Search Results

Search found 13151 results on 527 pages for 'performance counters'.

Page 82/527 | < Previous Page | 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89  | Next Page >

  • What would cause a query being ran from SSMS on local box to run slower then from remote box

    - by Racter
    When I run a simply query such as "Select Column1, Column2 from Table A" from within SSMS running on my production SQL Server the results seems to take extremely long (45Min). If I run the same query from my dev system’s SSMS connecting to the production SQL Server the results return within a few seconds (<60sec). One thing I have notices is if the system was just rebooted performance is good for a bit. It is hard to determine a time as I have had it start running slow very quickly after reboot but at most it performed good for 20min and then start acting up. Also, just restarting the SQL service does not resolve the issue or provide a temporary performance boost. Specs for Server are: Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, SP2 4 X Intel Xeon 3.6GHz - 6GB System Memory Active/Active Cluster SQL Server 2005 SP2 (9.0.3239)

    Read the article

  • Is (Ubuntu) Linux file copying algorithm better than Windows 7?

    - by Sarath
    Windows Copying is a real mess ever since Windows Vista. Even Microsoft claims they've improved the performance, from a user perspective, it's not quite visible. Even with single file the copying window appears too much time for 'Calculating' and then finishing the copy(Even after 100% completion some times the dialog remains active). At the same time, I was backing up some files in Ubuntu Linux. I felt it's really fast. Might be a feeling caused by faster UI updates. I read an informative post from Jeff Atwood few years back on Windows File Copying. but what my specific questions are Is (Ubuntu) Linux file performance is better than Windows-7? Are both algorithms, Windows and Linux is making use of multiple threads and pipelining mechanism to improve the speed? If yes, which one is better?

    Read the article

  • laptop and it drastically reduces the performance of my machine as the Indexer is constantly running

    - by Sakthy
    I get the below error on my laptop and it drastically reduces the performance of my machine as the Indexer is constantly running. Please identify a solution except re-installation ? Faulting application name: SearchIndexer.exe, version: 7.0.7600.16385, time stamp: 0x4a5bcdd0 Faulting module name: TQUERY.DLL, version: 7.0.7600.16385, time stamp: 0x4a5bdb21 Exception code: 0xc0000006 Fault offset: 0x0002e5c2 Faulting process id: 0xbe0 Faulting application start time: 0x01cd0752bd78cce1 Faulting application path: C:\Windows\system32\SearchIndexer.exe Faulting module path: C:\Windows\system32\TQUERY.DLL Report Id: 16ce8a2f-7346-11e1-840a-a92a5ee507c3 EventID: 1000

    Read the article

  • Which type of motherboard i should buy and why?

    - by metal gear solid
    If budged is not a problem. I just need best performance with less power consumption. I can purchase any cabinet , power supply and Motherboard. Is Power supply has any relation with Form factor? Is the size of motherboard and number of Slots only difference between all form factors? Is there any differences among form factors, related to performance of motherboard? Is bigger in Size (ATX) motherboard always better? Is it so smaller in Size motherboard will consume less power? What are pros and cons of each Form factor? What there are so many Form factor were created?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Disk fragmentation when dealing with many small files

    - by Zorlack
    On a daily basis we generate about 3.4 Million small jpeg files. We also delete about 3.4 Million 90 day old images. To date, we've dealt with this content by storing the images in a hierarchical manner. The heriarchy is something like this: /Year/Month/Day/Source/ This heirarchy allows us to effectively delete days worth of content across all sources. The files are stored on a Windows 2003 server connected to a 14 disk SATA RAID6. We've started having significant performance issues when writing-to and reading-from the disks. This may be due to the performance of the hardware, but I suspect that disk fragmentation bay be a culprit at well. Some people have recommended storing the data in a database, but I've been hesitant to do this. An other thought was to use some sort of container file, like a VHD or something. Does anyone have any advice for mitigating this kind of fragmentation?

    Read the article

  • How badly do SSDs degrade without TRIM?

