Search Results

Search found 31421 results on 1257 pages for 'software performance'.

Page 1026/1257 | < Previous Page | 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033  | Next Page >

  • pam_ldap.so before pam_unix.so? Is it ever possible?

    - by user1075993
    we have a couple of servers with PAM+LDAP. The configuration is standard (see http://arthurdejong.org/nss-pam-ldapd/setup or http://wiki.debian.org/LDAP/PAM). For example, /etc/pam.d/common-auth contains: auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok_secure auth requisite pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 1000 quiet auth sufficient pam_ldap.so use_first_pass auth requiered pam_deny.so And, of course, it works for both ldap and local users. But every login goes first to pam_unix.so, fails, and only then tries pam_ldap.so successfully. As a result, we have a well-known failure message for every single ldap user login: pam_unix(<some_service>:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=<some_host> user=<some_user> I have up to 60000 of such log messages per day and I want to change the configuration so, that PAM will try ldap authentication first, and only if it fails - try pam_unix.so (I think it can improve the i/o performance of the server). But if I change common-auth to the following: auth sufficient pam_ldap.so use_first_pass auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok_secure auth requiered pam_deny.so Then I simply can't login anymore with local (non-ldap) user (e.g., via ssh). Does somebody knows the right configuration? Why Debian and nss-pam-ldapd have pam_unix.so at first by default? Is there really no way to change it? Thank you in advance. P.S. I don't want to disable logs, but want to set ldap authentication on the first place.

    Read the article

  • Xen or KVM? Please help me decide and implement the one which is better

    - by JohnAdams
    I have been doing research for implementing virtualization for a server running 3 guests - two linux based and one windows. After trying my hands on Xenserver, I am impressed with the architecture and wanted to use the opensource XEN, which is when I am hearing a lot more about KVM, about how good it is and it's the future etc. So, could anyone here please help me answer some of my queries, between KVM and XEN. Based on my requirement of three VMs on one server, which is better for performance - KVM or XEN, considering one the linux vm's will works a file-server, one as a mailserver and the third one a Windows server? Is KVM stable? What about upgrades.. What about XEN, I cannot find support for it Ubuntu? Are there any published benchmarks on both Xen and KVM? I cannot seem to find any. If I go with Xen, will it possible to move to KVM later or vice versa? In summary, I am looking for real answers on which one I should use.. Xen or KVM?

    Read the article

  • what are these weird IP address connections in resource monitor?

    - by bill
    I decided to check out Resource Monitor (on the 'Performance' tab in Task Manager, Windows 7) and I noticed in the "Network" section that the 'System' image name kept making a bunch (~5 at a time) of connections to random IP addresses, it would show anywhere from 1-500 bytes/sec 'sent'. They would stay connected for 1-2 minutes. -All web browsers are closed So, first thing I did was run a trace from network-tools.com on some of these IP addresses. 8/10 were outside of US and did not resolve to any host name. Of the 10 IP addresses I traced, 2 were in US, 4 showed origins in China, and one each to Algeria, Russia, Pakistan, Korea. (!) So, the next thing I did was turn off my wireless card, watch the connections disappear, then turn the card back on, and within 30 seconds more random connections were created by System, with different IP addresses from the first time. The next thing I did was go open Task Manager, Show Processes From All Users, then I killed just about everything that wasn't (what appeared to be) a windows process. Turned on wi-fi, and again within 30 seconds, random IP addresses connect for ~ 1 min at a time, new ones coming and going. I occasionally use bit torrent on this machine, but there was definitely no process that seemed related to bt running after I went through task manager, and bt wasn't open to begin with. So, any ideas on what these connections might be for? I have been using Ad-Aware Free and AVG Free on this computer for a while now, always up to date..

    Read the article

  • SSH & SFTP: Should I assign one port to each user to facilitate bandwidth monitoring?

    - by BertS
    There is no easy way to track real-time per-user bandwidth usage for SSH and SFTP. I think assigning one port to each user may help. Idea of implementation Use case Bob, with UID 1001, shall connect on port 31001. Alice, with UID 1002, shall connect on port 31002. John, with UID 1003, shall connect on port 31003. (I do not want to lauch several sshd instances as proposed in question 247291.) 1. Setup for SFTP: In /etc/ssh/sshd_config: Port 31001 Port 31002 Port 31003 Subsystem sftp /usr/bin/sftp-wrapper.sh The file sftp-wrapper.sh starts the sftp server only if the port is the correct one: #!/bin/sh mandatory_port=3`id -u` current_port=`echo $SSH_CONNECTION | awk '{print $4}'` if [ $mandatory_port -eq $current_port ] then exec /usr/lib/openssh/sftp-server fi 2. Additional setup for SSH: A few lines in /etc/profile prevents the user from connecting on the wrong port: if [ -n "$SSH_CONNECTION" ] then mandatory_port=3`id -u` current_port=`echo $SSH_CONNECTION | awk '{print $4}'` if [ $mandatory_port -ne $current_port ] then echo "Please connect on port $mandatory_port." exit 1 fi fi Benefits Now it should be easy to monitor per-user bandwidth usage. A Rrdtool-based application could produce charts like this: I know this won't be a perfect calculation of the bandwidth usage: for example, if somebody launches a bruteforce attack on port 31001, there will be a lot of traffic on this port although not from Bob. But this is not a problem to me: I do not need an exact computation of per-user bandwidth usage, but an indicator that is approximately correct in standard situations. Questions Is the idea of assigning one port for each user is a good one? Is the proposed setup an reliable one? If I have to open dozens of ports for many users, should I expect a performance drawback? Do you know a rrdtool-based application which could make the chart above?

    Read the article

  • How to backup virtual machines on a standalone ESXi host?

    - by Massimo
    Standalone ESXi (4.1) host without any vCenter Server. How to backup virtual machines as quickly and storage-friendly as possible? I know I can access the ESXi console and use the standard Unix cp command, but this has the downfall of copying the whole VMDK files, not only their actually used space; so, for a 30-GB VMDK of which only 1 GB is used, the backup would take 30 full GBs of space, and time accordingly. And yes, I know about thin-provisioned virtual disks, but they tend to behave very badly when physically copied, and/or to blow up to their full provisioned size; also, they are not recommended for actual VM performance. It is ok for me to shut down the VMs before backing them up (i.e. I don't need "live" backups); but I need a way to copy them around efficiently; and yes, a way to automate shutdown/startup when taking a backup would also help. I only have ESXi; no Service Console, no vCenter Server... what's the best way to handle this task? Also, what about restores?

    Read the article

  • Good Hosting Providers With Zend Framework Support [closed]

    - by manyxcxi
    I currently use ixwebhosting for my hosting services. They're cheap and work (most of the time). The databases are horribly slow, the servers are horribly slow, and their support (though usually prompt) is tough to deal with. That being said, they're cheap, I've got like 20 domains hosted in my account, none of them are high volume, and they work JUST good enough- until today. This isn't meant to be a condemnation of ixwh though. Their prices are very low for what they do offer and most things work just fine, most of the time. I need to be able to host web apps written with Zend Framework in a fairly easy fashion. The server performance can't be worse than what I've already had (a pretty low hurdle to clear), and I don't want to spend $30/mo. These are not money making websites- they're projects. My requirements are PHP 5.3, ZF support, MySQL databases, multiple domains- not much. Who should I look at, and who should I look out for?

    Read the article

  • extra managed+unmanaged switches @ home/office -- best (mis)usage scenario? what would you do?

    - by locuse
    up front -- definitely NOT a mission-critical kind of question. after a 'spring cleaning' of my local office, i've ended up with two 'spare' GigE switches at my home/office -- one managed, capable of VLANs, QoS, etc, and the other unmanaged. i've got more ports than i need. in fact EACH switch has more total ports than i need. but, since i can't have these just sitting around not doing SOMETHING ... ;-) i'm interested in ideas for best combined use of these switches. my local topology is simple: [ net ] -- [ adsl2 modem ] -- [linux firewall/router/DNS ] _______________| | [ some arrangement of the 2 GigE switches ] | ( ... stuff on the lan ... ) [WAP1] [voip ATA] [printer] [desktop1] [mail server] [Xen server [desktop2] ( mostly dev, [desktop3] + file server [desktop4] + media server)] the MailServer is a production mail server the XenServer serves some low vol to the 'net; the MediaServer guest serves ONLY to the LAN is there, e.g., any performance value in segmenting off any of the LAN using the managed switch (VLAN? QoS tagging? something?), feeding the rest into the connected unmanaged switch? or should i simply use one of the switches & be done with it, and use the other for a coffee-cup stand?

    Read the article

  • Determining how all memory is used in Windows Server 2008

    - by Mojah
    Hi, I have a Windows Server 2008 system, which has 12GB of RAM. If I list all processes in the Task Manager, and SUM() the memory of each process (Working Set, Memory (Private Working Set), Commit Size, ...), I never reach more than 4-5GB that should be "in use". However, task manager reports this server has 11GB in use via the "Performance" tab. I'm failing in determining where all that used RAM is going. It doesn't seem to be system cache, but I can not be sure. It might be a memory leak in one of the appliances, but I'm struggling to find out which one. The server's memory keeps filing up, and eventually forces us to reboot the device to clear it. I've been reading up on how RAM assignments work on Windows Server: RAM, Virtual Memory, Pagefile and all that stuff: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427 What's the best way to measure? http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/windows-7-memory-usage-whats-the-best-way-to-measure/1786 Configure the file system cache in Windows: http://smallvoid.com/article/winnt-system-cache.html But I fear I'm stuck without ideas at the moment.

    Read the article

  • pgpool2+streaming replication failover on only 2 servers?

    - by aneez
    I am trying to configure pgpool2 and postgresql 9.1 to handle failover. I currently have streaming replication running, and are using pgpool2 for read-only load balancing. I have 2 servers in my setup, both running postgresql - 1 master and 1 slave. The master is also running pgpool2. My question is how do I configure this setup to handle failover? Specifically in the case that the master crashes, and the slave has to take over and run pgpool2 as well. Most documentation and examples I have been able to find assumes that pgpool2 is running on a separate server and thus "never" crashes. I may or may not be attacking the problem using the wrong tools. In my production setup I have a total of 3 identical servers all in independent locations. The main goal of the setup is to achieve a high uptime. Thus failover should be automatic, and bringing a failed node back up should cause only minimal downtime. I want all 3 nodes to be as close to identical as possible, and be able to run with just 1 or 2 nodes available. And if possible I want to use load balancing to improve performance. If anyone can help me gain some insight into how to do this using my current setup or suggest a different/better setup. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • ZFS & Deduplicating FLAC Data

    - by jasongullickson
    I'm experimenting with using ZFS to deduplicate a large library of FLAC files. The purpose of this is twofold: Reduce storage utilization Reduce bandwidth needed to sync the library with cloud storage Many of these files are of the same music tracks but from different physical media. This means that for the most part they are the same and usually close to the same size, which makes me think that they should benefit from block-level deduplication. However in my testing I'm not seeing good results. When I create a pool and add three of these tracks (identical songs from different source media) zpool list reports 1.00 dedupe. If I copy all of the files (make exact duplicates of the three) dedupe climbs, so I know that it is enabled and functioning, but it's not finding any duplication in the original collection of files. My first thought was that perhaps some of the variable header data (metadata tags, etc.) might be mis-aligning the bulk of the data in these files (the audio frames) but even making the header data consistent across the three files doesn't seem to have any impact on deduplication. I'm considering taking alternate routes (testing other dedupe filesystems as well as some custom code) but since we're already using ZFS and I like the ZFS replication options, I'd prefer to use ZFS dedupe for this project; but perhaps it's simply not capable of working well with this sort of data. Any feedback regarding tuning that might improve dedupe performance for this sort of dataset, or confirmation that ZFS dedupe is not the right tool for this job are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Oracle: 1 Large Server vs. 2 Smaller Servers?

    - by nvahalik
    We are in the planning stages of setting up our production Oracle 10gR2 environment. Our budget gives us the ability to buy 2 processor licenses of Oracle DB Standard Edition. We have minimal experience with Oracle so I'll defer to anyone who has used it. We are trying to decide if we should set up a single dual quad-core box or 2 individual quad-core boxes in a RAC configuration. Our DB right now is about 60 GB, and at our peak, we'll have up to 150 concurrent users. Most of the big stuff is done via batch processing at night. My gut tells me that having 2 boxes in a RAC configuration can't be a bad thing because it provides a true hardware failover solution. DB stored in a shared LUN on a SAN via iSCSI. Plus if we ever need to add capacity, we already have boxes in place that can be upgraded with extra procs (I assume with zero downtime, since it's set up in a RAC config) if we add extra licenses, or RAM. Does RAC have any performance penalties? Will it add extra latency? Is there any true advantage for having dual processor boxes running these systems? If we build out the Oracle boxes with special hardware: hardware iSCSI cards, TOE NICs, will these boxes be solid? We are deploying on 64-bit Windows. So what would you do? One box or two?

    Read the article

  • how to build network across buildings ?

    - by Omie
    Hi ! I need some help in building a network between hundreds of computers spread across multiple buildings of my college. Yes, I'll be doing this as a part of my college project. Please see this image, it will give you enough idea of what I'm trying to achieve. http://i.imgur.com/rOohx.png All the computers in all buildings should be able to connect server. Once network is up, there will be a set of services over intranet and network use will be moderate. well, say there will be an email server and a http server. My point is, I cannot afford much of performance loss. It feels easy to connect computers inside 1 building to each other, however, I'm clueless as to how to connect all of them to server. I mean, just 1 cable won't be enough to connect 1 building to server, right ? How should I go with it ? I am not expecting detailed configuration. Just heads up will do :) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does Mac OS X throttle the RATE of socket creation?

    - by pbhogan
    This may seem programming related, but this is an OS question. I'm writing a small high performance daemon that takes thousands of connections per second. It's working fine on Linux (specifically Ubuntu 9.10 on EC2). On Mac OS X if I throw a few thousand connections at it (roughly about 16350) in a benchmark that simply opens a connection, does it's thing and closes the connection, then the benchmark program hangs for several seconds waiting for a socket to become available before continuing (or timing out in the process). I used both Apache Bench as well as Siege (to make sure it wasn't the benchmark application). So why/how is Mac OS X limiting the RATE at which sockets can be used, and can I stop it from doing this? Or is there something else going on? I know there is a file descriptor limit, but I'm not hitting that. There is no error on accepting a socket, it's simply hangs for a while after the first (roughly) 16000, waiting -- I assume -- for the OS to release a socket. This shouldn't happen since all prior the sockets are closed at that point. They're supposed to come available at the rate they're closed, and do on Ubuntu, but there seems to be some kind of multi (5-10?) second delay on Mac OS X. I tried tweaking with ulimit every-which-way. Nada.

    Read the article

  • Does Mac OS X throttle the RATE of socket creation?

    - by pbhogan
    This may seem programming related, but this is an OS question. I'm writing a small high performance daemon that takes thousands of connections per second. It's working fine on Linux (specifically Ubuntu 9.10 on EC2). On Mac OS X if I throw a few thousand connections at it (roughly about 16350) in a benchmark that simply opens a connection, does it's thing and closes the connection, then the benchmark program hangs for several seconds waiting for a socket to become available before continuing (or timing out in the process). I used both Apache Bench as well as Siege (to make sure it wasn't the benchmark application). So why/how is Mac OS X limiting the RATE at which sockets can be used, and can I stop it from doing this? Or is there something else going on? I know there is a file descriptor limit, but I'm not hitting that. There is no error on accepting a socket, it's simply hangs for a while after the first (roughly) 16000, waiting -- I assume -- for the OS to release a socket. This shouldn't happen since all prior the sockets are closed at that point. They're supposed to come available at the rate they're closed, and do on Ubuntu, but there seems to be some kind of multi (5-10?) second delay on Mac OS X. I tried tweaking with ulimit every-which-way. Nada.

    Read the article

  • 20 1TB drives vs. 10 2TB drives in RAID5/6 server

    - by Hunter
    Hi everyone, I will be setting up a server at work and I need some advice on some details. The setup will be one blade-type server (8-core, 16GB RAM) with two subsystems - one for the main storage the other to back it up. I'm shooting for a 20TB array (I know it'll be less after formatting and parity drives). So is there any advantage one way or the other with either 20 1TB drives or 10 2TB drives? I'm not sure right now how many controllers I should have either (in the quote I have is a dual-port controller). I would think two controllers for a server of this size would be a better choice than the dual-port controller (but I really don't know). And would an array of this size have any performance issues in RAID 5 or 6 (I know RAID 5 or 6 are "slower" because of all the parity calculations). Also, these will be either WD RE3 (1TB) or the RE4 (2TB). Oh, also, for the backup array would it be ok to use the WD 2TB green drives (also in RAID5 or 6)?

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 Alerting to Low memory

    - by t1nt1n
    I have a file and print server running on Windows 2008 R2 fully patched in a VSphere environment (ESXi 5.1 fully updated). Every evening between 19:20 and 19:30 our monitoring software reported that the available memory is 1% and performance is dire. There is nothing in the event logs to point to an issue. At this point in the evening I am general the only user on the system to check to see why these alerts are going off. Things I have done; Checked to see if any backups are running – None at all. Checked Scheduled tasks – None before or during this time period. Moved the VM to another host. AV is disabled to rule out that as the issue. The server does not have any problems during the day with memory when fully loaded with about 50 users. The server did have 4GB ram provisioned but I have increased this to 5Gb. Running PrefMon at the time (I will save the graphs tonight) There very little CPU usage at the time but RAM usage goes up.

    Read the article

  • How many guesses per second are possible against an encrypted disk? [closed]

    - by HappyDeveloper
    I understand that guesses per second depends on the hardware and the encryption algorithm, so I don't expect an absolute number as answer. For example, with an average machine you can make a lot (thousands?) of guesses per second for a hash created with a single md5 round, because md5 is fast, making brute force and dictionary attacks a real danger for most passwords. But if instead you use bcrypt with enough rounds, you can slow the attack down to 1 guess per second, for example. 1) So how does disk encryption usually work? This is how I imagine it, tell me if it is close to reality: When I enter the passphrase, it is hashed with a slow algorithm to generate a key (always the same?). Because this is slow, brute force is not a good approach to break it. Then, with the generated key, the disk is unencrypted on the fly very fast, so there is not a significant performance lose. 2) How can I test this with my own machine? I want to calculate the guesses per second my machine can make. 3) How many guesses per second are possible against an encrypted disk with the fastest PC ever so far?

    Read the article

  • apache/httpd responds slower under EL6.1 than EL5.6 (centos)

    - by daniel
    I've read through other threads on performance differences between RHEL6 and RHEL5, but none seem a tight match to mine. My issue manifests itself in slightly slower average response time (20ms) per request. I have about 10/10 servers of the same hardware spec with Cent6.1 and Cent5.6. The issue is consistent across the group. I am running Ruby on Rails with Passenger. Apache config is identical (checked out from the same SVN repo) Ruby and Passenger are identical builds. Application is identical and being served traffic round robin. mod_worker An interesting clue from server-status: The Cent6.1 servers have a steady 20-40 threads in the "Reading Request" state while the Cent5.6 servers have around 1. I'm graphing this so I can see it trend over time. I also have a bunch of much newer machines that are significantly faster and are running Cent6.1. They dust all the older machines in response time, but I can see they also have a steady 20-40 threads in the "Reading Request" state. This makes me believe I can get their response time down, if I can figure out what is holding up these requests. My gut is telling me that I need to tune some network setting in sysctl, but I haven't figured it out yet. Help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • USB Hub vs. Dockinstation USB vs. Laptop USB

    - by Will
    I recently had thougts about my current setup in my office, especially about the UBS ports distribution. Here's my setup: I have a Lenovo T410 docked to a Lenovo Dockingstation Series 3, that providey me with 6 USB ports, which I use all (3 ext. drives, mouse, keyboard, USB Hub of monitor). The USB hub on my ext. monitor (most probably powered by the ext. monitor's power supply) provides me with 2 USB ports, where I use one for my webcam and another for USB sticks. On my T410 itself I have 4 USB slots, that are usually not used, as don't want to mess with USB plugs when undocking my laptop, now and then I plug my printer on one of these, just because I don't have any UBS ports left. Now I'm wondering how fast each of these slots are: I assume that all the 6 USB ports from the dockinstation somehow go through the docking connector on the bottom of my laptop. Does this connector has such a big bandwidth for all these 6 USB ports to perform like if they were dedicated ports as the 4 ones on my laptop? Also how is generally the performance of USB hubs (like the one on my ext. monitor?)?

    Read the article

  • Join multiple consecutive SQLite database dump files into 1 common database? Purpose: Search through ENTIRE Chrome Browsing History

    - by porg
    Google Chrome 's default web browsing history search engine only lets you access the records of the recent 100 days. Nevertheless in your application data, Chrome keeps your entire browsing history in SQLite database files, with the file naming scheme of "History Index YYYY-MM". I am looking for a way to search… …through my entire browsing history, …with sophisticated filters (limit search terms to certain fields such as URL, domain, title, body text; wildcard or regex terms, date ranges). … in … …either some ready-made software. eHistory came close, as it can limit terms to fields, but it lacks wildcards/regexes, and has the same limited time horizon as the default search. Beyond that, I could not find any suited Chrome extension or standalone (Mac) app. …or a command line to join multiple SQLite database files into one database, which I can then query (with the full syntax power). In the spirit of the pseudo code below: Preferred this way: sqlite --targetDatabase ChromeHistoryAll --importFiles /path/to/ChromeAppData/History\ Index* --importOnlyYetUnknownFiles Or if my desired feature --importOnlyYetUnknownFiles is not possible (feature could also be called "avoid duplicate imports by checking UIDs"), then by explicitly only importing files, of which I know, that they have yet not been imported into the ChromeHistoryAll database: cd ChromeAppData; sqlite --databaseTarget ChromeHistoryAll --importFiles YetNotImported1 YetNotImported2 YetNotImported3 All my queries I would then perform in the database "ChromeHistoryAll" P.S.: Additional question of general interest: Is there a way to perform a database query in a temporary database which was created on-the-fly from multiple files? Like: sqlite --query="SQL query" --targetDatabase DbAll --DBtemporaryInRAM --importFiles db1 db2 db3 This is surely not applicable for my Chrome question, as these History Index files have a combined file size of 500MB together, thus such a query would be of bad performance. But it could come handy in other situations.

    Read the article

  • Hosting options for data-enabled web application

    - by Hertfordian
    I am independently developing an asp.net business application with a MySQL database. I currently have a Windows web hosting account which includes MySQL and MS SQL as installed supported options. I am not yet finally committed to using MySQL and I want to keep my options open to evaluate MS SQL and possibly other options such as PostGreSQL later when more of the business logic is in place - my data access layer will handle the database connectivity. The web hosting setup I have now is fine for development purposes, but if in future I want to use, say, PostGreSQL Server, and a level of usage of, say, 10,000 hits per day concentrated in business hours, I'm assuming I'll need a dedicated server. But in that case, should I just install PostGreSQL on the dedicated server, or is best practice to have a separate database server - perhaps locked down so that it can only be accessed through the web server? And supposing it was only 2000 hits a day - how would that change things? I'd appreciate it if anyone could point me in the direction of a useful guide to these sorts of issues. Naturally if I start paying for separate servers, I would like to know exactly why I'm doing it and what the performance issues and thresholds are.

    Read the article

  • Determining how all memory is used in Windows Server 2008

    - by Mojah
    I have a Windows Server 2008 system, which has 12GB of RAM. If I list all processes in the Task Manager, and SUM() the memory of each process (Working Set, Memory (Private Working Set), Commit Size, ...), I never reach more than 4-5GB that should be "in use". However, task manager reports this server has 11GB in use via the "Performance" tab. I'm failing in determining where all that used RAM is going. It doesn't seem to be system cache, but I can not be sure. It might be a memory leak in one of the appliances, but I'm struggling to find out which one. The server's memory keeps filing up, and eventually forces us to reboot the device to clear it. I've been reading up on how RAM assignments work on Windows Server: RAM, Virtual Memory, Pagefile and all that stuff: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427 What's the best way to measure? http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/windows-7-memory-usage-whats-the-best-way-to-measure/1786 Configure the file system cache in Windows: http://smallvoid.com/article/winnt-system-cache.html But I fear I'm stuck without ideas at the moment.

    Read the article

  • Which would be more reliable for data archival - SD card or a generic USB thumbdrive?

    - by Visitor
    I've been thinking lately what should I preferably use for data storage and archival. I will say in advance that I do not use flash memory as the only storage media - I also keep my data on the hard drives and optical disks - flash memory is but one of the several backup solutions that duplicate each other. For the flash memory however I do have a choice - to use a generic USB thumbdrive or a SD card. Are there any indications that SD cards may be better and more reliable? From browsing people's review on the web I see that many complaints about USB sticks have to do with them completely failing, losing file system and stop being recognized by the OS. At the same time, most of the complaints for SD cards deal with just write speeds not holding up to the promise - failure reports are but a portions of those for the USB sticks. Are SD cards indeed more reliable? Am I also correct in my assumptions that SD cards use higher grade NAND chips than USB thumbdrives? At least, for class 10 cards, because the specification dictates the minimum performance and the manufacturers have to preselect better chips. While it is common for USB sticks to promise high speeds "up to XX MB/sec" but the reality is they very often deliver speeds 2-3 times less than promised. Do SD cards get better NAND chips and USB thumbdrives receive the discarded chips? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Best SSD tweak for Windows 7

    - by Nick Berardi
    I have seen many articles about tweaking an SSD, but many of them seem outdated, or too broad (read all Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 general tweaks). And I know that Windows 7 has been specifically tweaked for SSD by the Windows team, so I don't want to do something that was written for Windows XP in mind and end up circumventing something the Windows team has specifically designed in to Windows 7. So my question is what are the best SSD tweaks for Windows 7 that you have found to get the performance out of your drive? I hope to make a comprehensive list in the answers below so there won't be so much disinformation in the forums about what to do and what not to do. Here are a few that I see posted up on the forums alot: Disabling Superfetch. Yes or No Disabling Page File or limiting it to a really small size such as 500 MB. Disabling Indexing. Yes or No Disabling Defragmenting. Yes or No What are your thoughts do you have any that have worked for you? When providing an answer please do your best to back it up with a reason and possibly some documentation from MSDN, TechNet, or another credible source.

    Read the article

  • Slow Routing Over LAN (Wired)

    - by reverendj1
    I'm having issues with my router acting very slow (Adtran Netvanta 3458). We have two networks, let's call them A and B. When I run netperf from two servers on network A (no routing) I get speeds along the lines of 900 Mbps. Which makes sense, since we have all 1Gbps switches. When testing A to B (or vice-versa) I get speeds along the lines of 22Mbps. I have also tested connecting my laptop to the switchports on the router, and testing two servers on network A (no routing) and got speeds around 90 Mbps. Which makes sense since the switchports on the router are 100Mbps. Does anyone have any idea why routing would be so slow? We bought the router over a year ago, and we think it has been doing this since then, but we never actually tested it before. (network B isn't really used much, so we didn't notice much) We were implementing a site-to-site VPN and noticed it was ridiculously slow, so we started testing basic routing performance. I have ruled out cabling and router CPU/memory utilization. Adtran looked at my config, but didn't see anything wrong with it.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033  | Next Page >