Search Results

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

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 88/527 | < Previous Page | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >

  • Win 2008 R2 - copying TO disk is very slow, copying FROM is more or less okay

    - by avs099
    I have Windows 2008 R2 SP1 with 4 identical SATA disks (Seagate Barracude 7200) in RAID 5 array. It has 4Gb of memory; all recent updates are installed. Problem: when I copy large file from one folder to another, I get about 10MB/s average speed. When I read this file from network share via 1Gbps connection - I get about 25-30 MB/s. Both numbers seems to be low for me - but specifically I'm very frustrated with low write speed. there is no antivirus, no hyper-v, it's just a fileserver - i when i do my tests nobody else reads/write from it (we have only 4 people in a team, so I'm sure). Not sure if that matters, but there is only 1 logic disk "C" with all available space (1400 GB). I'm not an admin at all, so I have no idea where to look and what other information to provide. I did run performance monitor with "% idle time", "avg bytes read", "avg byte write" - here is the screenshot: I'm not sure why there are such obvious spikes. Any idea? Please let me know if you need me to provide more information - what counters should I check, etc. I'm very eager to get this solved. Thank you. UPDATE: we have another Windows 2008 R2 SP1 server with 2 RAID1 arrays - one is disk C (where windows is installed, another one is disk E). It is running Hyper-V and does not have antivirus. I noticed the following behavior when I copy large file (few GBs): C - C: about 50MB/sec C - E: about 55MB/sec E - E: 8MB/sec!!! E - C: 8MB/sec!!! what could cause this?? E drive is RAID1 array from same Seagate Barracuda 1TB drives..

    Read the article

  • How to monitor the total number of SQL Server logins

    - by Shiraz Bhaiji
    We have an SQL Server 2005 that is the backend of a web application. The application is partly SharePoint and partly web services accessing the database via Entity Framework. In the performance monitor I am seeing average SQL Logins is ca, 60 per second (max 170), but the average logouts is less than 1. Where can I see the total number of SQL Server logins? Anyone have an idea what could be causing this?

    Read the article

  • Why are there many processes listed under the same title in htop?

    - by javanix
    Can anyone explain to me why there are sometimes 10 or 15 processes with the same title and "stats" listed in htop? I'm guessing there are multiple threads running - but that many of them obviously couldn't be running concurrently. Is there any sort of performance hit taken if a process uses say, 15 non-concurrent threads vs. 10 non-concurrent threads?

    Read the article

  • Why is my new Phenom II 965 BE not significantly faster than my old Athlon 64 X2 4600+?

    - by Software Monkey
    I recently rebuilt my 5 year old computer. I upgraded all core components, in particular from an Athlon 64 X2 4600+ at 2.4 GHz with DDR2 800 to a Phenom II 965 BE (quad core) at 3.6 GHz with DDR3 1333 (actually 1600, but testing consistently detected memory errors at 1600). The motherboard is also much newer and better. The HDD's (x3), DVD writer and card reader are the same. The BIOS memory config is auto-everything except the base timing which I overrode to 1T instead of 2T. The BIOS CPU multiplier is slightly over-clocked to 3.6 GHz from the stock 3.4 GHz. I noticed compiling Java is slower than I expected. As it happens I have some (single-threaded) Java pattern-matching code which is CPU and memory bound and for which I have performance numbers recorded on a number of hardware platforms, including my old system. So I did a test run on the new equipment and was stunned to find that the numbers are only slightly better than my old system, about 25%. The data set it is operating on is a 148,975 character array, which should easily fit in caches, but in any event the new CPU has larger caches all around. The system was, of course, otherwise idle for the test and the test run is a timed 10 seconds to eliminate scheduling anomalies. A long while ago, when I upgraded only memory from DD2 667 to DDR2 800 there was no change in performance of this test, which subjectively supports that the test cycle does not need to (significantly) access main memory, but yes it is creating and garbage collecting a large number of objects in the process of this test (low millions of matches are found for the pattern set). I am about 99.999% certain the code hasn't changed since I last ran it on 2009-03-17 - but I can't easily retest the old hardware, because it is currently in pieces on my work-bench waiting to be built into a new computer for my kids. Note that Windows (XP) reports a CPU speed of 795 MHz unless I have some thing running. With stuff running it seems to jump all over the place each time I use ALT-Pause to display the system properties, everywhere from 795 MHz to 3.4 Ghz. So why might my shiny new hardware under-performing so badly? EDIT: The old memory was Mushkin DDR2 800 with timings set for auto which should have been 5-5-5-12. The new memory is Corsair DDR3 1600, running at 1333 with timings also auto which are 9-9-9-21. In both cases they are a paired set of dual channel DIMMs. I was waiting to ensure my system was stable before tweaking with memory timings.

    Read the article

  • No architecture vs architecture-specific binaries

    - by Aaron
    From what I understand, the noarch suffix means that it's architecture independent and should work universally. If this is the case, why should I install architecture-specific packages at all? Why not just go straight for the noarch? Are there optimizations in the x86 or x64 binaries that aren't found in the noarch binaries? What's best for high performance applications? Folding@Home does this with their controller:

    Read the article

  • Any simple tools for re-loading a specified web page periodically (Windows)?

    - by Luke
    I've got a website that is exhibiting slow performance on the first load and would like to attempt to load it every 5 minutes or so to keep the cache fresh. Are there any simple tools to accomplish this? Scheduled tasks doesn't have quite the time resolution I need. The tricky thing is that this site uses Windows authentication so a wget script won't work. I'm also worried about instantiating a bunch of copies of internet explorer or attempting to kill iexplore.exe tasks blindly.

    Read the article

  • How to clear Windows disk read cache?

    - by Sebastiaan Megens
    For performance testing I need to clear Windows' disk read cache. I tried googling but I couldn't find anything other than rebooting or other manual stuff. Before I give in and do that, I'd like to know if anyone knows of a way to clear Windows disk read cache. I'm testing on Windows 7, but I'm also interested in Windows XP solutions.

    Read the article

  • What is good usage scenario for Rackspace Cloud Files CDN (powered by AKAMAI) [closed]

    - by Andrew Smith
    I have just setup my website as static page via Rackspace CDN / Akamai. www.example.co.uk is an alias for d9771e6f24423091aebc-345678991111238fabcdef6114258d0e1.r61.cf3.rackcdn.com. d9771e6f24423091aebc-345678991111238fabcdef6114258d0e1.r61.cf3.rackcdn.com is an alias for a61.rackcdn.com. a61.rackcdn.com is an alias for a61.rackcdn.com.mdc.edgesuite.net. a61.rackcdn.com.mdc.edgesuite.net is an alias for a63.dscg10.akamai.net. a63.dscg10.akamai.net has address 63.166.98.41 a63.dscg10.akamai.net has address 63.166.98.40 a63.dscg10.akamai.net has IPv6 address 2001:428:4c02::cda8:ecb9 a63.dscg10.akamai.net has IPv6 address 2001:428:4c02::cda8:ed09 The HTTP header: HTTP/1.0 200 OK Last-Modified: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:27:41 GMT ETag: fdf9e14b77def799e09e8ce815a521da X-Timestamp: 1350689261.23382 Content-Type: text/html X-Trans-Id: tx457979be3bd746c2b4e5403a1189cdbc Cache-Control: public, max-age=900 Expires: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:18:56 GMT Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:03:56 GMT Content-Length: 7124 Connection: keep-alive I am wondering, if it's really the fastest solution to power the website? By investigating it thru http://www.just-ping.com/ it seems, that from many places the ping is very high, and during quick investigation I found that they use GeoIP to resolve addresses based on WHOIS, which is not accurate and because of that from many places the ping is above 300ms (for example, if ISP is in balgladore and request is routed to bangladore even if it's 300ms, for period of 1 month), while by just using Amazon Web Services and Route 53 Anycast DNS servers and only 4 EC2 instances it seems that for example India is always below 100ms, while using Akamai it goes above 300ms in some cases, and this is because Route 53 is using BGP. By quickly checking the Akamai, it seems that they are not getting feedback from the traffic - the high ping stays constant even if I keep downloading large files and videos, which is opposite to what they say on their website. They state, that they optimize the performance by taking feedback from the requests, while it seems they just use GeoIP with per City resolution (which are mostly big cities). Because of this, AWS with Route 53 / Anycast DNS seems to be much more reliable, as well EdgeCast which is using BGP, but I dont know how much does it cost to deploy static website. Actually, I dont know if EdgeCast is not a lie, because from isolated places there are many errors - so their performance is at the cost of quality of delivery, because of BGP switching the routes during transfer of large files. So I was wondering, what is really Akamai good for, because they dont seem to pose any strength in any field in what I do understand now, except they offer some software based WAF on their website, but what I really care about is the core distribiution, so the question is? Is really Akamai good for Videos? For static websites? ??? I found so far AWS most usable with most consistent ping and stable transfers.

    Read the article

  • Can anybody recommend a Windows system monitoring tool similar to iPulse for the Mac?

    - by John MacIntyre
    Occasionally, my PC grinds to a halt, and by the time I get any monitoring tools open (don't forget my PC is slow at this point), performance has picked up a bit. A friend recently told me he uses iPulse, which is awesome since it's always running, and you can just glance at it when there's an issue to see what is happening. Unfortunately it's only for the Mac. Does anybody know of a good Windows system monitoring tool similar to iPulse for the Mac?

    Read the article

  • Can I enable discards on a LUKS-encrypted ssd drive in RHEL6 (and do I need to)?

    - by Dan Nestor
    I have a RHEL 6.4 workstation, running on a LUKS-encrypted LV residing on a SSD. I found RedHat documentation stating that dm_crypt does not currently support TRIM passthrough, however I also found other sources that state the opposite (albeit for other distributions) and even that discards are not needed for recent SSD drives which use some sort of automatic garbage collection. So: 1) Can I enable TRIM/discards with my setup? 2) Do I need to, for optimal disk performance? Thanks for your thoughts.

    Read the article

  • Are there any reasons to duplicate table in the same database ?

    - by bob
    Let says we have several MySQL server, one master and some slaves. A member table which contains more than 5.000.000 peoples. Are there any reasons (performance, atomicity, etc..) to use duplicate tables like member_1, member_2, member_3 and then switch randomly when doing operation on it ? (especialy SELECT query) ?

    Read the article

  • Drupal on an NFS share has terrible performance

    - by Marcus
    We have a setup where a Drupal 7 site with the following setup - a VMware ESXi 4.1 host server running a web vm and an NFS VM. The web VM is using Apache and mod_php. The site is still in development thus we have to turn off all forms of caching due to the frequently-updated files. Each page request takes around 15-20 seconds to complete. Profiling the PHP code shows that the vast majority of time (normally over 90%) is taking by all the is_dir(), is_file() function calls that load up the modules. I've increased PHP's realpath cache size to several megs and an strace shows that the lstat calls then drop from over 200 to around 6 and stat() decreases a bit (around 600 calls). However, while this has shaved off quite a bit of time, I am simply unable to break past the 10 second per request barrier. Is there a way to get better performance out of this setup that doesn't involve caching? Configs and stats: VMs: web - Centos 6 64bt, 2.5GB RAM, normal CPU/HD prioritisation nfs - Centos 6 64bt, 2GB RAM, normal CPU priority, high HD priority PHP: 32M realpath cache size (it's this high for testing purposes) NFS: ~]# egrep -v '#|^$' /etc/nfsmount.conf [ NFSMount_Global_Options ] Defaultvers=4 Ac=False Rsize=32k Wsize=32k Bsize=32k Reading speeds via NFS are not an issue a dd of a 100M test file using 32k blocks returns: 3200+0 records in 3200+0 records out 104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 1.84984 s, 56.7 MB/s real 0m1.857s user 0m0.007s sys 0m0.330s Strace on Apache process with empty realpath cache: % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 50.78 1.157452 337 3434 28 stat 32.58 0.742656 628 1182 425 open 9.29 0.211788 762 278 1 lstat 3.17 0.072322 0 237865 write 2.45 0.055839 490 114 13 access 0.45 0.010262 43 237 brk 0.34 0.007725 10 811 74 read 0.28 0.006340 9 679 fstat 0.22 0.005069 18 281 poll 0.20 0.004533 6 698 getdents 0.09 0.001960 10 190 mmap 0.05 0.001065 14 74 accept4 0.04 0.001000 333 3 chdir 0.03 0.000750 4 190 munmap 0.01 0.000339 0 836 close 0.01 0.000247 3 75 writev 0.00 0.000068 0 611 fcntl 0.00 0.000063 1 77 shutdown 0.00 0.000000 0 1 lseek 0.00 0.000000 0 5 rt_sigaction 0.00 0.000000 0 1 rt_sigprocmask 0.00 0.000000 0 3 setitimer 0.00 0.000000 0 5 socket 0.00 0.000000 0 5 5 connect 0.00 0.000000 0 74 getsockname 0.00 0.000000 0 15 setsockopt 0.00 0.000000 0 5 getcwd 0.00 0.000000 0 1 futex ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- Strace after realpaths are cached % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 60.14 1.371006 484 2831 28 stat 31.79 0.724705 627 1155 425 open 3.53 0.080354 0 237865 write 2.65 0.060433 530 114 13 access 0.43 0.009913 99 100 brk 0.38 0.008730 11 804 74 read 0.35 0.007910 12 675 fstat 0.30 0.006775 10 654 getdents 0.13 0.003065 11 281 poll 0.09 0.002000 333 6 1 lstat 0.07 0.001545 2 807 close 0.05 0.001063 14 74 accept4 0.04 0.001000 6 179 mmap 0.02 0.000404 2 179 munmap 0.01 0.000271 4 75 writev 0.01 0.000212 0 611 fcntl 0.01 0.000129 2 77 shutdown 0.00 0.000022 0 74 getsockname 0.00 0.000000 0 1 lseek 0.00 0.000000 0 5 rt_sigaction 0.00 0.000000 0 1 rt_sigprocmask 0.00 0.000000 0 3 setitimer 0.00 0.000000 0 3 socket 0.00 0.000000 0 3 3 connect 0.00 0.000000 0 15 setsockopt 0.00 0.000000 0 5 getcwd 0.00 0.000000 0 3 chdir ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- Mount: nfs.xxx.xxx.xxx:/path/to/website/files on /path/to/website/files type nfs (rw,hard,intr,noac,vers=4,addr=xx.xx.xx.xx,clientaddr=xx.xx.xx.xx) Any help is, naturally, appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Faster zlib alternatives

    - by BarsMonster
    I wonder, if there are any faster builds of zlib around with more advanced optimizations? If it's possible to optimize it using SSE instructions or Intel C++ compiller, or some trick which were patented earlier (I know patents were a serious limitation during gzip/zlib development), have anyone bothered to implement that? I am especially interested in compression speed, which have a direct impact on high-performance web-services serving static & dynamic content.

    Read the article

  • Is CloudLinux considered to be a stable webserver

    - by Saif Bechan
    I am currently running several websites on a CentOS 5.4 system. I have the choice to switch to Cloudlinux. It is said to be better at handling several websites. Does anyone have any information to share on CloudLinux. This can be on security, stability and just overall performance of the system.

    Read the article

  • Echo 404 directly from nginx to improve performance

    - by user64204
    I am in charge of production servers serving static content for a website. Those servers are constantly being crawled by bots looking for potential exploits (which isn't that much of a problem security-wise because no application can be reached behind the web server) but generates thousands of 404 per day, sometimes per hour. I am looking into ways of blocking those requests but it's tricky (you want to make sure you don't block legitimate traffic and these bots are becoming more and more clever at looking like they're legit) and is going to take me a while to find an acceptable solution. In the meantime I would like to reduce the performance impact of serving those 404 pages. Indeed we're using nginx which by default is configured to serve it's 404 page from the disk (This can be changed using the error_page directive but in the end the 404 will either have to be served from disk or from another external source (e.g. upstream application which would be worst)) which isn't ideal. I ran a test with ab on my local machine with a basic configuration: in one case I echo a message directly from nginx so the disk isn't touched at all, in the other case I hit a missing page and nginx serves its 404 from disk. server { # [...] the default nginx stuff location / { } location /this_page_exists { echo "this page was found"; } } Here are the test results (my laptop has Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM + SSD in case you're wondering why they are so high): $ ab -n 500000 -c 1000 http://localhost/this_page_exists Requests per second: 25609.16 [#/sec] (mean) $ ab -n 500000 -c 1000 http://localhost/this_page_doesnt_exists Requests per second: 22905.72 [#/sec] (mean) As you can see, returning a value with echo is 11% ((25609-22905)÷22905×100) faster than serving the 404 page from disk. Accordingly I would like to echo a simple 404 Page not Found string from nginx. I tried many things so far but they all failed, essentially the idea was this: location / { try_files $uri @not_found; } location @not_found { echo "404 - Page not found"; } The problem is that as soon as the echo directive is used, the http response code is set to 200. I tried changing that by doing error_page 200 = 400 but that breaks the configuration. How can I serve a 404 page directly from nginx? (without hacking the source which may be might next step)

    Read the article

  • Why does Kerberos need Ticket Granting Server?

    - by Narsil
    It's probably something fundamental but I can't find a certain statement. Why can't KDC authenticate then provide the service ticket directly. Is it about security or performance or some other thing? Since users don't log in each time they request a service and assumably they will keep logged in for a long time, AS doesn't seem so busy. Why do they have to be seperated?

    Read the article

  • Computer "Server"

    - by user328379
    so at home we had the idea of instead of buying 3 different pc's we would somehow create a "server" for the computers where a cable would come to our screens and keyboard and mouses, so the actual pc was somewhere else in the house with all the others. Does such a thing exist? And is it possible to have such a thing for high performance workflow? (Compiling, High-End Games, just as if it was a separate pc )

    Read the article

  • AWS Free Usage Tier + Cloudflare... possible?

    - by crashintoty
    If I throw my MySQL/PHP app up on a Amazon EC2 instance (using their AWS Free Usage Tier program) and couple it with CloudFlare (the free plan of course) roughly how many daily visitors can I comfortably handle before performance starts to suffer? Just looking for a rough estimate or educated guess - I understand this setup might be less than ideal but I'm still very curious nonetheless. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Up-to-date Comparison of High-Speed USB Flash Drives

    - by Zoredache
    I am looking for comparison of the performance of USB flash drives. I have found several older comparisons, but I am trying to find a more up-to-date comparisons that apply to the larger storage sizes (32-128GB). I can try looking up the specs of various drives, but vendors have been known to exaggerate, or use numbers that are on accurate in tests that do not reflect actual usage. I was hoping to find 3rd party site which had perform testing.

    Read the article

  • Clean install vs disk image

    - by Thanos
    Once a year I am making a clean install on windows, in order to keep my system fast. After posting a question on making a bootable windows usb with exe programs where I was adviced to make a disk image, a new question rose. What is the difference in making a disk image and performing a clean install on windows? Which is better in terms of speed, general performance, value for time and transfering between different computers?

    Read the article

  • How to measure TCP connection time in Linux

    - by Paul Draper
    I want to measure the overhead in creating a TCP connection. I know of many tools like hping and netperf, but they seem oriented at measuring latency. I want to know how long the 3-way handshake takes, and allocating any buffers, etc., and then closing it. So I want to open a real, legitimate TCP connection, and then close it. Are there any tools that will do that and help me measure performance?

    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 | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >