Windows Server box with a few terabytes of disk space to share on the LAN. Pain for current hard drive prices aside :( -- I would like to get some benchmarks for this device under load compared to our old server. The old server was installed in 2005 and had 5 136GB 10K disks in RAID 5. The new server has 8 1TB disks in two RAID 10 volumes (plus a hot spare for each volume), but they're only 7.2K rpm, and of course with a much larger cache size. I'd like to get an idea of the performance expectations of the new server relative to the old. Where do I get started? I'd like to know both raw potential under different kinds of load for each server, as well an idea of what our real-world load looks like and how it will translate. Will disk load even matter, or will performance be more driven by the network connection? I could probably fumble through some disk i/o and wait counters in performance monitor, but I don't really know what to look for, which counters to watch, or for how long and when. FWIW, I'm expecting a nice improvement because of the benefits of having two different volumes and the better RAID 10 performance vs RAID 5, in spite of using slower disks... but I'd like to get an idea of how much.

    Read the article

  • SAN with iSCSI-Target Performance Horrendous

    - by Justin
    We have a poor man's SAN setup in a 1U Ubuntu server running iSCSI-Target with two 300GB drives in RAID-0. We then are using it for block level storage for virtual machines. The hypervisor is connected to the SAN via gigabit on a dedicated VLAN and interfaces. We only have a single virtual machine setup and doing some benchmarks. If we run hdparm -t /dev/sda1 from the virtual machine, we get 'ok' performance of 75MB/s from the virtual machine to the SAN. Then we basically compile a package with ./configure and make. Things start ok, but then all the sudden the load average on the SAN grows to 7+ and things slow down to a crawl. When we SSH into the SAN and run top, sure the load is 7+, but the CPU usage is basically nothing, also the server has 1.5GB of memory available. When we kill the compile on the virtual machine, slowly the LOAD on the SAN goes back to sub 1 figures. What in the world is causing this? How can we diagnosis this further? Here are two screenshot from the SAN during high load. 1> Output of iotop on the SAN: 2> Output of top on the SAN:

    Read the article

  • 3d Studio Max and 2+CPUs - Core limit ?

    - by FreekOne
    Hi guys, I am scouting for parts to put in a new machine, and in the process, while looking at different benchmarks I stumbled upon this benchmark and it got me a bit worried. Quote form it: Noticably absent from this review is an old-time favorite, 3ds Max. I did attempt to run our custom 3ds Max benchmark on both the 2009 and 2010 versions of the software, but the application would simply not load on the Westmere box with hyper-threading enabled. Evidently Autodesk didn't plan far enough ahead to write their software for more than 16 threads. Once there is an update that addresses this issue, I will happily add 3ds Max back into the benchmarking mix. Since I was looking at dual hexa-core Xeons (x5650), that would put my future machine at 24 logical cores which (duh) is well over 16 cores and since I'm mostly building this for 3DS Max work, you can see how this would seriously spoil my plans. I tried looking for additional information on this potential issue, but the above article seems to be the only one who mentions it. Could anyone who has access to a 16 core machine or an in-depth knowledge about 3DS Max please confirm this ? Any help would be much appreciated !

    Read the article

  • Performance variation

    - by Ree
    During my time spent working with multiple machines, I have noticed that performance of the same machine doing the same tasks in the same order differs and sometimes the difference is big enough to be noticeable. This applies to all the machines I've owned and/or maintained (old and modern). Some examples (many of them you may have noticed yourself) that sometimes are completed in different time frames: POST OS installation Hardware tests and operations (usually executed within a customized OS such as one of the many DOS variants), HDD tests and "low level" formats Software installation or other tasks (such as benchmarks) within a general purpose OS (Windows, Linux, etc) I can imagine this is caused by the fact that a machine is built with many components having to communicate as a whole and since the mechanical and electronic parts aren't perfect the overhead occurs. In the last example, I assume the OS complexity and concurrently running multiple processes has some additional effect as well. However, I'm wondering if this hardware imperfection and overhead is indeed that high to be humanly noticeable? Maybe there are other factors that are influencial as much or even more? So, in short - why? To emphasize: the difference is noticeable on the same machine performing the same tasks and this applies to ANY machine in my experience. I'm not comparing machine to machine performance.