    - by joev
    SSDs have been out for a few years, and have seen all kinds of usage patterns. Windows and Linux support the TRIM command, with Mac OS still trailing behind here. Update (2 Aug 2011): It appears OSX Lion has support for TRIM in Apple-branded SSDs. There is a utility that enables TRIM in non-Apple SSDs I'm sure plenty of Mac users (and pre-TRIM version of Win/Linux) have SSDs. So, to you folks: have you noticed a degradation of SSD performance during its lifetime? How long have you been using the SSD, and how bad is the degradation? I'm assuming that even at its most degraded state, a modern SSD would still smoke a traditional hard drive in terms of performance.

    Read the article

  • Storage sizing for virtual machines

    - by njo
    I am currently doing research to determine the consolidation ratio my company could expect should we start using a virtualization platform. I find myself continually running into a dead end when researching how to translate observed performance (weeks of perfmon data) to hdd array requirements for a virtualization server. I am familiar with the concept of IOPs, but they seem to be an overly simplistic measurement that fails to take into account cache, write combining, etc. Is there a seminal work on storage array performance analysis that I'm missing? This seems like an area where hearsay and 'black magic' have taken over for cold, hard fact.

    Read the article

  • SQL Express 2008 R2 on Amazon EC2 instance: tons of free memory, poor performance

    - by gravyface
    The old SQL Express 2005 was running on a low-end single Xeon CPU Dell server, RAID 5 7200 disks, 2 GB RAM (SBS 2003). I have not done any baseline measurements on the old physical server, but the Web app is used by half a dozen people (maybe 2 concurrently), so I figured "how bad can an Amazon EC2 instance be?". It's pretty horrible: a difference of 8 seconds of load time on one screen. First of all, I'm not a SQL guru, but here's what I've tried: Had a Small Instance, now running a c1.medium (High Cpu Medium) Windows 2008 32-bit R2 EBS-backed instance running IIS 7.5 and SQL Express 2008 R2. No noticeable improvement. Changed Page File from fixed 256 to Automatic. Setup a Striped Mirror from within Disk Management with two attached 1 GB EBS volumes. Moved database and transaction log, left everything else on the boot EBS volume. No noticeable change. Looked at memory, ~1000 MB of physical memory free (1.7 GB total). Changed SQL instance to use a minimum of 1024 RAM; restarted server, no change in memory usage. SQL still only using ~28MB of RAM(!). So I'm thinking: this database is tiny (28MB), why isn't the whole thing cached in RAM? Surely that would speed up performance. The transaction log is 241 MB. Seems kind of large in comparison -- has this not been committed? Is it a cause of performance degradation? I recall something about Recovery Models and log sizes somewhere in my travels, but not positive. Another thing: the old server was running SQL Express 2005. Not sure if that has any impact, but I tried changing the compatibility level from SQL 2000 to 2008, but that had no effect. Anyways, what else can I try here? Seems ridiculous to throw more virtual hardware at this thing. I know I/O is going to be rough on EBS volumes, but surely others are successfully running small .NET/SQL apps on reasonably priced instances?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Best way to set up servers for .NET performance

    - by msigman
    Assume we have 3 physical servers and let's say we are only interested in performance, and not reliability. Is it better to give each server a specific function or make them all duplicates and split the traffic between them? In other words dedicate 1 as DB server, 1 as web server, and 1 as reporting server/data warehouse, or better to put all three services on each server and use them as web farm?

    Read the article

  • Should I host my entire web application using https?

    - by user54455
    Actually my only requirement for using SSL encryption is that when a user logs in, the password is transferred encrypted. However after reading a bit about protocol switching, that an HTTPS session can't be taken over as an HTTP session etc. I've been asking myself if it's so bad to just have the entire application use HTTPS only. What are the reasons against it and how would you rate their importance? Please also mention: How much performance do I lose on server side (roughly)? How much performance do I lose on client side (roughly)? Any other problems on server / client side?

    Read the article

  • Which type of Form factor (motherboard) i should buy and why?

