Search Results

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

Page 96/530 | < Previous Page | 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103  | Next Page >

  • Why does restarting the modem fix latency?

    - by Giovanni Galbo
    In the last few days I've noticed poor internet performance. Today I ran a speed test and the results were abysmal... 10mb down and 0.18mb up (which really hurt, because I was trying to RDC from another location). I pay for 30mb down and 5mb up. Latency was at 128ms. Before calling my ISP to give them a verbal lashing, I unplugged the modem and plugged it back in. I pretty much got top speed after doing that (with a latency of 7ms). I'm the type of guy that likes to know what goes on under the hood. So what's the deal? What mysterious powers does restarting give to my modem?

    Read the article

  • Intel cpu hyperthreading on or off for ibm db2?

    - by rtorti19
    Has anyone ever done any database performance comparisons with hyper-threading enabled vs disabled? We are running ibm db2 and I'm curious if anyone has an recommendations for enabling hyper-threading or not. With hyper-threading enabled it makes it quite difficult to do capacity planning for cpu usage. For example. "With 8 physical cores represented as 16 "threads" on the OS and a cpu-bound workload, does that mean when your cpu usage hit's 50% you are actually running at 100%." What real benefits do I gain with leaving hyper-threading enabled on an intel server running DB2? Does hyper-threading help if you're workload is truly disk IO bound? If so, up to what percentage? These are the types of questions I'm trying to answer. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Apache on Win32: Slow Transfers of single, static files in HTTP, fast in HTTPS

    - by Michael Lackner
    I have a weird problem with Apache 2.2.15 on Windows 2000 Server SP4. Basically, I am trying to serve larger static files, images, videos etc. The download seems to be capped at around 550kB/s even over 100Mbit LAN. I tried other protocols (FTP/FTPS/FTP+ES/SCP/SMB), and they are all in the multi-megabyte range. The strangest thing is that, when using Apache with HTTPS instead of HTTP, it serves very fast, around 2.7MByte/s! I also tried the AnalogX SimpleWWW server just to test the plain HTTP speed of it, and it gave me a healthy 3.3Mbyte/s. I am at a total loss here. I searched the web, and tried to change the following Apache configuration directives in httpd.conf, one at a time, mostly to no avail at all: SendBufferSize 1048576 #(tried multiples of that too, up to 100Mbytes) EnableSendfile Off #(minor performance boost) EnableMMAP Off Win32DisableAcceptEx HostnameLookups Off #(default) I also tried to tune the following registry parameters, setting their values to 4194304 in decimal (they are REG_DWORD), and rebooting afterwards: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AFD\Parameters\DefaultReceiveWindow HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AFD\Parameters\DefaultSendWindow Additionally, I tried to install mod_bw, which sets the event timer precision to 1ms, and allows for bandwidth throttling. According to some people it boosts static file serving performance when set to unlimited bandwidth for everybody. Unfortunately, it did nothing for me. So: AnalogX HTTP: 3300kB/s Gene6 FTPD, plain: 3500kB/s Gene6 FTPD, Implicit and Explicit SSL, AES256 Cipher: 1800-2000kB/s freeSSHD: 1100kB/s SMB shared folder: about 3000kB/s Apache HTTP, plain: 550kB/s Apache HTTPS: 2700kB/s Clients that were used in the bandwidth testing: Internet Explorer 8 (HTTP, HTTPS) Firefox 8 (HTTP, HTTPS) Chrome 13 (HTTP, HTTPS) Opera 11.60 (HTTP, HTTPS) wget under CygWin (HTTP, HTTPS) FileZilla (FTP, FTPS, FTP+ES, SFTP) Windows Explorer (SMB) Generally, transfer speeds are not too high, but that's because the server machine is an old quad Pentium Pro 200MHz machine with 2GB RAM. However, I would like Apache to serve at at least 2Mbyte/s instead of 550kB/s, and that already works with HTTPS easily, so I fail to see why plain HTTP is so crippled. I am using a Kerio Winroute Firewall, but no Throttling and no special filters peeking into HTTP traffic, just the plain Firewall functionality for blocking/allowing connections. The Apache error.log (Loglevel info) shows no warnings, no errors. Also nothing strange to be seen in access.log. I have already stripped down my httpd.conf to the bare minimum just to make sure nothing is interfering, but that didn't help either. If you have any idea, help would be greatly appreciated, since I am totally out of ideas! Thanks! Edit: I have now tried a newer Apache 2.2.21 to see if it makes any difference. However, the behaviour is exactly the same. Edit 2: KM01 has requested a sniff on the HTTP headers, so here comes the LiveHTTPHeaders output (an extension to Firefox). The Output is generated on downloading a single file called "elephantsdream_source.264", which is an H.264/AVC elementary video stream under an Open Source license. I have taken the freedom to edit the URL, removing folders and changing the actual servers domain name to www.mydomain.com. Here it is: LiveHTTPHeaders, Plain HTTP: http://www.mydomain.com/elephantsdream_source.264 GET /elephantsdream_source.264 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.mydomain.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:55:16 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8r PHP/5.2.17 Last-Modified: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:20:09 GMT Etag: "c000000013fa5-29cf10e9-493b311889d3c" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 701436137 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain LiveHTTPHeaders, HTTPS: https://www.mydomain.com/elephantsdream_source.264 GET /elephantsdream_source.264 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.mydomain.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:56:57 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8r PHP/5.2.17 Last-Modified: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:20:09 GMT Etag: "c000000013fa5-29cf10e9-493b311889d3c" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 701436137 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain

    Read the article

  • IIS 7.0 - responses throttled to 500ms blocks?

    - by Julia Hayward
    Scenario: ASP.NET MVC wep app sitting on my local machine (Vista Ultimate, IIS 7.0), nothing going on except one user (me) logged in and viewing an index page. The page includes 9 dynamic images drawn from the underlying DB and returned from a controller action. I have got the actual processing time for these images down to 15ms each. Turn on Firebug and watch the page load. What I see is 9 requests for images firing off together – no surprise – but four come back to me almost immediately; two more after 0.5s; another after 1s; then at 1.5s and 2s. Logging on the server side suggests the individual responses are still only taking 15ms. So it appears IIS is queueing things up into 500ms chunks. (Repeating the experiment produces different results, but each time the images return in similar blocks – you might get three in the first group, then three at 0.5s, two at 1s etc, for example – and it’s always at 500ms intervals, not anything else.) It’s also repeatable cross-browser, and it’s not repeatable with other forms of content. I haven't found any particular mention of this problem out there, so I'm sort of assuming it's not an IIS bug, so is it: i) IIS on desktop OSs deliberately does it, to make you use server OSs in production? ii) There is some magical setting that has eluded me for as long as I’ve known IIS? iii) Something peculiar to MVC or SQL Server 2008? or something else?

    Read the article

  • Benchmarks relevant for a Visual Studio .Net development workstation

    - by user30715
    I am developing a system with Windows 7-64, Visual Studio and Sharepoint on a virtual workstation on some kind of VMWare server. The system is painfully slow, with VS lagging behind when entering code, Intellisense lagging, opening and saving files takes ages when compared to a normal budget laptop. As far as I can see the virtual machine has OK specs and does not seem to be swapping etc., and the IT dept also says that they can't see anything wrong when they're monitoring the system. As long as the problem is not well-documented, the IT dept and management does not want to throw money (=upgraded laptops) at us, so I need to show some sort of benchmark. It has been many years since I did any system benchmarking, and I don't know the current benchmark software, so my question is which benchmark will be most relevant for Visual Studio performance? Not just for compiling fast, but also to reflect the "responsiveness" of the system. Cheers, user30715

    Read the article

  • Do you run anti-virus software?

    - by Paolo Bergantino
    Do you find the crippling effect that most anti virus software has on a computer's performance worth the "security" they provide? I've never been able to really tell myself its worth it, and have used my computer without "protection" for years without any problems. Jeff Atwood wrote about this a while back, taking a similar stance. So I'm looking for some discussion on the merits and downfalls of antivirus software, and whether you personally think its worth the hassle. One point I do think is valid is that I am probably okay with not running it because I know if something goes wrong I have the ability to make it right (most of the time) but I can't really recommend the same for family as they may not be able to...

    Read the article

  • Simple queries occasionally running very slowly

    - by Johan
    I have some very simple queries that occasionally run very slowly. The table viewed_sites has about 10 - 20 rows. Running EXPLAIN ANALYZE always gives a runtime of less than 3 milliseconds. When the query is run automatically (every 10 seconds) it occasionally takes over a second to run. The query: INSERT INTO ga.viewed_sites (site_id) VALUES ('gop2') The table: CREATE TABLE viewed_sites ( site_id character varying(4) NOT NULL, last_viewed timestamp with time zone DEFAULT now() NOT NULL ); The (occasional) log result: 2010-05-24 15:47:55 UTC LOG: duration: 1044.632 ms statement: INSERT INTO ga.viewed_sites (site_id) VALUES ('gop2') It's a horribly vague question, but what could be causing this? I suppose it comes down to CPU, RAM, HDD or some combination of the above. Postgresql 8.3, Ubuntu 8.04 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz 2 GiB RAM

    Read the article

  • What are the quality metrics for RAM?

    - by Hi-Tech KitKat Android
    I have searched RAM and i found there are given some specification for the same capacity RAM, What are the difference and performance comparison between these? Like RAM1 General Brand Transcend Memory Type 2 GB (8 x 128 MB) DDR2 DIMM Memory Standard DDR2-800/PC-6400 Compatible Device PC Pins 240-pin Burst Length 4, 8 Buffered/Unbuffered Unbuffered Memory Memory Clock 400 MHz Technology DDR2 SDRAM Memory CAS Latency 4, 5, 6 RAM 2 General Brand Transcend Memory Type 2 GB (8 x 128 MB) DDR2 DIMM Memory Standard DDR2-667/PC2-5300 Compatible Device PC Pins 240-pin Burst Length 4, 8 Buffered/Unbuffered Unbuffered Memory Memory Clock 333 MHz Technology DDR2 SDRAM Memory CAS Latency 3, 4, 5 RAM3 General Brand Kingston Memory Type 2 GB (64 x 256 MB) 800 MHz DDR2 DIMM Compatible Device PC Pins 240-pin Error Check Non-ECC Buffered/Unbuffered Unbuffered Memory Memory Clock 200 MHz Technology DDR2 SDRAM Memory CAS Latency 6 What are the affect of the following Memory Type(given as 8 x 128 MB) Memory Clock (given in MHz) CAS Latency (given as 4,5,6) my Requirement is 2 GB DDR2 Type Desktop Please help

    Read the article

  • Is a larger hard drive with the same cache, rpm, and bus type faster?

    - by Joel Coehoorn
    I recently heard that, all else being equal, larger hard are faster than smaller. It has to do with more bits passing under the read head as the drive spins - since a large drive packs the bits more tightly, the same amount of spin/time presents more data to the read head. I had not heard this before, and was inclined to believe the the read heads expected bits at a specific rate and would instead stagger data, so that the two drives would be the same speed. I now find myself looking at purchasing one of two computer models for the school where I work. One model has an 80GB drive, the other a 400GB (for ~$13 more). The size of the drive is immaterial, since users will keep their files on a file server where they can be backed up. But if the 400GB drive will really deliver a performance boost to the hard drive, the extra money is probably worth it. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Interpreting Munin graphs showing available entropy and MySQL slow queries in sync

    - by user64204
    We're experiencing performance issues on our website, and after reviewing our munin graphs, the only metrics we've found in sync are Available entropy and MySQL slow queries, with the latter influenced by our number of logged in users: Based on the wikipedia entropy page, my understanding is that entropy is the amount of randomness (here measured in bytes) that the system can use for various tasks, mainly cryptography and functions that require random input. Since the peaks in available entropy and MySQL slow queries are occurring in sync and at regular interval, that the number of MySQL slow queries is proportional to our number of Drupal users whereas the peaks in available entropy seem to be much more constant and less proportional to these 2 metrics, we're thinking available entropy is the reflect of a root cause which, combined with the traffic to our website, is causing those slow queries (and not the opposite, slow queries influencing the entropy). Accordingly: Q: What underlying problem do you think could cause regular peaks in available entropy that could have an influence on MySQL's ability to process queries?

    Read the article

  • Does anyone still use Iometer?

    - by Brian T Hannan
    "Iometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. It is used as a benchmark and troubleshooting tool and is easily configured to replicate the behaviour of many popular applications." link text Does anyone still use this tool? It seems helpful, but I'm not sure if it's for the thing I am trying to work on. I am trying create a benchmark computer performance test that can be run before and after a Windows Optimization program does its stuff (ex: PC Optimizer Pro or CCleaner). I want to be able to make a quick statement like CCleaner makes the computer run 50% faster or something along those lines. Are there any newer tools like this one?

    Read the article

  • How complex of a daemon should be run through inetd?

    - by amphetamachine
    What is the general rule for which daemons should be started up through inetd? Currently, on my server, sshd, apache and sendmail are set up to run all the time, where simple *NIX services are set up to be started by inetd. I'm the only one who uses ssh on my computer, and break-in attempts aren't a problem because I have it running on a non-standard port, and my HTTP server gets maybe 5 hits a day that aren't GoogleBot. My question is, what are the benefits vs. the performance hits associated with running a complex daemon like sshd or apache through superserver, and what, if any successes or failures have you had running your own daemons in this manner?

    Read the article

  • How to speed up apache

    - by Zen_silence
    We have a server with 8Cores, 16GB of RAM and RAID 0 SAS 10K drives. Our goal is to use this to serve a fairly simple php application quickly. We have tested all other components and we think we have narrowed it down to apache is our bottleneck. I am no apache guru I have done some research and tested a couple things but when i test with JMeter launching 100 concurrent connections against the server the first 10 - 20 come back quickly 30 - 100ms but the rest take between 1000ms to 3000ms. Anyone have any ideas on what to change in our apache config to make this faster right now its a vanilla install of apache.

    Read the article

  • reducing Windows 7 size

    - by Sejanus
    My Windows 7 uses around 16 GB while Windows XP only around 4 GB hard disk space. Seems weird. I use Windows only for gaming so I dont need a lot of stuff they have to offer. What is the best way to reduce Windows 7 size? What can I delete / uninstall and how? Also I'd like reduce RAM and processor usage as much as possible (as long as it doesnt hurt game performance)... turn off all that fancy stuff and so on. What can I turn off and how? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Challenges w.r.t. proximity between application hosted outside Amazon and Amazon persistence service

    - by Kabeer
    Hello. This is about hosting a web portal. Earlier my topology was entirely based on Amazon AWS but the price factor (especially for EC2) now makes me re-think. I'll now quickly come to what I have finally arrived at. I'll launch the portal that'll be hosted on Godaddy (unlimited plan on Windows). The portal uses SimpleDB for storing metadata and S3 for blobs. Locally available MySQL will be used for the ASP.Net provider services. Once the portal is profitable, I intent to move to Amazon in totality. Now considering the proximity between Godaddy & Amazon, would I face 'substantial' performance problems? Are there any suggestions to improve upon my topology.

    Read the article

  • Why can't get more speed on iperf on windows xp

    - by SledgehammerPL
    I test my bandwith and throughput using iperf (jperf) on desktop PC with WinXP. I can't get more than 3Mbit/s outside until I change TCP Window size - about 84Kb is ok. but I can't force XP to use this value by default.. I try very many magic spells on Registry, use many TCP Optimisers - but nothing works. I will accept that that everything is ok, when I reboot the PC, run iperf and will see 18.1Mbit - like my Linux box standing very near my Windows XP Box. Is it possible?

    Read the article

  • Rail's FileStore with Linux Disk Caching or RAMdisk?

    - by Yo Ludke
    I have a Ruby on Rails application that stores it's catched files on the filesystem (Rails file-system cache). I was thinking about changing to memcached Store, but a short test shows it isn't a big difference in speed. From linuxatemyram.com I learned a bit about file caching. On the current machine there would be around 40..45GB RAM left which isn't needed for the application and which can be used to linux-disk-cache this rails file cache store. The disk is a RAID10 system with almost 120MB disk perfomance. How can I tell Linux to use free RAM more deliberately and not to be shy about using it? Do think it's necessary to adjust a sysyctl/.. value here, or would I have performance advantages to put the File Store root diretory on a ramdisk? (Loosing the cache during a reboot wouldn't be a problem)

    Read the article

  • mongodb : Can create new thread on FreeBSD?

    - by user197739
    We experienced some strange thing in our mongodb gridfs platform. The platform actually is a bi Xeon E5 (bi quad core) with 128GB of memory, running on freebsd 9 with a zfs pool dedicated for mongodb. [root@mongofile1 ~]# uname -sr FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE our /boot/loader.conf vfs.zfs.arc_min="2048M" vfs.zfs.arc_max="7680M" vm.kmem_size_max="16G" vm.kmem_size="12G" vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable="1" kern.ipc.nmbclusters="32768" /etc/sysctl.conf net.inet.tcp.msl=15000 net.inet.tcp.keepidle=300000 kern.ipc.nmbclusters=32768 kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=2097152 kern.ipc.somaxconn=8192 kern.maxfiles=65536 kern.maxfilesperproc=32768 net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0 net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65535 net.inet.udp.recvspace=65535 net.inet.udp.maxdgram=57344 net.local.stream.recvspace=65535 net.local.stream.sendspace=65535 we follow the recommendation for the ulimit : [root@mongofile1 ~]# su - mongodb $ ulimit -a cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited file size (512-blocks, -f) unlimited data seg size (kbytes, -d) 33554432 stack size (kbytes, -s) 524288 core file size (512-blocks, -c) unlimited max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited locked memory (kbytes, -l) unlimited max user processes (-u) 5547 open files (-n) 32768 virtual mem size (kbytes, -v) unlimited swap limit (kbytes, -w) unlimited sbsize (bytes, -b) unlimited pseudo-terminals (-p) unlimited This server have a twin (same config exactly) for ReplSet in other data center and we have a virtualized arbiter. Some time, almost 3 days, the process of mongodb exit. The problem begin with: Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.741 [conn774697] end connection 192.168.10.162:47963 (23 connections now open) Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.770 [initandlisten] can't create new thread, closing connection Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.771 [rsHealthPoll] replSet member mongofile2:27017 is now in state DOWN Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.774 [initandlisten] connection accepted from 192.168.10.162:47968 #774702 (20 connections now open) Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.774 [initandlisten] connection accepted from 192.168.10.161:28522 #774703 (21 connections now open) Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.774 [initandlisten] connection accepted from 192.168.10.164:15406 #774704 (22 connections now open) Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.774 [initandlisten] connection accepted from 192.168.10.163:25750 #774705 (23 connections now open) Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.810 [initandlisten] connection accepted from 192.168.10.182:20779 #774706 (24 connections now open) Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.855 [initandlisten] connection accepted from 192.168.10.161:28524 #774707 (25 connections now open) Fri Nov 8 11:27:31.869 [initandlisten] connection accepted from 192.168.10.182:20786 #774708 (26 connections now open) and after many "can create new thread" [root@mongofile1 /usr/mongodb]# tail -n 15000 mongod.log.old |grep "create new thread"|wc 5020 55220 421680 and finish by a magnificent Fri Nov 8 11:30:22.333 [rsMgr] replSet warning caught unexpected exception in electSelf() pure virtual method called Fri Nov 8 11:30:22.333 Got signal: 6 (Abort trap: 6). Fri Nov 8 11:30:22.337 Backtrace: 0x599efc 0x8035cb516 0x599efc <_ZN5mongo10abruptQuitEi+988> at /usr/local/bin/mongod 0x8035cb516 <_pthread_sigmask+918> at /lib/libthr.so.3 Extract of mongodb from top 78126 mongodb 77 20 0 1253G 1449M sbwait 0 0:20 0.00% mongod If I restart the process when it crash, the problem is fixed for almost 3 days. Has anyone seen this before, or know of a fix?

    Read the article

  • Suggested benchmark for testing CPU footprint of antivirus software

    - by Alex Chernavsky
    Our organization is currently running Symantec Corporate Antivirus, which is rumored to be a big resource hog. I know that we do have a lot of older machines that are running slow. Our PCs are all running Windows XP Pro and are used only for business applications (mostly Microsoft Office), e-mail, and web surfing. They're not used for gaming (one would hope not, anyway). I'd like to take one of the old PCs and do a speed benchmark test while it's running Symantec AV, then another test with no antivirus, and a third test with ESET NOD32. As I said, I don't care much about graphics performance. What would be an appropriate benchmarking program program to use? Freeware is best, of course. Thank you for considering my question.

    Read the article

  • RAID 1 not performing as expected

    - by Faken
    I recently bought a new 320Gb hard drive for my computer to set up RAID 1 on it for some added security. Installation went as smooth as could possibly be (plug in power, plug in data cable, start up computer, Intel software recognized new drive, right click create RAID 1, done!). However, for some inexplicable reason, I seem to have strange test results when using BENCH32. On my old configuration, a single 7200 rpm drive, I achieved about 60 MB/s write and 70 MB/s read. With a new RAID 1 configuration, I would expect the write to be slightly diminished but read to be significantly improved (though not exactly double speed). However, with the new configuration, I am getting 90 MB/s write and only about 80 MB/s read. I should NOT be getting improved write performance, especially NOT better than read! What's going on? My system setup is: q6600 2.4ghz CPU 4Gb DDR2 667mhz RAM on board Intel ICH9R "RAID chip" 2x Seagate 7200 RPM 320GB drives in RAID 1 Widows 7 home premium 64-bit

    Read the article

  • PC is very slow

    - by Appoos
    Hi All, My Windows XP system is very slow. I tried all possible ways of improving the performance. But now luck. I've 4GB RAM and AMD Phenon XII B53 processor. I don't see any applications consuming CPU resources. But the Page File usage is 4.18 GB(System Managed size in MyComputerPropertiesPeformance). There is enough RAM available, but still why OS is using Page File? How can I improve the Page File usage? Please help me.

    Read the article

  • Is really good have a big (500GB/1T) Hard Disk as main one!?

    - by aSeptik
    Hi All guys! ;-) i'm building my new PC so i'm starting the usual search for a good hardware/price around the net! but this time i'm not sure i want buy a big Hard Disk! i was thinking to have a "very small" HD like 50GB as main one and external (big) for store all other stuff! Assuming i'm using classic slow softwares like adobe suite (photoshop, flash, autodesk) and some very simple soft like notepad, php and so on...! do you think this is a good practice for improve performance/speed or i'm jast saying some stupid thing!?

    Read the article

  • Is really good have a big (500GB/1T) Hard Disk as main one!?

    - by aSeptik
    Hi All guys! ;-) i'm building my new PC so i'm starting the usual search for a good hardware/price around the net! but this time i'm not sure i want buy a big Hard Disk! i was thinking to have a "very small" HD like 50GB as main one and external (big) for store all other stuff! Assuming i'm using classic slow softwares like adobe suite (photoshop, flash, autodesk) and some very simple soft like notepad, php and so on...! do you think this is a good practice for improve performance/speed or i'm jast saying some stupid thing!?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103  | Next Page >