Search Results

Search found 13249 results on 530 pages for 'virtualized performance'.

Page 95/530 | < Previous Page | 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102  | Next Page >

• Blank desktop when logging into a Virtualized Windows 2008 Terminal Server?

  - by Rachel

  We have a Virtualized Terminal Server running Windows Server 2008. When the admin user logs in, everything is fine. When anyone else logs in, their desktop and start menu is blank (they have the taskbar, start button, and quick launch links though). If I go into Windows Explorer, I can see icons in their desktop folder (although the icon image is missing and it is just displaying the generic icon), but can't run any of them. If I login with a user that is part of the Administrator group in Active directory, I get the same behavior except I can launch the programs found in the Desktop Folder of Windows Explorer. I cannot drag these items out onto the desktop though - The cursor doesn't allow me to drop them. From Task Manager I can see that explorer.exe and dwm.exe are both running. The Authenticated Users and Interactive groups are both under the Users group, along with our network's Domain Users group. Does anyone know why this is happening and how I can fix it? Also, not sure if it's related but about 1 in every 3 logins just hangs at a completely blank blue screen (no start button, taskbar, or quick launch buttons) and needs to be disconnected / reset by an admin. Edit I just noticed that the desktop itself doesn't even respond to click events. It's almost like the entire desktop is missing. At first I thought it didn't respond to right-click events because of an AD policy, but then I noticed if you open the Start Menu and click the desktop, the start menu doesn't shut like it should

  Read the article

• How to compare old CPU to new CPU?

  - by Lasse V. Karlsen

  I hope this question doesn't get closed at once :) I have an old laptop, a Compaq NC4200, which is going its final laps around the track these days. Battery is dead, and everything kinda runs slow. It also has only 1GB of memory, and even though I don't know if it can take more, I probably wouldn't be able to get hold of any that matches without having to special order it. The size, however, has been ideal for my usage pattern, so I'm looking to replace it with a similarly sized laptop, at least in the same size category. However, it's been a while since I tried keeping track of CPUs, so I have a question. The old laptop has a Intel Pentium M 760 1.86GHz processor. One laptop I found online has a Intel Pentium SU4100 1.3GHz dual-core. This type of processor seems to be quite common in the price and size-range I've been looking. What kind of relative performance boost could I expect from the old one to the new one? I am not expecting a "about 7.45x speed", but some indication would be nice. For instance, dual-core tells me it might be akin to 2.6GHz, but I assume I can't simply compare 1.86GHz to 2.6GHz and expect the new one to run about 1.4x as fast, I expect more these days. Or is that unrealistic for this kind of processor? Do I need to up my price range and go for a 2+ GHz processor?

  Read the article

• What do different patterns mean in Windows 8 file copy dialog

  - by MainMa

  When copying or extracting files, Windows 8 shows the chart with the speed of the operation. I noticed several patterns: Randomness, High speed at the beginning, then low speed during the most part of the operation, Mostly constant speed. 1. Randomness/nice mountains. 2. High speed at the beginning, then low speed during the most part of the operation. 3. Low speed at the beginning, then high speed during the most part of the operation. (Similar to the previous image, but inverted) 3. Mostly constant speed. (Same as previous image, but without the fast start) I'm curious, what each of those patterns mean? Do some indicate that there may be a problem with hard disk performance? Why the nearly constant speed is so rare, even when copying a single large file from and to a spinning drive, or when copying a single large file or a bunch of small files from and to an SSD?

  Read the article

• Request bursting from web application Load Tests

  - by MaseBase

  I'm migrating our web and database hosting to a new environment on all new machines. I've recently performed a Load Test using WAPT to generate load from multiple distributed clients. The server has plenty of room to handle the traffic load, but I'm seeing an odd pattern of incoming traffic during the load tests. Here is the gist of our setup: Firewall server running MS Forefront TMG 2010 on Win 2k8 server Request routing done by IIS Application Request Routing on firewall machine Web server is a Hyper-V VM on the Database server (which is the host OS) These machines are hefty with dual-CPU's with six cores (12 total procs) Web server running IIS 7.5 Web applications built in ASP.NET 2.0, with 1 ISAPI filter (Url Rewrite) in front What I'm seeing during the load tests is that the requests all come through in bursts. Even though I have 7 different distributed clients sending traffic loads, the requests come through about 300-500 requests at a time. The performance monitor shows nearly all of the counters moving through this pattern, where a burst of requests comes in the req/sec jumps to 70, the queued requests jumps to 500, the current requests jumps up, the CPU jumps up, everything. Then once it's handled that group of requests, it has a lull for nearly 10 seconds where nearly nothing is happening. 0-5 req/sec, 0 queued requests, minimal CPU usage. Then after 10 seconds of inactivity, another burst comes through, spiking all of the counters once again. What I can't figure out is why the requests are coming through in bursts when I know that the load being generated is not sent that way, especially considering the various load-generating clients sending traffic all in different intervals with random think time's between each request. Is there something in the layers between Hyper-V or perhaps in the hardware which might cause this coalesce of requests together? Here is what i'm looking at, the highlighted metric is Requests/sec, but the others critical counter go with it: Requests Queued (which I'd obviously like to keep as close to 0 as possible). Any ideas on this?

  Read the article

• Load Testing a Security/Gateway Appliance

  - by Joel Coel

  In a couple weeks I will load testing a security/gateway appliance. We're a small residential college, and that "residential" means the traffic moving through the appliance is a bit like the Wild West. We have everything from Facebook to World of Warcraft, BitTorrent to Netflix, or Halo to YouTube... basically anything you might find in the home of a high-school or college aged person. Somewhere in there some real academic work gets done as well. We rely on our current appliance for traffic shaping, antivirus, malware filtering, intrusion detection on our servers, logging and abuse reporting, and even some content filtering. All this puts a decent load when we have students around, and I'm concerned about the ability of the new candidate to keep up. On paper it should handle things, but I'm worried. Prior experience is that vendors greatly over-report what an appliance can handle. The product also includes a licensed session limit, and I'm also worried that just a few misbehaving students could unwittingly bring us to that limit and cause service disruptions. I need to know this will work for our campus in order to commit to it. Going a performance level higher in that product takes the pricing way out of line with what we expect and have done in the past. What I need is a good way to load test this guy. My problem is that our current level of summer traffic is less than one percent of what it will be when students come back just six weeks from now. Any ideas on how to really stress this thing and see what it can do, in a way that will give me some clear ideas o. How that will scale for our campus? For the curious, I'm looking at a Watchguard 515, but it could be anything. If I were evaluating a competitor, I'd ask the same question.

  Read the article

• How to make a huge ram drive?

  - by Brandon Moore

  At my old job when a report was needed I could sit down with someone and pull up results and get immediate feedback, and then refine my queries and ultimately have the data we needed, in the format we needed within 30-90 minutes. I just started working for a new company with a database containing millions of records and I spent my whole 8 hours making a report that I feel I could have made in less than 2 hours if it were not for the massive amount of data the queries are working with, and the fact that I couldn't ask the person needing the data to sit down with me and give me feedback as I pulled up results as I am used to. So I am trying to think of how we can make the server faster... much faster, so that I can have the same level of productivity I'm used to. One thought that just came to mind is that memory is so cheap these days, and by my calculations I could buy 10 8gig ram sticks for 1000 bucks. What I have never heard of though is a device that would let me combine these into a huge ram drive. So I'd like to know if any such device exists, and if not what is the largest ram drive I could realistically make and how would I go about doing so? EDIT: To you guys who are saying the database shema needs to be analyzed... you can't make a query such as "Select f1, f2, f3, etc from SomeTable" run any faster by normalizing or indexing the table. What I'm talking about IS ABSOLUTELY a need for improved performance at the hardware level. I am used to having results come back to me in a few seconds, not a few minutes or much less a half an hour. Maybe that's what you guys are used to who have 100 billion record tables and you feel like that's fast, but I'm looking for results back from tables with about 10 million records to come back to me withing less than half a minute TOPS.

  Read the article

• Disk IO slow on ESXi, even slower on a VM (freeNAS + iSCSI)

  - by varesa

  I have a server with ESXi 5 and iSCSI attached network storage(4x1Tb Raid-Z on freenas 8.0.4). Those two machines are connected to each other with Gigabit ethernet. The raid-z volume is divided into three parts: two zvols, shared with iscsi, and one directly on top of zfs, shared with nfs and similar. I ssh'd into the freeNAS box, and did some testing on the disks. I used ddto test the third part of the disks (straight on top of ZFS). I copied a 4GB (2x the amount of RAM) block from /dev/zero to the disk, and the speed was 80MB/s. Other of the iSCSI shared zvols is a datastore for the ESXi. I did similar test with time dd .. there. Since the dd there did not give the speed, I divided the amount of data transfered by the time show by time. The result was around 30-40 MB/s. Thats about half of the speed from the freeNAS host! Then I tested the IO on a VM running on the same ESXi host. The VM was a light CentOS 6.0 machine, which was not really doing anything else at that time. There were no other VMs running on the server at the time, and the other two "parts" of the disk array were not used. A similar dd test gave me result of about 15-20 MB/s. That is again about half of the result on a lower level! Of course the is some overhead in raid-z - zfs - zvolume - iSCSI - VMFS - VM, but I don't expect it to be that big. I belive there must be something wrong in my system. I have heard about bad performance of freeNAS's iSCSI, is that it? I have not managed to get any other "big" SAN OS to run on the box (NexentaSTOR, openfiler). Can you see any obvious problems with my setup?

  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

• Does AMD Cool n Quiet Slow Down Your System?

  - by Software Monkey

  I discovered today that having AMD Cool n Quiet enabled in my BIOS appears to be slowing down my Windows XP SP2 system by about 29% on memory & CPU intensive workloads. I was wondering if (a) anyone else had encountered this, (b) anyone can offer an explanation, (c) there are any negatives I need to be aware of if I keep AMD CnQ disabled. With some superficial testing so far, I don't immediately notice any difference with CnQ off (other than the performance being what I expected from this new hardware). It seems to ramp up the CPU fan a little bit as my program maxes out 1 core, but that's the same as with CnQ on. And when I let the system idle the CPU fan slows down and the systems as quiet as a mouse (after years of 6 small fans churning like they want to go into orbit it's nice to again have a system where I can hear the HDDs seeking). Bonus question: Does CnQ cause issues with system stability? I ask because the reason I disabled it was because I have had a few freezes and 1 spontaneous reboot with my new hardware.

  Read the article

• 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

• virtual disk image - file or partition

  - by tylerl

  I'm looking at the differences between using a file versus a partition to store a virtual disk image in VM use. The common knowledge is that partition-based images are faster than file-based images because of a decreased overhead. It makes sense, but I've never seen any actual numbers. My own testing bears out a different result. When I benchmark a direct-to-partition virtual disk, then format that same partition with ext4, create a virtual disk image stored on that ext4 filesystem, and then benchmark that, I see no speedup at all for the direct-to-partition virtual disk. Instead on some systems the file-based image is even faster (possibly due to host OS caching or something like that). This test was repeated many times on many systems, with fairly consistent results. So perhaps throwing out the performance justification, is it still considered better to use a partition rather than a virtual disk image? Is there some other reason why direct partition access is better than image files? Or perhaps is there some reason to go the other way around? Perhaps an advantage in one of the virtual disk file formats that you don't get with raw partition images?

  Read the article

• Server nearly unusable when doing disk writes

  - by Wikser

  My question closely relates to my last question here on serverfault. I was copying about 5GB from a 10 year old desktop computer to the server. The copy was done in Windows Explorer. In this situation I would assume the server to be bored by the dataflow. But as usual with this server, it really slowed down. At least I could work with the remote session, even there was some serious latency. The copy took its time (20min?). In this time I went to a colleague and he tried to log in in the same server via remote desktop (for some other reason). It took about a minute to get to the login screen, a minute to open the control panel, a minute to open the performance monitor, ... Icons were loading maybe one per second. We saw the following (from memory): CPU: 2% Avg. Queue Length: 50 Pages/sec: 115 (?) There was no other considerable activity on the server. The server seldom serves some ASP.NET pages, which became also very slow in this time. The relevant configuration is as follows: Windows 2003 SEAGATE ST3500631NS (7200 rpm, 500 GB) LSI MegaRAID based RAID 5 4 disks, 1 hot spare Write Through No read-ahead Direct Cache Mode Harddisk-Cache-Mode: off Is this normal behaviour for such a configuration? What measurements could give further clues? Is it reasonable to reduce the priority of such copy I/O and favour other processes like the remote desktop? How would you do that? Many thanks!

  Read the article

• preformance wise htaccess

  - by purpler

  hese's the my htaccess template, i wonder if anything could be added to increase website performance.. # Defaults AddDefaultCharset UTF-8 DefaultLanguage en-US ServerSignature Off FileETag None Header unset ETag Options -MultiViews #Options All -Indexes # Force the latest IE version or ChromeFrame <IfModule mod_setenvif.c> <IfModule mod_headers.c> BrowserMatch MSIE ie Header set X-UA-Compatible "IE=Edge,chrome=1" env=ie </IfModule> </IfModule> # Proxy X-UA Setup <IfModule mod_headers.c> Header append Vary User-Agent </IfModule> #Rewrites Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / # Redirect to non-WWW RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.+)$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://%1/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect to WWW RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com RewriteRule (.*) http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301,L] # Redirect index to root RewriteRule ^(.*)index\.(php|html)$ /$1 [R=301,L] # Caching ExpiresActive On ExpiresDefault A0 Header set Cache-Control "public" # 1 Year Long Cache <FilesMatch "\.(flv|fla|ico|pdf|avi|mov|ppt|doc|mp3|wmv|wav|png|jpg|jpeg|gif|swf|js|css|ttf|eot|woff|svg|svgz)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 </FilesMatch> # Proxy Caching <FilesMatch "\.(css|js|png)$"> ExpiresDefault A31622400 Header set Cache-Control "private" </FilesMatch> # Protect against DOS attacks by limiting file upload size LimitRequestBody 10240000 # Proper SVG serving AddType image/svg+xml svg svgz AddEncoding gzip svgz # GZip Compression <IfModule mod_deflate.c> <FilesMatch "\.(php|html|css|js|xml|txt|ttf|otf|eot|svg)$" > SetOutputFilter DEFLATE </FilesMatch> </IfModule> # Error page ErrorDocument 404 /404.html # Deny access to sensitive files <FilesMatch "\.(htaccess|ini|log|psd)$"> Order Allow,Deny Deny from all </FilesMatch>

  Read the article

• Fast distributed filesystem for a large amounts of data with metadata in database

  - by undefined hero

  My project uses several processing machines and one storage machine. Currently storage organized with a MSSQL filetable shared folder. Every file in storage have some metadata in database. Processing machines executes tasks for which they needed files from storage and their metadata. After completing task, processing machine puts resulting data back in storage. From there its taken by another processing machine, which also generates some file and put it back in storage. And etc. Everything was fine, but as number of processing machines increases, I found myself bottlenecked myself with storage machines hard drive performance. So I want processing machines to put files in distributed FS. to lift load from storage machines, from which they can take data from each other, not only storage machine. Can You suggest a particular distributed FS which meets my needs? Or there is another way to solve this problem, without it? Amounts of data in FS in one time are like several terabytes. (storage can handle this, but processors cannot). Data consistence is critical. Read write policy is: once file is written - its constant and may be only removed, but not modified. My current platform is Windows, but I'm ready to switch it, if there is a substantially more convenient solution on another one.

  Read the article

• My processor is running slower than usually it has to run

  - by Soham

  I've Core2Duo E7400 2.80GHz processor on my Intel D945gcnl mobo. From CPU-Z, I've get to know that my processor speed is 1596MHz with X6 multiplier and 266MHz Bus Speed on each core. Why my processor is being operated at 1596 MHz rather than 2.80GHz...!!???? From my side I've tried to disable SpeedStep from my bios by setting EIST to 'Disable' and also tried to change Power Option to 'High Performance' in Windows 7. And also done like suggested in this question:http://superuser.com/questions/119176/processor-not-running-at-max-speed But it gains me nothing. I've also tried to run few massive applications together to check whether it was increasing at that time or not, but it remains same. Should I have to increase my multiplier or overclock to gain that lost speed...??? Should I have to check my power supply for any problem..??? or anything else...??? Please help me on this.... And yeah I've desktop computer so no problem causing by battery. Here's my CPU-Z Screenshot: http://i56.tinypic.com/2lk4mqc.jpg

  Read the article

• Should I partition a 1TB Hard Disk whose primary use is media storage?

  - by Senthil

  I am going to get a 1TB hard disk. I will be storing 1080p or 720p movies, high-bitrate music and pictures in it. I use my PC 90% of the time only to play/listen/see those. I am running out of space in my current HD so I am getting another one. My specs are 2.7GHz Dual Core, 512MB GeForce 9400GT, 2GB DDR2 RAM and all the proper matroska codecs/players. I guess that is enough to play 1080p movies withough a glitch, given an ideal hard disk. I've read about proper partitioning giving performance improvement etc.. I don't want my hard disk to be the bottleneck. Can someone tell me whether I should partition my 1TB hard disk into many drives? If I should, what is the ideal size of each partition? Smooth playing of movies is very important to me. Once I start filling up the disk, there is no turning back. So I want to get it right before I start. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Can a pool of memcache daemons be used to share sessions more efficiently?

  - by Tom

  We are moving from a 1 webserver setup to a two webserver setup and I need to start sharing PHP sessions between the two load balanced machines. We already have memcached installed (and started) and so I was pleasantly surprized that I could accomplish sharing sessions between the new servers by changing only 3 lines in the php.ini file (the session.save_handler and session.save_path): I replaced: session.save_handler = files with: session.save_handler = memcache Then on the master webserver I set the session.save_path to point to localhost: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211" and on the slave webserver I set the session.save_path to point to the master: session.save_path="tcp://192.168.0.1:11211" Job done, I tested it and it works. But... Obviously using memcache means the sessions are in RAM and will be lost if a machine is rebooted or the memcache daemon crashes - I'm a little concerned by this but I am a bit more worried about the network traffic between the two webservers (especially as we scale up) because whenever someone is load balanced to the slave webserver their sessions will be fetched across the network from the master webserver. I was wondering if I could define two save_paths so the machines look in their own session storage before using the network. For example: Master: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211, tcp://192.168.0.2:11211" Slave: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211, tcp://192.168.0.1:11211" Would this successfully share sessions across the servers AND help performance? i.e save network traffic 50% of the time. Or is this technique only for failovers (e.g. when one memcache daemon is unreachable)? Note: I'm not really asking specifically about memcache replication - more about whether the PHP memcache client can peak inside each memcache daemon in a pool, return a session if it finds one and only create a new session if it doesn't find one in all the stores. As I'm writing this I'm thinking I'm asking a bit much from PHP, lol... Assume: no sticky-sessions, round-robin load balancing, LAMP servers.

  Read the article

• Am I getting the right memory for my motherboard?

  - by Daniel Carvalho

  Hi technophiles; I have a Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS motherboard. Also, the memory that came with my computer was two Transcend aXe RAM 1066MHZ 1GB modules. The thing is, I noticed that my motherboard has "DDR2 1200" written on it. This concerns me, have I bought slower memory than my computer is supposed to have ideally? Now, I'm not super concerned at a granular level about the best optimal RAM with the best CAS latency etc... but I do hope at least that I've got the right speed. Now, as far as I know, there is no such thing as ram at 1200MHZ? Am I right? You see, because I'm thinking of getting more RAM now, before I can't find the same type or speed any-more and just want to make sure it's the right thing. Furthermore, if the memory is slower than what I should be getting for my motherboard, what RAM should I be getting, and will that new RAM play nice with my old RAM? If I get new RAM at a different speed, would it be better / more beneficial performance-wise to omit the old RAM because of how the whole DUAL channel RAM thing works? I'm not too clued up on this area. Thanks chiefs.

  Read the article

• Mysterious Windows 7 slowdown problem

  - by cletus

  I have a fairly beefy machine: Intel Q9450 8GB DDR2800 (4x2) Intel X25-M G2 80GB SSD Several other hard drives Windows 7 Ultimate 64 In the last month I've gotten a mysterious slowdown problem. When I start my IDE (IntelliJ IDEA) it usually takes about 20 seconds on the SSD. If my machine has been on for a day or two (as far as I can tell this is the only pattern) and I try to start the IDE, it brings my machine to a halt. CPU usage goes up to 25% per core (so it's basically 100% usage) and it takes up to 5 minutes to start. Other things I've noticed: iTunes will start to skip and stutter (my music is running off a second hard drive). The only persistent things I'm running are: AVG Anti-Virus Spybot (the slowdown predates this) Hamachi and Murmur (again the slowdown predates this) Apple Airport Base Agent HP OfficeJet 8500 driver/manager The browser I use is Chrome. I can't think why that'd be relevant but it's always on so I thought I'd mention it. When this happens I can't see a reason for it in the process list. No CPU hogs. No spikes in IO activity that I can see. Basically I'm at a loss to explain it and need to reboot, at which point everything returns to normal (for awhile). FWIW the Intel SSD is about 75-80% full. I know being too full can really degrade performance. I don't believe that's the issue here. Does anyone have any ideas on what I can do to fix this or at least help find what's going wrong? This same machine (sans SSD) could run Win XP and stay up fine for a month or two.

  Read the article

• mkfs Operation Takes Very Long on Linux Software Raid 5

  - by Elmar Weber

  I've set-up a Linux software raid level 5 consisting of 4 * 2 TB disks. The disk array was created with a 64k stripe size and no other configuration parameters. After the initial rebuild I tried to create a filesystem and this step takes very long (about half an hour or more). I tried to create an xfs and ext3 filesystem, both took a long time, with mkfs.ext3 I observed the following behaviour, which might be helpful: writing inode tables runs fast until it reaches 1053 (~ 1 second), then it writes about 50, waits for two seconds, then the next 50 are written (according to the console display) when I try to cancel the operation with Control+C it hangs for half a minute before it is really canceled The performance of the disks individually is very good, I've run bonnie++ on each one separately with write / read values of around 95 / 110MB/s. Even when I run bonnie++ on every drive in parallel the values are only reduced by about 10 MB. So I'm excluding hardware / I/O scheduling in general as a problem source. I tried different configuration parameters for stripe_cache_size and readahead size without success, but I don't think they are that relevant for the file system creation operation. The server details: Linux server 2.6.35-27-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux mdadm - v2.6.7.1 Does anyone has a suggestion on how to further debug this?

  Read the article

• How important is dual-gigabit lan for a super user's home NAS?

  - by Andrew

  Long story short: I'm building my own home server based on Ubuntu with 4 drives in RAID 10. Its primary purpose will be NAS and backup. Would I be making a terrible mistake by building a NAS Server with a single Gigabit NIC? Long story long: I know the absolute max I can get out of a single Gigabit port is 125MB/s, and I want this NAS to be able to handle up to 6 computers accessing files simultaneously, with up to two of them streaming video. With Ubuntu NIC-bonding and the performance of RAID 10, I can theoretically double my throughput and achieve 250MB/s (ok, not really, but it would be faster). The drives have an average read throughput of 83.87MB/s according to Tom's Hardware. The unit itself will be based on the Chenbro ES34069-BK-180 case. With my current hardware choices, it'll have this motherboard with a Core i3 CPU and 8GB of RAM. Overkill, I know, but this server will be doing other things as well (like transcoding video). Unfortunately, the only Mini-ITX boards I can find with dual-gigabit and 6 SATA ports are Intel Atom-based, and I need more processing power than an Atom has to offer. I would love to find a board with 6 SATA ports and two Gigabit LAN ports that supports a Core i3 CPU. So far, my search has come up empty. Thus, my dilemma. Should I hold out for such a board, go with an Atom-based solution, or stick with my current single-gigabit configuration? I know there are consumer NAS units with just one gigabit interface (probably most of them), but I think I will demand a lot more from my server than the average home user. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V very slow

  - by Matt Taylor

  I have been running several Hyper-V VMs on Windows Server 2008 R2 for the past couple of years and enjoying perfectly adequate performance for my testing/development/r&d environments. I'm a software developer so my hardware knowledge is basic however I built the rig using: •Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R Intel X58 (Socket 1366) DDR3 Motherboard •Intel Core i7 960 3.20GHz (Bloomfield) (Socket LGA1366) •24GB triple channel RAM The host OS is running on an OCZ SSD and all the VMs are running on a 2TB Marvell SATA3 RAID 0 array consisting of 2 Western Digital Caviar Black 7,200rpm drives. I have tested the speed of the 2TB drive and appear to be getting less than 3Mbs but it can adequately run a 4 VM farm including a DC, (SQL) database and IIS application servers. I recently upgraded the SSD on which the host runs to a 256GB OCZ Vertex 4 and took the opportunity to upgrade to Windows Server 2012 and installed the Hyper-V role. I tried importing one of my existing Windows Server 2008 R2 VMs (and converted it to .vhdx) plus I have tried creating a brand new Windows Server 2008 R2 VM but both are running extremely slowly and I can see nothing obvious using the host and guest Task Manager/Resource Monitor tools. In both cases the VM has 8GB RAM (fixed), 4 CPUs, fixed size HD (not expanding) and is using an external virtual network running on a separate NIC to the host. I have upgraded the BIOS to the latest available version and checked the virtualization settings. I have run out of "obvious" (to a developer) things to check/configure and my next option will be to re-install the host OS but before I do I would very much appreciate any advice from any experts out there. Thanks

  Read the article

• Should I partition my main table with 2 millions rows?

  - by domribaut

  Hi, I am a developer and would need some DBA-advices. We are starting to get performance problem with a MSSQL2005 database. The visible effects of the incidents is mainly CPU-hog on the server but operations reported that it was also draining resources from the SAN (not always). the main source of issues is for sure in some application but I am wondering if we should partition some of the main tables anyway in order to relax the I/O pressure. The base is about 60GB in one file. The main table (order) has 2.1 Million rows with a 215 colones (but none is huge). We have an integer as PK so it should be OK to define a partition function. Will we win something with partitioning? will partition indexes buy us something? Here are some more facts about the DB and the table database_name database_size unallocated space My_base 57173.06 MB 79.74 MB reserved data index_size unused 29 444 808 KB 26 577 320 KB 2 845 232 KB 22 256 KB name rows reserved data index_size unused Order 2 097 626 4 403 832 KB 2 756 064 KB 1 646 080 KB 1688 KB Thanks for any advice Dom

  Read the article

• How to find out what is causing a slow down of the application on this server?

  - by Jan P.

  This is not the typical serverfault question, but I'm out of ideas and don't know where else to go. If there are better places to ask this, just point me there in the comments. Thanks. Situation We have this web application that uses Zend Framework, so runs in PHP on an Apache web server. We use MySQL for data storage and memcached for object caching. The application has a very unique usage and load pattern. It is a mobile web application where every full hour a cronjob looks through the database for users that have some information waiting or action to do and sends this information to a (external) notification server, that pushes these notifications to them. After the users get these notifications, the go to the app and use it, mostly for a very short time. An hour later, same thing happens. Problem In the last few weeks usage of the application really started to grow. In the last few days we encountered very high load and doubling of application response times during and after the sending of these notifications (so basically every hour). The server doesn't crash or stop responding to requests, it just gets slower and slower and often takes 20 minutes to recover - until the same thing starts again at the full hour. We have extensive monitoring in place (New Relic, collectd) but I can't figure out what's wrong; I can't find the bottlekneck. That's where you come in: Can you help me figure out what's wrong and maybe how to fix it? Additional information The server is a 16 core Intel Xeon (8 cores with hyperthreading, I think) and 12GB RAM running Ubuntu 10.04 (Linux 3.2.4-20120307 x86_64). Apache is 2.2.x and PHP is Version 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.11. If any configuration information would help analyze the problem, just comment and I will add it. Graphs info phpinfo() apc status memcache status collectd Processes CPU Apache Load MySQL Vmem Disk New Relic Application performance Server overview Processes Network Disks (Sorry the graphs are gifs and not the same time period, but I think the most important info is in there)

  Read the article

• Windows is very slow with my new SSD

  - by Maksym H.

  I have a laptop HP probook 4520s with Core i5 M480 @ 2.67Ghz, 4Gb RAM, 640 GB HDD Radeon HD 6370m 1GB video card. It would seem like a good stack for work, right? But My HDD has crashed after everyday walking with laptop about 1 year. After buying my new SSD (Patriot memory - Torqx II 128 Gb SATA II) and installing new Windows 8 from scratch - it was amazing fast. But I had only install windows updates, and I feel that the speed become the same as my old HDD, after install other software for my work, it becomes so slow, so when I use my PC with old lower configuration and it really works better than my awesome laptop... I checked that TRIM and AHCI mode are turned on. So why's that? I asked for help in Patriot Memory support, they suggested to send them ATTO test results, done, sent. Here is the response: "Thank you very much for the attached results. Looking at the results, I can see that your SSD speed is a lot lower than it should be. Can you tell me your system specs?" Until they checked my email, I re-installed Windows 8 to Windows 7 and it was again perfect, but the story repeats it becomes slower and slower after every installing new software. Check out some screenshots.. (sorry for the screenshot with russian TaskManager, I hope you will recognize those parameters accordingly with your english or other lang TaskManager) So the main issue that something everytime loads the disc on 100% and the response time is jumping around 1000-3000 ms. Why am I asking about Windows? Because I tried to install Linux Mint (x86) and It just flies. So great performance independent on how many programs I have installed. Only Windows (any 7 or 8) has this problem. So guys, I appreciate any ideas about how to fix that and may be answers of main question - "why is it so.?" Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102  | Next Page >