    - by metal gear solid
    If budged is not a problem. I just need best performance with less power consumption. I can purchase any cabinet , power supply and Motherboard. Is Power supply has any relation with Form factor, should i purchase PSU according to Form factor of motherboard? Is the size of motherboard and number of Slots only difference between all form factors? Is there any differences among form factors, related to performance of motherboard? Is bigger in Size (ATX) motherboard always better? Is it so smaller in Size motherboard will consume less power? What are pros and cons of each Form factor? What there are so many Form factor were created?

    Read the article

  • Please Help Me Optimize This

    - by Zero
    I'm trying to optimize my .htaccess file to avoid performance issues. In my .htaccess file I have something that looks like this: RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} bigbadbot [NC,OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} otherbot1 [NC,OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} otherbot2 [NC] RewriteRule ^.* - [F,L] The first rewrite rule (bigbadbot) handles about 100 requests per second, whereas the other two rewrite rules below it only handle a few requests per hour. My question is, since the first rewrite rule (bigbadbot) handles about 99% of the traffic would it be better to place these rules into two separate rulesets? For example: RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} bigbadbot [NC] RewriteRule ^.* - [F,L] RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} otherbot1 [NC,OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} otherbot2 [NC] RewriteRule ^.* - [F,L] Can someone tell me what would be better in terms of performance? Has anyone ever benchmarked this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What is a proper server for this website

    - by zaidfarekh
    We are using zend framework, doctrine on our website, that will have the minimum of 2000 users daily, please consider that we prefer that the server has opcode caching. And any available technology that speeds up php performance. We have heard that zend server offers an optimal performance for php. Please recommend a hosting server or a vps plan, that can handle such an application. given that our application has some kind of social networking and it applies alot of ajax requests even in minimal usage of the website, for example in 30 min we may have up to 400 requests from an individual user. Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • perfmon.exe itself taking 52.71% of cpu on windows 7 after chrome dies?

    - by jamesmoorecode
    On my Windows 7 machine (build 7100, x64, Dell XPS M1710 laptop), I'm getting horrible performance after chrome crashes. I kill the chrome process from the Resource Monitor, but after that perfmon.exe itself is shown as taking about 50% of the cpu (52.31% right now). Quitting Performance Monitor, then starting it again, shows perfmon starting out with a reasonable CPU, but it quickly (ten seconds) shoots right back up. Suggestions? So far a reboot seems to be the only way to solve the problem. I'm assuming that the perfmon issue is just a symptom of the real problem. (Update, much later: this never got resolved. I'm not seeing the problem in the RTM Win7 + latest Chrome. Yes, it was a core 2 duo, so presumably Chrome was running full blast on one cpu.)

    Read the article

  • GTK+ (GTKSharp) poor performance in Windows

    - by nubela
    Hi, In my Mono (C#) project that is meant to be cross-platform, I am using the GTK for the UI. However one thing I noticed is, on my netbook in Archlinux, the performance is really speedy, so events such as mouse hover, and redrawing of widgets, etc, are really fast. Compared to windows (7) on dual core CPUs, the performance is really really weak. Which perplexes me. Am I doing something wrong that is warranting this difference in performance between OSes? What are some ways I can do to optimize GTK on Windows? Its really bad to take around 0.5 secs for a hover event to kick in whereas its almost immediate on a weak(er) netbook with Linux. My code is here for the GUI layer: http://code.google.com/p/subsynct/source/browse/branches/dev/subsync#subsync/GUI Thanks!

    Read the article

  • MDX performance vs. T-SQL

    - by SubPortal
    I have a database containing tables with more than 600 million records and a set of stored procedures that make complex search operations on the database. The performance of the stored procedures is so slow even with suitable indexes on the tables. The design of the database is a normal relational db design. I want to change the database design to be multidimensional and use the MDX queries instead of the traditional T-SQL queries but the question is: Is the MDX query better than the traditional T-SQL query with regard to performance? and if yes, to what extent will that improve the performance of the queries? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Why better isolation level means better performance in SQL Server

    - by Oleg Zhylin
    When measuring performance on my query I came up with a dependency between isolation level and elapsed time that was surprising to me READUNCOMMITTED - 409024 READCOMMITTED - 368021 REPEATABLEREAD - 358019 SERIALIZABLE - 348019 Left column is table hint, and the right column is elapsed time in microseconds (sys.dm_exec_query_stats.total_elapsed_time). Why better isolation level gives better performance? This is a development machine and no concurrency whatsoever happens. I would expect READUNCOMMITTED to be the fasted due to less locking overhead. Update: I did measure this with DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS DBCC FREEPROCCACHE issued and Profiler confirms there're no cache hits happening. Update2: The query in question is an OLAP one and we need to run it as fast as possible. Closing the production server from outside world to get the computation done is not out of question if this gives performance benefits.

    Read the article

  • IN statement performance in PostgreSQL (and in general)

    - by Vasil
    I know this has probably been asked before, but I can't find it with SO's search. Lets say i've TABLE1 and TABLE2, who should I expect the performance of a query such as this: SELECT * FROM TABLE1 WHERE id IN SUBQUERY_ON_TABLE2; as the number of rows in TABLE1 and TABLE2 grow and id is a primary key on TABLE1. Yes, I know using IN is such a n00b mistake, but TABLE2 has a generic relation (django generic relation) to multiple other tables so I can't think of another way to filter the data. At what (aproximate) ammount of rows in TABLE1 and TABLE2 should I expect to notice performance issues because of this? Will performance degrade linearly, exponentially etc. depending on the number of rows?

    Read the article

  • Performance hit from C++ style casts?

    - by Trevor Boyd Smith
    I am new to C++ style casts and I am worried that using C++ style casts will ruin the performance of my application because I have a real-time-critical deadline in my interrupt-service-routine. I heard that some casts will even throw exceptions! I would like to use the C++ style casts because it would make my code more "robust". However, if there is any performance hit then I will probably not use C++ style casts and will instead spend more time testing the code that uses C-style casts. Has anyone done any rigorous testing/profiling to compare the performance of C++ style casts to C style casts? What were your results? What conclusions did you draw?

    Read the article

  • Stored procedure performance randomly plummets; trivial ALTER fixes it. Why?

    - by gWiz
    I have a couple of stored procedures on SQL Server 2005 that I've noticed will suddenly take a significantly long time to complete when invoked from my ASP.NET MVC app running in an IIS6 web farm of four servers. Normal, expected completion time is less than a second; unexpected anomalous completion time is 25-45 seconds. The problem doesn't seem to ever correct itself. However, if I ALTER the stored procedure (even if I don't change anything in the procedure, except to perhaps add a space to the script created by SSMS Modify command), the completion time reverts to expected completion time. IIS and SQL Server are running on separate boxes, both running Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition. SQL Server is Standard Edition. All machines have dual Xeon E5450 3GHz CPUs and 4GB RAM. SQL Server is accessed using its TCP/IP protocol over gigabit ethernet (not sure what physical medium). The problem is present from all web servers in the web farm. When I invoke the procedure from a query window in SSMS on my development machine, the procedure completes in normal time. This is strange because I was under the impression that SSMS used the same SqlClient driver as in .NET. When I point my development instance of the web app to the production database, I again get the anomalous long completion time. If my SqlCommand Timeout is too short, I get System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding. Question: Why would performing ALTER on the stored procedure, without actually changing anything in it, restore the completion time to less than a second, as expected? Edit: To clarify, when the procedure is running slow for the app, it simultaneously runs fine in SSMS with the same parameters. The only difference I can discern is login credentials (next time I notice the behavior, I'll be checking from SSMS with the same creds). The ultimate goal is to get the procs to sustainably run with expected speed without requiring occasional intervention. Resolution: I wanted to to update this question in case others are experiencing this issue. Following the leads of the answers below, I was able to consistently reproduce this behavior. In order to test, I utilize sp_recompile and pass it one of the susceptible sprocs. I then initiate a website request from my browser that will invoke the sproc with atypical parameters. Lastly, I initiate a website request to a page that invokes the sproc with typical parameters, and observe that the request does not complete because of a SQL timeout on the sproc invocation. To resolve this on SQL Server 2005, I've added OPTIMIZE FOR hints to my SELECT. The sprocs that were vulnerable all have the "all-in-one" pattern described in this article. This pattern is certainly not ideal but was a necessary trade-off given the timeframe for the project.

    Read the article

  • CPU/JVM/JBoss 7 slows down over time

    - by lukas
    I'm experiencing performance slow down on JBoss 7.1.1 Final. I wrote simple program that demostrates this behavior. I generate an array of 100,000 of random integers and run bubble sort on it. @Model public class PerformanceTest { public void proceed() { long now = System.currentTimeMillis(); int[] arr = new int[100000]; for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { arr[i] = (int) (Math.random() * 200000); } long now2 = System.currentTimeMillis(); System.out.println((now2 - now) + "ms took to generate array"); now = System.currentTimeMillis(); bubbleSort(arr); now2 = System.currentTimeMillis(); System.out.println((now2 - now) + "ms took to bubblesort array"); } public void bubbleSort(int[] arr) { boolean swapped = true; int j = 0; int tmp; while (swapped) { swapped = false; j++; for (int i = 0; i < arr.length - j; i++) { if (arr[i] > arr[i + 1]) { tmp = arr[i]; arr[i] = arr[i + 1]; arr[i + 1] = tmp; swapped = true; } } } } } Just after I start the server, it takes approximately 22 seconds to run this code. After few days of JBoss 7.1.1. running, it takes 330 sec to run this code. In both cases, I launch the code when the CPU utilization is very low (say, 1%). Any ideas why? I run the server with following arguments: -Xms1280m -Xmx2048m -XX:MaxPermSize=2048m -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true -Dorg.jboss.resolver.warning=true -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=3600000 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=3600000 -Djboss.modules.system.pkgs=org.jboss.byteman -Djava.awt.headless=true -Duser.timezone=UTC -Djboss.server.default.config=standalone-full.xml -Xrunjdwp:transport=dt_socket,address=8787,server=y,suspend=n I'm running it on Linux 2.6.32-279.11.1.el6.x86_64 with java version "1.7.0_07". It's within J2EE applicaiton. I use CDI so I have a button on JSF page that will call method "proceed" on @RequestScoped component PerformanceTest. I deploy this as separate war file and even if I undeploy other applications, it doesn't change the performance. It's a virtual machine that is sharing CPUs with another machine but that one doesn't consume anything. Here's yet another observation: when the server is after fresh start and I run the bubble sort, It utilizes 100% of one processor core. It never switches to another core or drops utilization below 95%. However after some time the server is running and I'm experiencing the performance problems, the method above is utilizing CPU core usually 100%, however I just found out from htop that this task is being switched very often to other cores. That is, at the beginning it's running on core #1, after say 2 seconds it's running on #5 then after say 2 seconds #8 etc. Furthermore, the utilization is not kept at 100% at the core but sometimes drops to 80% or even lower. For the server after fresh start, even though If I simulate a load, it never switches the task to another core.

    Read the article

  • What a Performance! MySQL 5.5 and InnoDB 1.1 running on Oracle Linux

    - by zeynep.koch(at)oracle.com
    The MySQL performance team in Oracle has recently completed a series of benchmarks comparing Read / Write and Read-Only performance of MySQL 5.5 with the InnoDB and MyISAM storage engines. Compared to MyISAM, InnoDB delivered 35x higher throughput on the Read / Write test and 5x higher throughput on the Read-Only test, with 90% scalability across 36 CPU cores. A full analysis of results and MySQL configuration parameters are documented in a new whitepaperIn addition to the benchmark, the new whitepaper, also includes:- A discussion of the use-cases for each storage engine- Best practices for users considering the migration of existing applications from MyISAM to InnoDB- A summary of the performance and scalability enhancements introduced with MySQL 5.5 and InnoDB 1.1.The benchmark itself was based on Sysbench, running on AMD Opteron "Magny-Cours" processors, and Oracle Linux with the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel You can learn more about MySQL 5.5 and InnoDB 1.1 from here and download it from here to test whether you witness performance gains in your real-world applications.  By Mat Keep

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89  | Next Page >