    Read the article

  • SSD - Tweaks/Recommended Configuration

    - by Miky D
    I've just purchased my first SSD drive (a 32GB MLC from Imation) without doing enough research ahead of time in the spirit of giving the new technology a shot and getting myself up to speed by empirical research rather than reading countless reviews and I'm now at a crossroads. I've built a new server to test the new drive and at first I wanted to test it with Windows Server 2003 R2 x86 but after I loaded the OS on it and it had problems loading the drivers of the motherboard I went to the internet and did more research and the more I read the more I got confused. Finally I decided to try out Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 since it supposedly has certain support for SSD drives inherent in the NT 6.1 core. Indeed I've had much better luck with the new OS and got all the drivers installed but now I still have some questions: Should I set the drive to: IDE Emulation or AHCI in the BIOS? Should I make any other changes in the BIOS (I've read on the internet that Write Through should be changed to Write Back) Should I make any other adjustments in Windows (i.e. Tweaks such as disabling prefetching or disabling the Last Accessed Timestamp on the filesystem) and if so, is there a good/reliable online resource with instructions? I'm so tired of reading through countless online posts which spend 80% of coverage on the history of SSDs and benchmarks and explanations of how SSDs work. I got that, now I'd like to know if there's anything I should actually do to make sure Windows Server 2008 R2 makes good use of the SSD.

    Read the article

  • How do I troubleshoot a slow hard drive?

    - by Bruce Connor
    My computer is suffering of slow-downs and I'm not surprised (it's around 6 years old). Here's what I've verified: They are not very frequent (only a couple of times a day). When they happen a single application will hang for 10-60 seconds, while the rest don't hang but also get slow. Even as it is happening, the CPU usage stays low. It happens to applications (such as text editor, firefox, skype). It never happens to some applications (such as games) which I use for hours under heavy CPU load. Also of note: The Graphics card and PSU are new (around a year). Though I have a decent amount of software installed right now, this was happening even right after I reinstalled Windows. This HDD has been through many partinioning schemes, and a few heavy operations (such as moving around 200GB of data). Because of the above, I am already 70% sure the problem is with the hard drive. Before I replace it, however, I want to rule out other less likely possibilities (such as RAM, software, or PSU). I don't have the money to replace the entire box right now, but I can easily replace one of the components. I've read several questions (such as this one) which give general guidance on troubleshooting an unknown issue, that is not what I'm looking for here. My main question is: What tests or benchmarks can I run to verify I have a problematic hard drive? I don't need to solve this problem, I am content with just making sure it's the hard drive. I could borrow a newer hard drive from a friend and see if it gets better. A positive result would rule out all other components, but it wouldn't rule out a software issue (since this new hard drive won't have any of the software I use daily). Running on Windows/Linux.

    Read the article

  • SSD, AHCI and write performance

    - by Dan
    We've started to deploy SSD drives to our developers workstations. At this moment we're having the unpleasant surprise that the systems using the new SSDs often freeze, with the HDD activity led blinking or being continuously on. Benchmarks shows read speeds around 180 MB/s, but write speeds around 5 MB/s. All developers are using Windows 7 Enterprise, 64 bit, SP1. One of our developers suggested (based on his experience) the following sequence: backup the workstation use a tool to completely erase the SSD make sure AHCI is enabled in BIOS install Windows restore from backup So far, this procedure seems to work (we're still testing, but write speed seems to be 120 MB/s). There are some questions in this context: why do we have to completely reinstall Windows? Is it possible to clean the SSD without reinstalling Windows? Is there a reliable tool? If AHCI was disabled when Windows was installed and we enable it, shouldn't this be enough to correct the write performance issue? If we have to completely erase the SSDs, does this mean the SSDs we've received were used before (SH)? I'm wondering this because the package I've got was open (I didn't think about it at that time, as I considered one of my coworkers simply took a peek inside the package). Has anyone seen a similar problem before?

    Read the article

  • 32 core (each physical core) 2.2 GhZ or 12 core (6 physical cores) 3.0GHZ?

    - by Tejaswi Rana
    I am working on a multithreaded application (Forex trading app built on C#) and had the client upgrade from the 12 core 3.0GHZ machine (Intel) to a 32 core 2.2 Ghz machine (AMD). The PassMark benchmark results were significantly higher when using multicores doing Integer, Floating and other calculations while for a single core calculation it was a bit slower than the pack (others that were being compared to with similar config as the 12 core one). Oh it also comes with 64 GB RAM (4 times as the other one) and a much faster SSD. So after configuring and running the application on that machine, not only did it not perform as well, it was significantly slower. We're talking about 30seconds - 1 minute slower on an app that usually completes processing within 5-20 secs. The application uses MAX DEGREE of PARALLELISM (TPL) which I've tried setting to number of cores and also half of that. I've also tried running single threaded and without setting any limits in parallel threading. While it may be the hardware has some issues, I am wondering if the CPU processing speed is the issue. I can overclock to 3.0 GHZ. But is that even a good idea? Server Info - AMD http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?4013-AMD-Dual-6272-performance-is-60-lower-than-benchmarks Seems that benchmark was wrong to start with - officially. Intel i7 3930k OS (same in both) Windows 7 Professional 64-bit

    Read the article

  • PostgreSQL 8.4 - Tablespace Optimization

    - by FloE
    I'm currently running a PostgreSQL Database with about 1.5 billion rows / 500 GB of data (including indices). There are several schemata: on for the (read only, irregular changes / updates) 'core-model' and one for every user (about 20 persons). The users can access the core and store data in their own schema, so everything is located in one database. The server runs with CentOS and PostgreSQL 8.4 and is used for scientific studies, exploration etc and is running quite well. These days an upgrade of the DB storage hard disks arrive - all with the same performance as the old ones. I'm looking for the best way to distribute the data on these disks. It would be possible to separate frequently used objects (the core-data) from the user schemata, but I'm not sure if this is really worth the effort. It seems to be a much better idea to move the WAL files (pg_xlog directory) to its own partition. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/wal-internals.html What are your opinions? Are there any tablespace- or partitioning-related performance documentations / benchmarks?

    Read the article

  • Nginx Slower than Apache??

    - by ichilton
    Hi, I've just setup 2x identical Rackspace Cloud instances and am doing some comparisons and benchmarks to compare Apache and Nginx. I'm testing with a 3.4k png file and initially 512MB server instances but have now moved to 1024MB server instances. I'm very surprised to see that whatever I try, Apache seems to consistently outperform Nginx....what am I doing wrong? Nginx: Server Software: nginx/0.8.54 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 2.320 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3612000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 431.01 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 232.014 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 2.320 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1520.31 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 11 15.7 3 120 Processing: 1 35 76.9 20 1674 Waiting: 1 31 73.0 19 1674 Total: 1 46 79.1 21 1693 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 21 66% 39 75% 40 80% 40 90% 98 95% 136 98% 269 99% 334 100% 1693 (longest request) And Apache: Server Software: Apache/2.2.16 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 1.346 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3647000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 742.90 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 134.608 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.346 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 2645.85 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 1 3.7 0 27 Processing: 0 3 6.2 1 29 Waiting: 0 2 5.0 1 29 Total: 1 4 7.0 1 29 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 1 66% 1 75% 1 80% 1 90% 17 95% 19 98% 26 99% 27 100% 29 (longest request) I'm currently using worker_processes 4; and worker_connections 1024; but i've tried and benchmarked different values and see the same behaviour on all - I just can't get it to perform as well as Apache and from what i've read previously, i'm shocked about this! Can anyone give any advice? Thanks, Ian

    Read the article

  • What do you upgrade to make games load faster? [on hold]

    - by Superbest
    Let's say you have a relatively modern game like Shogun 2. The loading screens take several minutes. This bothers you and you'd like to improve it. What is actually going on when loading screens are up? I'm guessing assets are being loaded into memory from disk, and possibly being decompressed first. However, what is actually causing the slow down? The memory? Mainboard? CPU? HDD? If you had $100 to spend on upgrades and your only goal is to speed up loading screens without reducing other performance, what component of the computer does it make sense to upgrade for maximum benefit? If your answer is "it depends on the existing setup", what sort of benchmarks would you run to determine what is causing the bottleneck? What if you had $500 instead? I give the two budgets for context. I am not asking for actual recommendations about which component to buy (nor are the numbers supposed to be rigid limits), but what features are important when shopping for components with small and large budgets (a large budget could allow buying multiple components which are not so good on their own, but work particularly well together). I mention Shogun 2 as an example, but I'm asking about reducing overall loading times, across all games, not just one game. Therefore, "put it on a solid state disk" probably won't be good solution, because putting every game on your SDD will quickly fill it up.

    Read the article

  • Will adding a SSD cache device to my ZFS storage improve performance?

    - by Sysadminicus
    The server has 4GB of RAM and my zpool is made up of 15.5k SAS drives arranged like this: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t10d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t11d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t12d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t13d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t14d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c0t9d0 AVAIL c0t1d0 AVAIL The primary use is as an NFS store for a couple VMWare ESXi servers. I can't do any "true" benchmarks because this is a production system (no budget for test systems), but using dd and bonnie++ I can't get more than ~40-50MB/s writes and ~70-90MB/s reads. It seems I should be able to do much better, but I'm not sure where to optimize. Based on what I've read, I think dropping in a OCZ Vertex 2 Pro SSD as my L2ARC is going to be the best bang-for-the-buck to improve througput. Is there something else I should be looking into to help performance? If not... How do I know how big a cache device I need? Am I safe with only a single SSD as my cache device?

    Read the article

  • linux hardware raid 10 / lvm / virtual machine partition alignment and filesystem optimization

    - by Jason Ward
    I've been reading everything I can find about partition alignment and filesystem optimization (ext4 and xfs) but still don't know enough to be confident in setting up my current configuration. My remaining confusion comes from the LVM layer and if I should use raid parameters on the filesystem in guest os'es. My main questions are: When I use 'pvcreate --dataalignment' do I use the stripe-width as calculated for a filesystem on RAID (128kB for ext4 in my situation), the Stripe size of the RAID set (256kB), something else altogether, or do I not need this? When I create ext2/3/4 or xfs filesystems in guests on the Logical Volumes, should I add the settings for the underlying RAID (e.g. mkfs.ext4 -b 4096 -E stride=64,stripe-width=128)? Does anyone see any glaring errors in my set up below? I'm running some benchmarks now but haven't done enough to start comparing results. I have four drives in RAID 10 on a 3ware 9750-4i controller (more details on the settings below) giving me a 6.0TB device at /dev/sda. Here is my partition table: Model: LSI 9750-4i DISK (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 5722024MiB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1.00MiB 257MiB 256MiB ext4 BOOTPART boot 2 257MiB 4353MiB 4096MiB linux-swap(v1) 3 4353MiB 266497MiB 262144MiB ext4 4 266497MiB 4460801MiB 4194304MiB Partition 1 is to be the /boot partition for my xen host. Partition 2 is swap. Partition 3 is to be the root (/) for my xen host. Partition 4 is to be (the only) physical volume to be used by LVM (for those who are counting, I left about 1.2TB unallocated for now) For my Xen guests, I usually create a Logical Volume of the needed size and present it to the guests for them to partition as needed. I know there are other ways of handling that but this method works best for my situation. Here's the hardware of interest on my CentOS 6.3 Xen Host: 4x Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Drives (sector size: 512 logical/4096 physical) 3ware 9750-4i w/BBU (sector size reported: 512 logical/512 physical) All four drives make up a RAID 10 array. Stripe: 256kB Write Cache enabled Read Cache: intelligent StoreSave: Balance Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How come my Intel 520 180GB SSD performs extremely poorly?

    - by Willem
    I recently installed a new Intel 520 series 180GB SSD in my brand new MacBook Pro. The system is as follows: Model: MacBook Pro 15-inch, Late 2011 (MacBookPro8,2) Processor: 2.4 GHz Intel Core i7 Memory: 16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6770M 1024 MB Software: Mac OS X Lion 10.7.3 Main Drive Bay: Intel 520-series 180GB SATA-3 (6GB/s negotiated link) SSD (Firmware: 400i) [80GB free] Optical Bay: Toshiba 5400 RPM 750GB SATA-2 HDD Trim: Enabled (according to Trim Enabler App) And here are the speeds I'm getting: Read: 412 MB/s Write: 186 MB/s What have I done wrong? Results expected: Read/write both 500MB/s I have seen benchmarks with lesser SSD:s (SATA-2 even) outperform my write-speeds by far. Also, Intel 520 SSD:s are supposed to be the top class of SSD:s. Trim Enabler report: This looks a bit odd compared to screenshots from their site: These is the defined S.M.A.R.T attributes (taken from Intel): And here are my S.M.A.R.T attributes read using smartctl tool from smartmontools: They don't seem very compatible. I'm going to try and look for a S.M.A.R.T attributes reader tool for OS X which might support Intel 520 series.

    Read the article

  • HD video editing system with Truecrypt

    - by Rob
    I'm looking to do hi-def video editing and transcoding on an unencrypted standard partition, with Truecrypt on the system partition for sensitive data. I'm aiming to keep certain data private but still have performance where needed. Goals: Maximum, unimpacted, performance possible for hi-def video editing, encryption of video not required Encrypt system partition, using Truecrypt, for web/email privacy, etc. in the event of loss In other words I want to selectively encrypt the hard drive - i.e. make the system partition encrypted but not impact the original maximum performance that would be available to me for hi-def/HD video editing. The thinking is to use an unencrypted partition for the video and set up video applications to point at that. Assuming that they would use that partition only for their workspace and not the encrypted system partition, then I should expect to not get any performance hit. Would I be correct? I guess it might depend on the application, if that app is hard-wired to use the system partition always for temporary storage during editing and transcoding, or if it has to be installed on the C: system partition always. So some real data on how various apps behave in the respect would be useful, e.g. Adobe, Cyberlink, Nero etc. etc. I have a Intel i7 Quad-core (8 threads) 1.6Ghz (up to 2.8Ghz turbo-boost) 4Gb, 7200rpm SATA, nvidia HP laptop. I've read the excellent posting about the general performance impact of truecrypt but the benchmarks weren't specific enough for my needs where I'm dealing with HD-video and using a non-encrypted partition to maintain max performance.

    Read the article

  • Need help trying to diagnose Symmetrix SAN performance issues

    - by arcain
    I am helping to benchmark hardware for a new SQL Server instance, and the volume presented to the OS for the data files is carved from a set of spindles on a Symmetrix SAN. The server has yet to have SQL Server installed, so the only activity on the box is our benchmarking. Now, our storage engineers say that this volume and it's resources are dedicated to our new server (I don't have access to see the actual SAN config) however the performance benchmarks are troubling. For example, the numbers look good until suddenly, and randomly, we see in our IO benchmarking tool wait times of 100 seconds, and disk queue lengths of 255 in perfmon. This SAN has an 8 GB cache, plus there are other applications besides ours that use the SAN. I'm wondering if (even though the spindles for our volumes should be dedicated to us) the cache may be getting hammered during the performance testing, or perhaps the spindles our volumes are on aren't really dedicated to us. We're not getting much traction from our storage engineers in helping us track down the problem, so if anybody has experience with diagnosing a problem like this and would like to share insights and troubleshooting methodologies, I'd appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • MacBook Air i5 4 GB RAM shows screen tearing when scrolling in browsers

    - by Sandro Dzneladze
    I see screen tearing pretty often while scrolling webpages up and down, and it has been like this from day 1. But now I purchased an external monitor which is huge (23 inches compared to the Mac's 11), and the effect is more visible. It is driving me nuts and giving me headaches. I wonder if you see the same. I was reading a lot about this problem, and it seems to be present on MacBook Pros as well? Can someone confirm I'm not alone? In other words: I'm deciding weather to go through warranty repair, or if it makes no sense if all of theme exhibit same behavior. It is shame to see this beautiful machine with an insane price tag to be lagging when browsing web, when the processor is just sitting there idle at 4-12%! This is an example I found on Wikipedia that more or less describes what happens when I scroll up down. The effect is not so pronounced and clears when I stop scrolling, but it is sure annoying the hell out of me. Firefox is tearing like hell, Chrome less, Safari exhibits jagged scrolling but less tearing compared to Chrome and Firefox. With synthetic benchmarks I don't see any problems with hardware. But this is not particularly revealing.

    Read the article

  • setup lowcost image storage server with 24x SSD array to get high IOPS?

    - by Nenad
    I want to build let's name it a lowcost Ra*san which would host for our social site the images (many millions) we have 5 sizes of every photo with 3 KB, 7 KB, 15 KB, 25 KB and 80 KB per Image. My idea is to build a Server with 24x consumer 240 GB SSD's in Raid 6 which will give me some 5 TB Disk space for the photo storage. To have HA I can add a 2nd one and use drdb. I'm looking to get above 150'000 IOPS (4K Random reads). As we mostly have read access only and rarely delete photos i think to go with consumer MLC SSD. I read many endurance reviews and don't see there a problem as long we don't rewrite the cells. What you think about my idea? - I'm not sure between Raid 6 or Raid 10 (more IOPS, cost SSD). - Is ext4 OK for the filesystem - Would you use 1 or 2 Raid controller, with Extender Backplane If anyone has realized something similar i would be happy to get Real World numbers. UPDATE I have buy 12 (plus some spare) OCZ Talos 480GB SAS SSD Drive's they will be placed in a 12-bay DAS and attached to a PERC H800 (1GB NV Cache, manufactured by LSI with fastpath) Controller, I plan to setup Raid 50 with ext4. If someone is wondering about some benchmarks let me know what you would like to see.

    Read the article

  • Why cache static files with Varnish, why not pass

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have a system runnning nginx / php-fpm / varnish / wordpress and amazon s3. Now I have looked at a lot of configuration files while setting up the system, and in all of them I found something like this: /* If the request is for pictures, javascript, css, etc */ if (req.url ~ "\.(jpg|jpeg|png|gif|css|js)$") { /* Remove the cookie and make the request static */ unset req.http.cookie; return (lookup); } I do not understand why this is done. Most of the examples also run NginX as a webserver. Now the question is, why would you use the varnish cache to cache these static files. It makes much more sense to me to only cache the dynamic files so that php-fpm / mysql don't get hit that much. Am I correct or am I missing something here? UPDATE I want to add some info to the question based on the answer given. If you have a dynamic website, where the content actually changes a lot, chaching does not make sense. But if you use WordPress for a static website for example, this can be cached for long periods of time. That said, more important to me is static conent. I have found a link with some test and benchmarks on different cache apps and webserver apps. http://nbonvin.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/apache-vs-nginx-vs-varnish-vs-gwan/ NginX is actually faster in getting your static content, so it makes more sense to just let it pass. NginX works great with static files. -- Apart from that, most of the time static content is not even in the webserver itself. Most of the time this content is stores on a CDN somewhere, maybe AWS S3, something like that. I think the varnish cache is the last place where you want to have you static content stored.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >