Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 169/1257 | < Previous Page | 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176  | Next Page >

  • How to resolve Unmet dependencies error?

    - by dandelion
    Using my new install of Ubuntu I haven't been able to download anything from the software center except the maryo game without the following error: The following packages have unmet dependencies: vlc: Depends: vlc-nox (= 1.1.12-2~oneiric1) but 1.1.12-2~oneiric1 is to be installed Depends: libaa1 (>= 1.4p5) but 1.4p5-38build1 is to be installed Depends: libavcodec-extra-53 (>= 4:0.7-1) but 4:0.7.3ubuntu0.11.10.1 is to be installed Depends: libavutil-extra-51 (>= 4:0.7-1) but 4:0.7.3ubuntu0.11.10.1 is to be installed Depends: libc6 (>= 2.8) but 2.13-20ubuntu5.1 is to be installed Depends: libfreetype6 (>= 2.2.1) but 2.4.4-2ubuntu1.1 is to be installed Depends: libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1) but 1:4.6.1-9ubuntu3 is to be installed Depends: libqtcore4 (>= 4:4.7.0~beta1) but 4:4.7.4-0ubuntu8.1 is to be installed Depends: libqtgui4 (>= 4:4.5.3) but 4:4.7.4-0ubuntu8.1 is to be installed Depends: libsdl-image1.2 (>= 1.2.10) but 1.2.10-2.1 is to be installed Depends: libsdl1.2debian (>= 1.2.10-1) but 1.2.14-6.1ubuntu4 is to be installed Depends: libstdc++6 (>= 4.6) but 4.6.1-9ubuntu3 is to be installed Depends: libva-x11-1 (> 1.0.12~) but it is not going to be installed Depends: libva1 (> 1.0.12~) but it is not going to be installed Depends: libxcb-randr0 (>= 1.1) but it is not going to be installed Depends: libxcb-xv0 (>= 1.2) but it is not going to be installed Depends: zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg) but 1:1.2.3.4.dfsg-3ubuntu3 is to be installed My system specs are version 11.10 64 bit. ge-g41m-es2l mother board amd 5770 video card wdc green 500 gig hard drive I have recently changed the motherboard, but otherwise have not changed my computer from when I used to be running the same version of Ubuntu. edit still unable to download output of sudo apt-get update output of sudo apt-get update ~$ sudo apt-get update Ign http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric InRelease Ign http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security InRelease Ign http://archive.canonical.com oneiric InRelease Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric InRelease Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric InRelease Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates InRelease Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports InRelease Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric Release.gpg Hit http://archive.canonical.com oneiric Release.gpg Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security Release.gpg Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric Release.gpg Ign http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed InRelease Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric Release.gpg Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric Release Hit http://archive.canonical.com oneiric Release Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security Release Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric Release Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates Release.gpg Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports Release.gpg Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric/main Sources Hit http://archive.canonical.com oneiric/partner i386 Packages Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/main Sources Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric/main Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed Release.gpg Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric/main i386 Packages Ign http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric/main TranslationIndex Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric/main i386 Packages Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric/main TranslationIndex Ign http://archive.canonical.com oneiric/partner TranslationIndex Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/restricted Sources Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/universe Sources Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/multiverse Sources Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/main i386 Packages Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric Release Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates Release Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/universe i386 Packages Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/main TranslationIndex Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/universe TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports Release Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/main Translation-en Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed Release Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/main Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/restricted Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/universe Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/multiverse Sources Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/restricted Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/universe i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/main TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/universe TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/main Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/restricted Sources Hit http://security.ubuntu.com oneiric-security/universe Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/universe Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/multiverse Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/main i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/universe i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/main TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/universe TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/main Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/restricted Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/universe Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/multiverse Sources Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/main i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/universe i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/main TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/universe TranslationIndex Ign http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric/main Translation-en_US Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric/main Translation-en_US Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/main i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/universe i386 Packages Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/main TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/universe TranslationIndex Ign http://archive.canonical.com oneiric/partner Translation-en_US Ign http://extras.ubuntu.com oneiric/main Translation-en Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric/main Translation-en Ign http://archive.canonical.com oneiric/partner Translation-en Get:1 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/main i386 Packages [1,583 kB] Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/main Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/restricted Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/universe Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/main Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/restricted Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-updates/universe Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/main Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/restricted Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-backports/universe Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/main Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/restricted Translation-en Hit http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric-proposed/universe Translation-en Err http://us.archive.ubuntu.com oneiric/main i386 Packages 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.92.179 80] Fetched 1 B in 2s (0 B/s) W: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/oneiric/main/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.92.179 80] E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • I Can't Install or Remove Any Application

    - by berkay gürsoy
    when i try to install or remove an application via either software center or apt-get install they both fail and give some debconf errors below is the log please help.Sorry some of the text is not english. sudo apt-get install aptitude Paket listeleri okunuyor... Bitti Bagimlilik agaci insa ediliyor. Durum bilgisi okunuyor... Bitti Asagidaki ek paketler de yüklenecek: aptitude-common libboost-iostreams1.49.0 libcwidget3 Önerilen paketler: aptitude-doc-en aptitude-doc tasksel debtags libcwidget-dev Asagidaki YENI paketler kurulacak: aptitude aptitude-common libboost-iostreams1.49.0 libcwidget3 Yükseltilen: 0, Yeni Kurulan: 4, Kaldirilacak: 0 ve Yükseltilmeyecek: 48. 8 tam olarak kurulmadi veya kaldirilmadi. Indirilmesi gereken dosya boyutu 0 B/2.498 kB Bu islemden sonra 10,4 MB ek disk alani kullanilacak. Devam etmek istiyor musunuz [E/h]? e Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 44, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in -e at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 46, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 47, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in -d at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 48, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 49, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. debconf: DbDriver "config": mkdir :Böyle bir dosya ya da dizin yok Selecting previously unselected package aptitude-common. dpkg: uyari: files list file for package 'aspell' missing; assuming package has no files currently installed dpkg: uyari: files list file for package 'ubuntu-desktop' missing; assuming package has no files currently installed dpkg: uyari: files list file for package 'vuze' missing; assuming package has no files currently installed dpkg: uyari: files list file for package 'java-wrappers' missing; assuming package has no files currently installed (Veritabani okunuyor... 198988 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking aptitude-common (from .../aptitude-common_0.6.8.1-2ubuntu1_all.deb) ... Selecting previously unselected package libboost-iostreams1.49.0. Unpacking libboost-iostreams1.49.0 (from .../libboost-iostreams1.49.0_1.49.0-3.1ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... Selecting previously unselected package libcwidget3. Unpacking libcwidget3 (from .../libcwidget3_0.5.16-3.4ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... Selecting previously unselected package aptitude. Unpacking aptitude (from .../aptitude_0.6.8.1-2ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... wicd-daemon (1.7.2.4-2ubuntu1) kuruluyor... Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 44, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in -e at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 46, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 47, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in -d at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 48, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 49, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. debconf: DbDriver "config": mkdir :Böyle bir dosya ya da dizin yok dpkg: error processing wicd-daemon (--configure): installed post-installation script alt islemi çikis durumunda hata döndürdü : 1 man-db (2.6.3-1) kuruluyor... Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 44, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in -e at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 46, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 47, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in -d at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 48, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 49, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. debconf: DbDriver "config": mkdir :Böyle bir dosya ya da dizin yok dpkg: error processing man-db (--configure): installed post-installation script alt islemi çikis durumunda hata döndürdü : 1 dictionaries-common (1.12.10) kuruluyor... Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 44, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in -e at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 46, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 47, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in -d at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 48, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. Use of uninitialized value $directory in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/DbDriver/File.pm line 49, <DEBCONF_CONFIG> chunk 3. debconf: DbDriver "config": mkdir :Böyle bir dosya ya da dizin yok dpkg: error processing dictionaries-common (--configure): installed post-installation script alt islemi çikis durumunda hata döndürdü : 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of aspell: aspell depends on dictionaries-common (>> 0.40); bununla beraber: Package dictionaries-common is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing aspell (--configure): bagimlilik sorunlari - yapilandirilmadan birakiliyor dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of aspell-en: aspell-en depends on aspell (>= 0.60.3-2); bununla beraber: Package aspell is not configured yet. aspell-en depends on dictionaries-common (>= 0.49.2); bununla beraber: Package dictionaries-common is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing aspell-en (--configure): bagimlilik sorunlari - yapilandirilmadan birakiliyor dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of hyphen-en-us: hyphen-en-us depends on dictionaries-common (>= 0.10) | openoffice.org-updatedicts; bununla beraber: Package dictionaries-common is not configured yet. openoffice.org-updatedicts paketi yüklenmedi. Package dictionaries-common which provides openoffice.org-updatedicts is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing hyphen-en-us (--configure): bagimlilik sorunlari - yapilandirilmadan birakiliyor dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of wicd-gtk: wicd-gtk depends on wicd-daemon (= 1.7.2.4-2ubuntu1); bununla beraber: Package wicd-daemon is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing wicd-gtk (--configure): bagimlilik sorunlari - yapilandirilmadan birakiliyor dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of wicd: wicd depends on wicd-daemon (= 1.7.2.4-2ubuntu1); bununla beraber: Package wicd-daemon is not configured yet. wicd depends on wicd-gtk (= 1.7.2.4-2ubuntu1) | wicd-curses (= 1.7.2.4-2ubuntu1) | wicd-cli (= 1.7.2.4-2ubuntu1) | wicd-client; bununla beraber: Package wicd-gtk is not configured yet. wicd-curses paketi yüklenmedi. wicd-cli paketi yüklenmedi. wicd-client paketi yüklenmedi. Package wicd-gtk which provides wicd-client is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing wicd (--configure): bagimlilik sorunlari - yapilandirilmadan birakiliyor aptitude-common (0.6.8.1-2ubuntu1) kuruluyor... libboost-iostreams1.49.0 (1.49.0-3.1ubuntu1) kuruluyor... libcwidget3 (0.5.16-3.4ubuntu1) kuruluyor... aptitude (0.6.8.1-2ubuntu1) kuruluyor... update-alternatives: using /usr/bin/aptitude-curses to provide /usr/bin/aptitude (aptitude) in Otomatik Mod Processing triggers for libc-bin ... ldconfig deferred processing now taking place Islem sirasinda hatalar bulundu: wicd-daemon man-db dictionaries-common aspell aspell-en hyphen-en-us wicd-gtk wicd E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

    Read the article

  • Romanian parter Omnilogic Delivers “No Limits” Scalability, Performance, Security, and Affordability through Next-Generation, Enterprise-Grade Engineered Systems

    - by swalker
    Omnilogic SRL is a leading technology and information systems provider in Romania and central and Eastern Europe. An Oracle Value-Added Distributor Partner, Omnilogic resells Oracle software, hardware, and engineered systems to Oracle Partner Network members and provides specialized training, support, and testing facilities. Independent software vendors (ISVs) also use Omnilogic’s demonstration and testing facilities to upgrade the performance and efficiency of their solutions and those of their customers by migrating them from competitor technologies to Oracle platforms. Omnilogic also has a dedicated offering for ISV solutions, based on Oracle technology in a hosting service provider model. Omnilogic wanted to help Oracle Partners and ISVs migrate solutions to Oracle Exadata and sell Oracle Exadata to end-customers. It installed Oracle Exadata Database Machine X2-2 Quarter Rack at its data center to create a demonstration and testing environment. Demonstrations proved that Oracle Exadata achieved processing speeds up to 100 times faster than competitor systems, cut typical back-up times from 6 hours to 20 minutes, and stored 10 times more data. Oracle Partners and ISVs learned that migrating solutions to Oracle Exadata’s preconfigured, pre-integrated hardware and software can be completed rapidly, at low cost, without business disruption, and with reduced ongoing operating costs. Challenges A word from Omnilogic “Oracle Exadata is the new killer application—the smartest solution on the market. There is no competition.” – Sorin Dragomir, Chief Operating Officer, Omnilogic SRL Enable Oracle Partners in Romania and central and eastern Europe to achieve Oracle Exadata Ready status by providing facilities to test and optimize existing applications and build real-life proofs of concept (POCs) for new solutions on Oracle Exadata Database Machine Provide technical support and demonstration facilities for ISVs migrating their customers’ solutions from competitor technologies to Oracle Exadata to maximize performance, scalability, and security; optimize hardware and datacenter space; cut maintenance costs; and improve return on investment Demonstrate power of Oracle Exadata’s high-performance, high-capacity engineered systems for customer-facing businesses, such as government organizations, telecommunications, banking and insurance, and utility companies, which typically require continuous availability to support very large data volumes Showcase Oracle Exadata’s unchallenged online transaction processing (OLTP) capabilities that cut application run times to provide unrivalled query turnaround and user response speeds while significantly reducing back-up times and eliminating risk of unplanned outages Capitalize on providing a world-class training and demonstration environment for Oracle Exadata to accelerate sales with Oracle Partners Solutions Created a testing environment to enable Oracle Partners and ISVs to test their own solutions and those of their customers on Oracle Exadata running on Oracle Enterprise Linux or Oracle Solaris Express to benchmark performance prior to migration Leveraged expertise on Oracle Exadata to offer Oracle Exadata training, migration, support seminars and to showcase live demonstrations for Oracle Partners Proved how Oracle Exadata’s pre-engineered systems, that come assembled, configured, and ready to run, reduce deployment time and cost, minimize risk, and help customers achieve the full performance potential immediately after go live Increased processing speeds 10-fold and with zero data loss for a telecommunications provider’s client-facing customer relationship management solution Achieved performance improvements of between 6 and 100 times faster for financial and utility company applications currently running on IBM, Microsoft, or SAP HANA platforms Showed how daily closure procedures carried out overnight by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions to analyze each day’s business, can typically be cut from around six hours to 20 minutes, some 18 times faster, when running on Oracle Exadata Simulated concurrent back-ups while running applications under normal working conditions to prove that Oracle Exadata-based solutions can be backed up during business hours without causing bottlenecks or impacting the end-user experience Demonstrated that Oracle Exadata’s built-in analytics, data mining and OLTP capabilities make it the highest-performance, lowest-cost choice for large data warehousing operations Showed how Oracle Exadata’s columnar compression and intelligent storage architecture allows 10 times more data to be stored than on competitor platforms Demonstrated how Oracle Exadata cuts hardware requirements significantly by consolidating workloads on to fewer servers which delivers greater power efficiency and lower operating costs that competing systems from IBM and other manufacturers Proved to ISVs that migrating solutions to Oracle Exadata’s preconfigured, pre-integrated hardware and software can be completed rapidly, at low cost, and with minimal business disruption Demonstrated how storage servers, database servers, and network switches can be added incrementally and inexpensively to the Oracle Exadata platform to support business expansion On track to grow revenues by 10% in year one and by 15% annually thereafter through increased business generated from Oracle Partners and ISVs

    Read the article

  • Mongodb performance on Windows

    - by Chris
    I've been researching nosql options available for .NET lately and MongoDB is emerging as a clear winner in terms of availability and support, so tonight I decided to give it a go. I downloaded version 1.2.4 (Windows x64 binary) from the mongodb site and ran it with the following options: C:\mongodb\bin>mkdir data C:\mongodb\bin>mongod -dbpath ./data --cpu --quiet I then loaded up the latest mongodb-csharp driver from http://github.com/samus/mongodb-csharp and immediately ran the benchmark program. Having heard about how "amazingly fast" MongoDB is, I was rather shocked at the poor benchmark performance. Starting Tests encode (small).........................................320000 00:00:00.0156250 encode (medium)........................................80000 00:00:00.0625000 encode (large).........................................1818 00:00:02.7500000 decode (small).........................................320000 00:00:00.0156250 decode (medium)........................................160000 00:00:00.0312500 decode (large).........................................2370 00:00:02.1093750 insert (small, no index)...............................2176 00:00:02.2968750 insert (medium, no index)..............................2269 00:00:02.2031250 insert (large, no index)...............................778 00:00:06.4218750 insert (small, indexed)................................2051 00:00:02.4375000 insert (medium, indexed)...............................2133 00:00:02.3437500 insert (large, indexed)................................835 00:00:05.9843750 batch insert (small, no index).........................53333 00:00:00.0937500 batch insert (medium, no index)........................26666 00:00:00.1875000 batch insert (large, no index).........................1114 00:00:04.4843750 find_one (small, no index).............................350 00:00:14.2812500 find_one (medium, no index)............................204 00:00:24.4687500 find_one (large, no index).............................135 00:00:37.0156250 find_one (small, indexed)..............................352 00:00:14.1718750 find_one (medium, indexed).............................184 00:00:27.0937500 find_one (large, indexed)..............................128 00:00:38.9062500 find (small, no index).................................516 00:00:09.6718750 find (medium, no index)................................316 00:00:15.7812500 find (large, no index).................................216 00:00:23.0468750 find (small, indexed)..................................532 00:00:09.3906250 find (medium, indexed).................................346 00:00:14.4375000 find (large, indexed)..................................212 00:00:23.5468750 find range (small, indexed)............................440 00:00:11.3593750 find range (medium, indexed)...........................294 00:00:16.9531250 find range (large, indexed)............................199 00:00:25.0625000 Press any key to continue... For starters, I can get better non-batch insert performance from SQL Server Express. What really struck me, however, was the slow performance of the find_nnnn queries. Why is retrieving data from MongoDB so slow? What am I missing? Edit: This was all on the local machine, no network latency or anything. MongoDB's CPU usage ran at about 75% the entire time the test was running. Edit 2: Also, I ran a trace on the benchmark program and confirmed that 50% of the CPU time spent was waiting for MongoDB to return data, so it's not a performance issue with the C# driver.

    Read the article

  • How to monitor CPU usage and performance on a Hyper-V server with several VM's

    - by Bjørn
    Hello, I have a server that is running Windows 2008 64 bit Hyper-V, with 8 gigs of RAM and Intel Xeon X3440 @ 2.53 Ghz, which gives me 8 logical cores in the performance monitor on the host system. I have set up three Virtual Machines, all running Windows 2008 32 bit. Build server, running Team City Staging server SQL Server, running SQL Server 2005 I have some troubles with the setup in that the host monitor remains responsive at all times, even though the VM's are seemingly working at 100% cpu and are very sluggish and unresponsive. (I have asked a separate question about that.) So the question here is: What is the best way to monitor how the physical CPU's are actually utilized? The reason I am asking is that I am being told that i cannot reliably use the task manager to monitor CPU usage in a VM.

    Read the article

  • Azure, don't give me multiple VMs, give me one elastic VM

    - by FransBouma
    Yesterday, Microsoft revealed new major features for Windows Azure (see ScottGu's post). It all looks shiny and great, but after reading most of the material describing the new features, I still find the overall idea behind all of it flawed: why should I care on how much VMs my web app runs? Isn't that a problem to solve for the Windows Azure engineers / software? And what if I need the file system, why can't I simply get a virtual filesystem ? To illustrate my point, let's use a real example: a product website with a customer system/database and next to it a support site with accompanying database. Both are written in .NET, using ASP.NET and use a SQL Server database each. The product website offers files to download by customers, very simple. You have a couple of options to host these websites: Buy a server, place it in a rack at an ISP and run the sites on that server Use 'shared hosting' with an ISP, which means your sites' appdomains are running on the same machine, as well as the files stored, and the databases are hosted in the same server as the other shared databases. Hire a VM, install your OS of choice at an ISP, and host the sites on that VM, basically the same as the first option, except you don't have a physical server At some cloud-vendor, either host the sites 'shared' or in a VM. See above. With all of those options, scalability is a problem, even the cloud-based ones, though not due to the same reasons: The physical server solution has the obvious problem that if you need more power, you need to buy a bigger server or more servers which requires you to add replication and other overhead Shared hosting solutions are almost always capped on memory usage / traffic and database size: if your sites get too big, you have to move out of the shared hosting environment and start over with one of the other solutions The VM solution, be it a VM at an ISP or 'in the cloud' at e.g. Windows Azure or Amazon, in theory allows scaling out by simply instantiating more VMs, however that too introduces the same overhead problems as with the physical servers: suddenly more than 1 instance runs your sites. If a cloud vendor offers its services in the form of VMs, you won't gain much over having a VM at some ISP: the main problems you have to work around are still there: when you spin up more than one VM, your application must be completely stateless at any moment, including the DB sub system, because what's in memory in instance 1 might not be in memory in instance 2. This might sounds trivial but it's not. A lot of the websites out there started rather small: they were perfectly runnable on a single machine with normal memory and CPU power. After all, you don't need a big machine to run a website with even thousands of users a day. Moving these sites to a multi-VM environment will cause a problem: all the in-memory state they use, all the multi-page transitions they use while keeping state across the transition, they can't do that anymore like they did that on a single machine: state is something of the past, you have to store every byte of state in either a DB or in a viewstate or in a cookie somewhere so with the next request, all state information is available through the request, as nothing is kept in-memory. Our example uses a bunch of files in a file system. Using multiple VMs will require that these files move to a cloud storage system which is mounted in each VM so we don't have to store the files on each VM. This might require different file paths, but this change should be minor. What's perhaps less minor is the maintenance procedure in place on the new type of cloud storage used: instead of ftp-ing into a VM, you might have to update the files using different ways / tools. All in all this makes moving an existing website which was written for an environment that's based around a VM (namely .NET with its CLR) overly cumbersome and problematic: it forces you to refactor your website system to be able to be used 'in the cloud', which is caused by the limited way how e.g. Windows Azure offers its cloud services: in blocks of VMs. Offer a scalable, flexible VM which extends with my needs Instead, cloud vendors should offer simply one VM to me. On that VM I run the websites, store my DB and my files. As it's a virtual machine, how this machine is actually ran on physical hardware (e.g. partitioned), I don't care, as that's the problem for the cloud vendor to solve. If I need more resources, e.g. I have more traffic to my server, way more visitors per day, the VM stretches, like I bought a bigger box. This frees me from the problem which comes with multiple VMs: I don't have any refactoring to do at all: I can simply build my website as if it runs on my local hardware server, upload it to the VM offered by the cloud vendor, install it on the VM and I'm done. "But that might require changes to windows!" Yes, but Microsoft is Windows. Windows Azure is their service, they can make whatever change to what they offer to make it look like it's windows. Yet, they're stuck, like Amazon, in thinking in VMs, which forces developers to 'think ahead' and gamble whether they would need to migrate to a cloud with multiple VMs in the future or not. Which comes down to: gamble whether they should invest time in code / architecture which they might never need. (YAGNI anyone?) So the VM we're talking about, is that a low-level VM which runs a guest OS, or is that VM a different kind of VM? The flexible VM: .NET's CLR ? My example websites are ASP.NET based, which means they run inside a .NET appdomain, on the .NET CLR, which is a VM. The only physical OS resource the sites need is the file system, however this too is accessed through .NET. In short: all the websites see is what .NET allows the websites to see, the world as the websites know it is what .NET shows them and lets them access. How the .NET appdomain is run physically, that's the concern of .NET, not mine. This begs the question why Windows Azure doesn't offer virtual appdomains? Or better: .NET environments which look like one machine but could be physically multiple machines. In such an environment, no change has to be made to the websites to migrate them from a local machine or own server to the cloud to get proper scaling: the .NET VM will simply scale with the need: more memory needed, more CPU power needed, it stretches. What it offers to the application running inside the appdomain is simply increasing, but not fragmented: all resources are available to the application: this means that the problem of how to scale is back to where it should be: with the cloud vendor. "Yeah, great, but what about the databases?" The .NET application communicates with the database server through a .NET ADO.NET provider. Where the database is located is not a problem of the appdomain: the ADO.NET provider has to solve that. I.o.w.: we can host the databases in an environment which offers itself as a single resource and is accessible through one connection string without replication overhead on the outside, and use that environment inside the .NET VM as if it was a single DB. But what about memory replication and other problems? This environment isn't simple, at least not for the cloud vendor. But it is simple for the customer who wants to run his sites in that cloud: no work needed. No refactoring needed of existing code. Upload it, run it. Perhaps I'm dreaming and what I described above isn't possible. Yet, I think if cloud vendors don't move into that direction, what they're offering isn't interesting: it doesn't solve a problem at all, it simply offers a way to instantiate more VMs with the guest OS of choice at the cost of me needing to refactor my website code so it can run in the straight jacket form factor dictated by the cloud vendor. Let's not kid ourselves here: most of us developers will never build a website which needs a truck load of VMs to run it: almost all websites created by developers can run on just a few VMs at most. Yet, the most expensive change is right at the start: moving from one to two VMs. As soon as you have refactored your website code to run across multiple VMs, adding another one is just as easy as clicking a mouse button. But that first step, that's the problem here and as it's right there at the beginning of scaling the website, it's particularly strange that cloud vendors refuse to solve that problem and leave it to the developers to solve that. Which makes migrating 'to the cloud' particularly expensive.

    Read the article

  • Tweaking Firefox for Performance

    - by Simon Sheehan
    As an avid Firefox user since it began, I've been looking to make some under the hood changes to it, in order to optimize it for speed and performance. I'd also like to limit my RAM usage with it. Are there any settings that can help this? What can be changed in about:config that affects this? I'd also like to know if themes or anything really boost RAM usage, as they are generally very small files to download. Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:7.0a1) Gecko/20110630 Firefox/7.0a1

    Read the article

  • Performance Optimization &ndash; It Is Faster When You Can Measure It

    - by Alois Kraus
    Performance optimization in bigger systems is hard because the measured numbers can vary greatly depending on the measurement method of your choice. To measure execution timing of specific methods in your application you usually use Time Measurement Method Potential Pitfalls Stopwatch Most accurate method on recent processors. Internally it uses the RDTSC instruction. Since the counter is processor specific you can get greatly different values when your thread is scheduled to another core or the core goes into a power saving mode. But things do change luckily: Intel's Designer's vol3b, section 16.11.1 "16.11.1 Invariant TSC The time stamp counter in newer processors may support an enhancement, referred to as invariant TSC. Processor's support for invariant TSC is indicated by CPUID.80000007H:EDX[8]. The invariant TSC will run at a constant rate in all ACPI P-, C-. and T-states. This is the architectural behavior moving forward. On processors with invariant TSC support, the OS may use the TSC for wall clock timer services (instead of ACPI or HPET timers). TSC reads are much more efficient and do not incur the overhead associated with a ring transition or access to a platform resource." DateTime.Now Good but it has only a resolution of 16ms which can be not enough if you want more accuracy.   Reporting Method Potential Pitfalls Console.WriteLine Ok if not called too often. Debug.Print Are you really measuring performance with Debug Builds? Shame on you. Trace.WriteLine Better but you need to plug in some good output listener like a trace file. But be aware that the first time you call this method it will read your app.config and deserialize your system.diagnostics section which does also take time.   In general it is a good idea to use some tracing library which does measure the timing for you and you only need to decorate some methods with tracing so you can later verify if something has changed for the better or worse. In my previous article I did compare measuring performance with quantum mechanics. This analogy does work surprising well. When you measure a quantum system there is a lower limit how accurately you can measure something. The Heisenberg uncertainty relation does tell us that you cannot measure of a quantum system the impulse and location of a particle at the same time with infinite accuracy. For programmers the two variables are execution time and memory allocations. If you try to measure the timings of all methods in your application you will need to store them somewhere. The fastest storage space besides the CPU cache is the memory. But if your timing values do consume all available memory there is no memory left for the actual application to run. On the other hand if you try to record all memory allocations of your application you will also need to store the data somewhere. This will cost you memory and execution time. These constraints are always there and regardless how good the marketing of tool vendors for performance and memory profilers are: Any measurement will disturb the system in a non predictable way. Commercial tool vendors will tell you they do calculate this overhead and subtract it from the measured values to give you the most accurate values but in reality it is not entirely true. After falling into the trap to trust the profiler timings several times I have got into the habit to Measure with a profiler to get an idea where potential bottlenecks are. Measure again with tracing only the specific methods to check if this method is really worth optimizing. Optimize it Measure again. Be surprised that your optimization has made things worse. Think harder Implement something that really works. Measure again Finished! - Or look for the next bottleneck. Recently I have looked into issues with serialization performance. For serialization DataContractSerializer was used and I was not sure if XML is really the most optimal wire format. After looking around I have found protobuf-net which uses Googles Protocol Buffer format which is a compact binary serialization format. What is good for Google should be good for us. A small sample app to check out performance was a matter of minutes: using ProtoBuf; using System; using System.Diagnostics; using System.IO; using System.Reflection; using System.Runtime.Serialization; [DataContract, Serializable] class Data { [DataMember(Order=1)] public int IntValue { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 2)] public string StringValue { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 3)] public bool IsActivated { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 4)] public BindingFlags Flags { get; set; } } class Program { static MemoryStream _Stream = new MemoryStream(); static MemoryStream Stream { get { _Stream.Position = 0; _Stream.SetLength(0); return _Stream; } } static void Main(string[] args) { DataContractSerializer ser = new DataContractSerializer(typeof(Data)); Data data = new Data { IntValue = 100, IsActivated = true, StringValue = "Hi this is a small string value to check if serialization does work as expected" }; var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); int Runs = 1000 * 1000; for (int i = 0; i < Runs; i++) { //ser.WriteObject(Stream, data); Serializer.Serialize<Data>(Stream, data); } sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("Did take {0:N0}ms for {1:N0} objects", sw.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds, Runs); Console.ReadLine(); } } The results are indeed promising: Serializer Time in ms N objects protobuf-net   807 1000000 DataContract 4402 1000000 Nearly a factor 5 faster and a much more compact wire format. Lets use it! After switching over to protbuf-net the transfered wire data has dropped by a factor two (good) and the performance has worsened by nearly a factor two. How is that possible? We have measured it? Protobuf-net is much faster! As it turns out protobuf-net is faster but it has a cost: For the first time a type is de/serialized it does use some very smart code-gen which does not come for free. Lets try to measure this one by setting of our performance test app the Runs value not to one million but to 1. Serializer Time in ms N objects protobuf-net 85 1 DataContract 24 1 The code-gen overhead is significant and can take up to 200ms for more complex types. The break even point where the code-gen cost is amortized by its faster serialization performance is (assuming small objects) somewhere between 20.000-40.000 serialized objects. As it turned out my specific scenario involved about 100 types and 1000 serializations in total. That explains why the good old DataContractSerializer is not so easy to take out of business. The final approach I ended up was to reduce the number of types and to serialize primitive types via BinaryWriter directly which turned out to be a pretty good alternative. It sounded good until I measured again and found that my optimizations so far do not help much. After looking more deeper at the profiling data I did found that one of the 1000 calls did take 50% of the time. So how do I find out which call it was? Normal profilers do fail short at this discipline. A (totally undeserved) relatively unknown profiler is SpeedTrace which does unlike normal profilers create traces of your applications by instrumenting your IL code at runtime. This way you can look at the full call stack of the one slow serializer call to find out if this stack was something special. Unfortunately the call stack showed nothing special. But luckily I have my own tracing as well and I could see that the slow serializer call did happen during the serialization of a bool value. When you encounter after much analysis something unreasonable you cannot explain it then the chances are good that your thread was suspended by the garbage collector. If there is a problem with excessive GCs remains to be investigated but so far the serialization performance seems to be mostly ok.  When you do profile a complex system with many interconnected processes you can never be sure that the timings you just did measure are accurate at all. Some process might be hitting the disc slowing things down for all other processes for some seconds as well. There is a big difference between warm and cold startup. If you restart all processes you can basically forget the first run because of the OS disc cache, JIT and GCs make the measured timings very flexible. When you are in need of a random number generator you should measure cold startup times of a sufficiently complex system. After the first run you can try again getting different and much lower numbers. Now try again at least two times to get some feeling how stable the numbers are. Oh and try to do the same thing the next day. It might be that the bottleneck you found yesterday is gone today. Thanks to GC and other random stuff it can become pretty hard to find stuff worth optimizing if no big bottlenecks except bloatloads of code are left anymore. When I have found a spot worth optimizing I do make the code changes and do measure again to check if something has changed. If it has got slower and I am certain that my change should have made it faster I can blame the GC again. The thing is that if you optimize stuff and you allocate less objects the GC times will shift to some other location. If you are unlucky it will make your faster working code slower because you see now GCs at times where none were before. This is where the stuff does get really tricky. A safe escape hatch is to create a repro of the slow code in an isolated application so you can change things fast in a reliable manner. Then the normal profilers do also start working again. As Vance Morrison does point out it is much more complex to profile a system against the wall clock compared to optimize for CPU time. The reason is that for wall clock time analysis you need to understand how your system does work and which threads (if you have not one but perhaps 20) are causing a visible delay to the end user and which threads can wait a long time without affecting the user experience at all. Next time: Commercial profiler shootout.

    Read the article

  • LVM2 vs MDADM performance

    - by archer
    I've used MDADM + LVM2 on many boxes for quite a while. MDADM was serving for both RAID0 and RAID1 arrays, while LVM2 where used for logical volumes on top of MDADM. Recently I've found that LVM2 could be used w/o MDADM (thus minus one layer, as the result - less overhead) for both mirroring and stripping. However, some guys claims that READ PERFORMANCE on LVM2 for mirrored array is not that fast as for LVM2 (linear) on top of MDADM (RAID1) as LVM2 does not read from 2+ devices at a time, but use 2nd and higher devices in case of 1st device failure. MDADM reads from 2 devices at a time (even in mirrored mode). Who could confirm that?

    Read the article

  • Do Seagate Momentus XT SSD Hybrid drives perform better than a good hard drive + flash on ReadyBoost

    - by Chris W. Rea
    Seagate has released a product called the Momentus XT Solid State Hybrid Drive. At a glance, this looks exactly like what Windows ReadyBoost attempts to do with software at the OS level: Pairing the benefits of a large hard drive together with the performance of solid-state flash memory. Does the Momentus XT out-perform a similar ad-hoc pairing of a decent hard drive with similar flash memory storage under Windows ReadyBoost? Other than the obvious "a hardware implementation ought to be faster than a software implementation", why would ReadyBoost not be able to perform as well as such a hybrid device?

    Read the article

  • CPU & Memory Usage Log & Performance

    - by wittythotha
    I want to have an idea of the amount of CPU and memory that is being used. I have a website hosted using IIS, and have clients connecting to it. I want to find out the amount of load that the CPU, RAM and the network has when multiple clients connect. I tried out using tools like Fiddler, the inbuilt Resource Manager, and also some other applications I found on the internet. I just want to keep track of all these data in a file, so I can plot out a graph and find out how the CPU, etc. is performing. I read a few other posts, but didn't find anything that solves the problem. Is there good CPU / Memory Logging tool available, just to plot a graph of the usage, etc.? EDIT : I want to know of some tool that can save the performance details in a log file, so that I can use it to plot a graph, etc.

    Read the article

  • NFS performance troubleshooting

    - by aix
    I am troubleshooting NFS performance issues on Linux, and I'm looking at the following nfsiostat output: host:/path mounted on /path: op/s rpc bklog 96.75 0.01 read: ops/s kB/s kB/op retrans avg RTT (ms) avg exe (ms) 86.561 1408.294 16.269 0 (0.0%) 34.595 89.688 write: ops/s kB/s kB/op retrans avg RTT (ms) avg exe (ms) 10.113 326.282 32.265 0 (0.0%) 19.688 72446.246 What exactly is the meaning of avg RTT (ms) and avg exe (ms)? avg exe for writes is 72 seconds(!) -- would you say this is abnormal and, if so, how do I go about troubleshooting this further? I'm using NFS over TCP. Both the client and the server are on the same GigE LAN.

    Read the article

  • performance of vmware-machine on different computers

    - by bxshi
    I'm working on a filesystem improving project, and found a paper says the cheating on benchmark, and it gives a solution that use VMs could help others to reproduce our result. And the question is, if I have made a specific vmware virtual machine, will it runs the same at different computer and platform? For example, I have a virtual machine which is 1G RAM, 4G HD and 2G one-core CPU. Will that runs the same at a qual-core 3G CPU and a 2.4G P4? What if the computer have 4G RAM? Will vmware use some buffer mechanism to improve performance? If that's true, does it means the VM runs on a 2G RAM host will slower than on a 4G host? Hope you can help me on that, or just told me where could I find the answer.

    Read the article

  • POI performance

    - by The Machine
    I am using POI in my J2EE web application to generate a workbook. However, i find that POI takes around 3 mins to create a workbook with 25K rows(with around 15 columns each). Is this a POI performance issue , or is it justified to take that much of time? Are there other APIs known for better performance ?

    Read the article

  • performance counter

    - by Abruzzo Forte e Gentile
    Hi All I created a performance counter for my C# application. Its type is NumberOfItems32. I don't know why but the Performance Monitor is displaying me on the y-axis only as maximum value only 100 when my counter is much more bigger than this for sure. Do you know if this is the correct behavior or am I doing something wrong? Thanks all AFG

    Read the article

  • Slow Network Performance with Windows Server 2008 SP1

    - by Axeva
    I recently installed Service Pack 1 for Windows Server 2008. Since that time, network performance has been awful. Both Windows 7 and Mac Snow Leopard clients have seen miserable speeds when trying to read or write to the server. This is the exact update: Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 x64 Edition (KB976932) It's a very simple file server setup. No Domain or Active Directory. Essentially just shared folders. It's Windows Web Server that I'm running. Are there any settings I can tweak? Should I roll back the update (doesn't seem wise)? Update: I've turned off the Power Management for the Network Adapter. That may help. If it doesn't have to be powered on at the start of a request, it should speed things up. Or so I would assume.

    Read the article

  • projection / view matrix: the object is bigger than it should and depth does not affect vertices

    - by Francesco Noferi
    I'm currently trying to write a C 3D software rendering engine from scratch just for fun and to have an insight on what OpenGL does behind the scene and what 90's programmers had to do on DOS. I have written my own matrix library and tested it without noticing any issues, but when I tried projecting the vertices of a simple 2x2 cube at 0,0 as seen by a basic camera at 0,0,10, the cube seems to appear way bigger than the application's window. If I scale the vertices' coordinates down by 8 times I can see a proper cube centered on the screen. This cube doesn't seem to be in perspective: wheen seen from the front, the back vertices pe rfectly overlap with the front ones, so I'm quite sure it's not correct. this is how I create the view and projection matrices (vec4_initd initializes the vectors with w=0, vec4_initw initializes the vectors with w=1): void mat4_lookatlh(mat4 *m, const vec4 *pos, const vec4 *target, const vec4 *updirection) { vec4 fwd, right, up; // fwd = norm(pos - target) fwd = *target; vec4_sub(&fwd, pos); vec4_norm(&fwd); // right = norm(cross(updirection, fwd)) vec4_cross(updirection, &fwd, &right); vec4_norm(&right); // up = cross(right, forward) vec4_cross(&fwd, &right, &up); // orientation and translation matrices combined vec4_initd(&m->a, right.x, up.x, fwd.x); vec4_initd(&m->b, right.y, up.y, fwd.y); vec4_initd(&m->c, right.z, up.z, fwd.z); vec4_initw(&m->d, -vec4_dot(&right, pos), -vec4_dot(&up, pos), -vec4_dot(&fwd, pos)); } void mat4_perspectivefovrh(mat4 *m, float fovdegrees, float aspectratio, float near, float far) { float h = 1.f / tanf(ftoradians(fovdegrees / 2.f)); float w = h / aspectratio; vec4_initd(&m->a, w, 0.f, 0.f); vec4_initd(&m->b, 0.f, h, 0.f); vec4_initw(&m->c, 0.f, 0.f, -far / (near - far)); vec4_initd(&m->d, 0.f, 0.f, (near * far) / (near - far)); } this is how I project my vertices: void device_project(device *d, const vec4 *coord, const mat4 *transform, int *projx, int *projy) { vec4 result; mat4_mul(transform, coord, &result); *projx = result.x * d->w + d->w / 2; *projy = result.y * d->h + d->h / 2; } void device_rendervertices(device *d, const camera *camera, const mesh meshes[], int nmeshes, const rgba *color) { int i, j; mat4 view, projection, world, transform, projview; mat4 translation, rotx, roty, rotz, transrotz, transrotzy; int projx, projy; // vec4_unity = (0.f, 1.f, 0.f, 0.f) mat4_lookatlh(&view, &camera->pos, &camera->target, &vec4_unity); mat4_perspectivefovrh(&projection, 45.f, (float)d->w / (float)d->h, 0.1f, 1.f); for (i = 0; i < nmeshes; i++) { // world matrix = translation * rotz * roty * rotx mat4_translatev(&translation, meshes[i].pos); mat4_rotatex(&rotx, ftoradians(meshes[i].rotx)); mat4_rotatey(&roty, ftoradians(meshes[i].roty)); mat4_rotatez(&rotz, ftoradians(meshes[i].rotz)); mat4_mulm(&translation, &rotz, &transrotz); // transrotz = translation * rotz mat4_mulm(&transrotz, &roty, &transrotzy); // transrotzy = transrotz * roty = translation * rotz * roty mat4_mulm(&transrotzy, &rotx, &world); // world = transrotzy * rotx = translation * rotz * roty * rotx // transform matrix mat4_mulm(&projection, &view, &projview); // projview = projection * view mat4_mulm(&projview, &world, &transform); // transform = projview * world = projection * view * world for (j = 0; j < meshes[i].nvertices; j++) { device_project(d, &meshes[i].vertices[j], &transform, &projx, &projy); device_putpixel(d, projx, projy, color); } } } this is how the cube and camera are initialized: // test mesh cube = &meshlist[0]; mesh_init(cube, "Cube", 8); cube->rotx = 0.f; cube->roty = 0.f; cube->rotz = 0.f; vec4_initw(&cube->pos, 0.f, 0.f, 0.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[0], -1.f, 1.f, 1.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[1], 1.f, 1.f, 1.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[2], -1.f, -1.f, 1.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[3], -1.f, -1.f, -1.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[4], -1.f, 1.f, -1.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[5], 1.f, 1.f, -1.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[6], 1.f, -1.f, 1.f); vec4_initw(&cube->vertices[7], 1.f, -1.f, -1.f); // main camera vec4_initw(&maincamera.pos, 0.f, 0.f, 10.f); maincamera.target = vec4_zerow; and, just to be sure, this is how I compute matrix multiplications: void mat4_mul(const mat4 *m, const vec4 *va, vec4 *vb) { vb->x = m->a.x * va->x + m->b.x * va->y + m->c.x * va->z + m->d.x * va->w; vb->y = m->a.y * va->x + m->b.y * va->y + m->c.y * va->z + m->d.y * va->w; vb->z = m->a.z * va->x + m->b.z * va->y + m->c.z * va->z + m->d.z * va->w; vb->w = m->a.w * va->x + m->b.w * va->y + m->c.w * va->z + m->d.w * va->w; } void mat4_mulm(const mat4 *ma, const mat4 *mb, mat4 *mc) { mat4_mul(ma, &mb->a, &mc->a); mat4_mul(ma, &mb->b, &mc->b); mat4_mul(ma, &mb->c, &mc->c); mat4_mul(ma, &mb->d, &mc->d); }

    Read the article

  • MySQL Linked Server and SQL Server 2008 Express Performance

    - by Jeffrey
    Hi All, I am currently trying to setup a MySQL Linked Server via SQL Server 2008 Express. I have tried two methods, creating a DSN using the mySQL 5.1 ODBC driver, and using Cherry Software OLE DB Driver as well. The method that I prefer would be using the ODBC driver, but both run horrendously slow (doing one simple join takes about 5 min). Is there any way I can get better performance? We are trying to cross query between multiple mySQL databases on different servers, and this seems to be method we think would work well. Any comments, suggestions, etc... would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Jeffrey

    Read the article

  • Performance required to improve Windows Experience Index?

    - by Ian Boyd
    Is there a guide on the metrics required to obtain a certain Windows Experience Index? A Microsoft guy said in January 2009: On the matter of transparency, it is indeed our plan to disclose in great detail how the scores are calculated, what the tests attempt to measure, why, and how they map to realistic scenarios and usage patterns. Has that amount of transparency happened? Is there a technet article somewhere? If my score was limited by my Memory subscore of 5.9. A nieve person would suggest: Buy a faster RAM Which is wrong of course. From the Windows help: If your computer has a 64-bit central processing unit (CPU) and 4 gigabytes (GB) or less random access memory (RAM), then the Memory (RAM) subscore for your computer will have a maximum of 5.9. You can buy the fastest, overclocked, liquid-cooled, DDR5 RAM on the planet; you'll still have a maximum Memory subscore of 5.9. So in general the knee-jerk advice "buy better stuff" is not helpful. What i am looking for is attributes required to achieve a certain score, or move beyond a current limitation. The information i've been able to compile so far, chiefly from 3 Windows blog entries, and an article: Memory subscore Score Conditions ======= ================================ 1.0 < 256 MB 2.0 < 500 MB 2.9 <= 512 MB 3.5 < 704 MB 3.9 < 944 MB 4.5 <= 1.5 GB 5.9 < 4.0GB-64MB on a 64-bit OS Windows Vista highest score 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Graphics Subscore Score Conditions ======= ====================== 1.0 doesn't support DX9 1.9 doesn't support WDDM 4.9 does not support Pixel Shader 3.0 5.9 doesn't support DX10 or WDDM1.1 Windows Vista highest score 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Gaming graphics subscore Score Result ======= ============================= 1.0 doesn't support D3D 2.0 supports D3D9, DX9 and WDDM 5.9 doesn't support DX10 or WDDM1.1 Windows Vista highest score 6.0-6.9 good framerates (e.g. 40-50fps) at normal resoltuions (e.g. 1280x1024) 7.0-7.9 even higher framerates at even higher resolutions 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Processor subscore Score Conditions ======= ========================================================================== 5.9 Windows Vista highest score 6.0-6.9 many quad core processors will be able to score in the high 6 low 7 ranges 7.0+ many quad core processors will be able to score in the high 6 low 7 ranges 7.9 8-core systems will be able to approach 8.9 Windows 7 highest score Primary hard disk subscore (note) Score Conditions ======= ======================================== 1.9 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 2.0 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 2.9 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 3.0 Limit for pathological drives that stop responding when pending writes 5.9 highest you're likely to see without SSD Windows Vista highest score 7.9 Windows 7 highest score Bonus Chatter You can find your WEI detailed test results in: C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore e.g. 2011-11-06 01.00.19.482 Disk.Assessment (Recent).WinSAT.xml <WinSAT> <WinSPR> <DiskScore>5.9</DiskScore> </WinSPR> <Metrics> <DiskMetrics> <AvgThroughput units="MB/s" score="6.4" ioSize="65536" kind="Sequential Read">89.95188</AvgThroughput> <AvgThroughput units="MB/s" score="4.0" ioSize="16384" kind="Random Read">1.58000</AvgThroughput> <Responsiveness Reason="UnableToAssess" Kind="Cap">TRUE</Responsiveness> </DiskMetrics> </Metrics> </WinSAT> Pre-emptive snarky comment: "WEI is useless, it has no relation to reality" Fine, how do i increase my hard-drive's random I/O throughput? Update - Amount of memory limits rating Some people don't believe Microsoft's statement that having less than 4GB of RAM on a 64-bit edition of Windows doesn't limit the rating to 5.9: And from xxx.Formal.Assessment (Recent).WinSAT.xml: <WinSPR> <LimitsApplied> <MemoryScore> <LimitApplied Friendly="Physical memory available to the OS is less than 4.0GB-64MB on a 64-bit OS : limit mem score to 5.9" Relation="LT">4227858432</LimitApplied> </MemoryScore> </LimitsApplied> </WinSPR> References Windows Vista Team Blog: Windows Experience Index: An In-Depth Look Understand and improve your computer's performance in Windows Vista Engineering Windows 7 Blog: Engineering the Windows 7 “Windows Experience Index”

    Read the article

  • Why better isolation level means better performance in MS SQL Server

    - by Oleg Zhylin
    When measuring performance on my query I came up with a dependency between isolation level and elapsed time that was surprising to me READUNCOMMITTED - 409024 READCOMMITTED - 368021 REPEATABLEREAD - 358019 SERIALIZABLE - 348019 Left column is table hint, and the right column is elapsed time in microseconds (sys.dm_exec_query_stats.total_elapsed_time). Why better isolation level gives better performance? This is a development machine and no concurrency whatsoever happens. I would expect READUNCOMMITTED to be the fasted due to less locking overhead.

    Read the article

  • What FOSS solutions are available to manage software requirements?

    - by boos
    In the company where I work, we are starting to plan to be compliant to the software development life cycle. We already have, wiki, vcs system, bug tracking system, and a continuous integration system. The next step we want to have is to start to manage, in a structured way, software requirements. We dont want to use a wiki or shared documentation because we have many input (developer, manager, commercial, security analyst and other) and we dont want to handle proliferation of .doc around the network share. We are trying to search and we hope we can find and use a FOSS software to manage all this things. We have about 30 people, and don't have a budget for commercial software. We need a free solution for requirements management. What we want is software that can manage: Required features: Software requirements divided in a structured configurable way Versioning of the requirements (history, diff, etc, like source code) Interdependency of requirements (child of, parent of, related to) Rule Based Access Control for data handling Multi user, multi project File upload (for graph, document related to or so on) Report and extraction features Optional Features: Web Based Test case Time based management (timeline, excepted data, result data) Person allocation and so on Business related stuff Hardware allocation handling I have already play with testlink and now i'm playing with RTH, the next one i try is redmine.

    Read the article

  • What's the relationship between meta-circular interpreters, virtual machines and increased performance?

    - by Gomi
    I've read about meta-circular interpreters on the web (including SICP) and I've looked into the code of some implementations (such as PyPy and Narcissus). I've read quite a bit about two languages which made great use of metacircular evaluation, Lisp and Smalltalk. As far as I understood Lisp was the first self-hosting compiler and Smalltalk had the first "true" JIT implementation. One thing I've not fully understood is how can those interpreters/compilers achieve so good performance or, in other words, why is PyPy faster than CPython? Is it because of reflection? And also, my Smalltalk research led me to believe that there's a relationship between JIT, virtual machines and reflection. Virtual Machines such as the JVM and CLR allow a great deal of type introspection and I believe they make great use it in Just-in-Time (and AOT, I suppose?) compilation. But as far as I know, Virtual Machines are kind of like CPUs, in that they have a basic instruction set. Are Virtual Machines efficient because they include type and reference information, which would allow language-agnostic reflection? I ask this because many both interpreted and compiled languages are now using bytecode as a target (LLVM, Parrot, YARV, CPython) and traditional VMs like JVM and CLR have gained incredible boosts in performance. I've been told that it's about JIT, but as far as I know JIT is nothing new since Smalltalk and Sun's own Self have been doing it before Java. I don't remember VMs performing particularly well in the past, there weren't many non-academic ones outside of JVM and .NET and their performance was definitely not as good as it is now (I wish I could source this claim but I speak from personal experience). Then all of a sudden, in the late 2000s something changed and a lot of VMs started to pop up even for established languages, and with very good performance. Was something discovered about the JIT implementation that allowed pretty much every modern VM to skyrocket in performance? A paper or a book maybe?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176  | Next Page >