Search Results

Search found 60072 results on 2403 pages for 'application 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 193/2403 | < Previous Page | 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200  | Next Page >

  • Nginx Slower than Apache??

    - by ichilton
    Hi, I've just setup 2x identical Rackspace Cloud instances and am doing some comparisons and benchmarks to compare Apache and Nginx. I'm testing with a 3.4k png file and initially 512MB server instances but have now moved to 1024MB server instances. I'm very surprised to see that whatever I try, Apache seems to consistently outperform Nginx....what am I doing wrong? Nginx: Server Software: nginx/0.8.54 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 2.320 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3612000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 431.01 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 232.014 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 2.320 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1520.31 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 11 15.7 3 120 Processing: 1 35 76.9 20 1674 Waiting: 1 31 73.0 19 1674 Total: 1 46 79.1 21 1693 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 21 66% 39 75% 40 80% 40 90% 98 95% 136 98% 269 99% 334 100% 1693 (longest request) And Apache: Server Software: Apache/2.2.16 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 1.346 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3647000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 742.90 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 134.608 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.346 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 2645.85 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 1 3.7 0 27 Processing: 0 3 6.2 1 29 Waiting: 0 2 5.0 1 29 Total: 1 4 7.0 1 29 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 1 66% 1 75% 1 80% 1 90% 17 95% 19 98% 26 99% 27 100% 29 (longest request) I'm currently using worker_processes 4; and worker_connections 1024; but i've tried and benchmarked different values and see the same behaviour on all - I just can't get it to perform as well as Apache and from what i've read previously, i'm shocked about this! Can anyone give any advice? Thanks, Ian

    Read the article

  • Simple tool to graph memory usage?

    - by dbr
    Is there a script that will show memory usage as a graph, for example as a pie-chart, with each process being being a separate slice? I'm not looking for something like Munin to graph memory usage over time, but rather show the memory usage per-process at a single point in time. To make my request even more obscure, it is for a headless server (so no X applications). The simplest way would be to write a PNG file, or possibly an HTML file (which could use Javascript to allow the filtering of processes, changing between graph-types and so on)

    Read the article

  • Why might apache2 use 100% of CPU at startup?

    - by QuantumMechanic
    This is apache 2.2.14 on SLES9. Out of nowhere (i.e. it had been working fine for ages) I am seeing apache2 suddenly start using 100% of the CPU at startup, and never completing startup. Nothing is getting written to /var/log/error_log (when it did back when things were OK). ps only shows the main httpd process and not any of the spawned threads. When things were OK, it would show the spawned threads. So it appears httpd is going into some sort of infinite loop right at startup and isn't even completing startup. It's not an issue of being overloaded by connections -- this happens even when nothing is trying to contact it. The config files haven't changed (or at least they haven't changed in a way that changed their last-modified time). I've tried added -e debug -E /var/log/apache2/startup_info to the command line, but nothing is put in the file. Any ideas what could be happening?

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Load database to memory

    - by Adam Matan
    Hi, Is there a way to load an entire MySQL database to the RAM, especially on en EC2 server? The database is quite small (~500 MegaBytes) I have enough memory Speed issues are crucial - the resulted queries are used to serve a dynamic webpage. Thanks, Adam

    Read the article

  • limit linux background flush (dirty pages)

    - by korkman
    Background flushing in linux happens when either too much written data is pending (adjustable via /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio) or a timeout for pending writes is reached (/proc/sys/vm/dirty_expire_centisecs). Unless another limit is being hit (/proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio), more written data may be cached. Further writes will block. In theory, this should create a background process writing out dirty pages without disturbing other processes. In practice, it does disturb any process doing uncached reading or synchronous writing. Badly. This is because the background flush actually writes at 100% device speed and any other device requests at this time will be delayed (because all queues and write-caches on the road are filled). Is there any way to limit the amount of requests per second the flushing process performs, or otherwise effectively prioritize other device I/O?

    Read the article

  • Running a VM off a USB 2.0 Flash Drive - Mac/Parallels/XP

    - by geerlingguy
    I use a MacBook Air as my primary machine, and the 128GB SSD means space is precious. To save about 10 GB, I've been running Parallels with a Windows XP VM off an external USB hard drive, which performs as well in everyday use as running the VM off the internal SSD. So, I bought a tiny 32GB USB 2.0 flash drive, plugged it into the MacBook Air, formatted it first as ExFAT (which was slow), then as Mac OS Extended (Journaled) (which was also slow), and copied over my VM file, and ran Parallels off it. My full experience is documented here: http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/running-windows-xp-vm Straight file copies are really fast — 30 MB/sec read (solid the whole time), and 10-11 MB/sec write (solid the whole time). But I noticed that once XP started running, the disk access rates were in the low KB ranges. Are USB flash drives really that poor at random access, or could I possibly be missing something (the format of the flash drive, etc.?)? Of note, I've tried the following, to no great effect: Formatting the drive as either ExFAT or Mac OS Extended (Journaled) Unplugging all other USB devices and turning off Bluetooth (which runs on the right-side-port USB bus). Plugging in the flash drive either direct in the right side port, or the left side port, or into a USB 2.0 hub

    Read the article

  • One network, two macbooks, one is fast and the other is slow

    - by Brendan
    I really need help for my friend. I know next to nothing about computers. My roommate and I both have macbook pros from the same year running OS X, are both connecting wirelessly to the same xfinity wifi, and while mine runs perfectly fine, my roommate complains that his works very slowly and times out every few seconds. I can't seem to figure out why this is. He is trying to get me to switch internet providers because he is convinced that it is their problem, but this cannot possibly be the issue since it works great on mine. He has an xbox hooked up to the wifi that he says also works poorly. I really can't see switching providers given that I am experiencing absolutely zero problems. How can I help my friend?

    Read the article

  • Which is faster for read access on EC2; local drive or EBS?

    - by Phillip Oldham
    Which is faster for read access on an EC2 instance; the "local" drive or an attached EBS volume? I have some data that needs to be persisted so have placed this on an EBS volume. I'm using OpenSolaris, so this volume has been attached as a ZFS pool. However, I have a large chunk of EC2 disk space that's going to go unused, so I'm considering re-purposing this as a ZFS cache volume but I don't want to do this if the disk access is going to be slower than that of the EBS volume as it would potentially have a detrimental effect.

    Read the article

  • How to diagnose very slow pagefile

    - by svick
    Quite often, one of the applications I use freezes (“does not respond”) for a while, in extreme cases for few minutes. This happens especially when when switching apps. During this time, the HDD light flashes constantly and perfmon show that HDD is used 100% of the time (OTOH, CPU isn't) and that pagefile is being read (which is to be expected when switching apps), but at a very slow rate. When I sort the disk table in perfmon by read or write, the file read and wrote the most is the pagefile, but it's still quite low rate (I don't remember the numbers). How can I diagnose what's causing this? I use Windows Vista, and the computer is quite ordinary two years old laptop.

    Read the article

  • Does this prove a network bandwidth bottleneck?

    - by Yuji Tomita
    I've incorrectly assumed that my internal AB testing means my server can handle 1k concurrency @3k hits per second. My theory at at the moment is that the network is the bottleneck. The server can't send enough data fast enough. External testing from blitz.io at 1k concurrency shows my hits/s capping off at 180, with pages taking longer and longer to respond as the server is only able to return 180 per second. I've served a blank file from nginx and benched it: it scales 1:1 with concurrency. Now to rule out IO / memcached bottlenecks (nginx normally pulls from memcached), I serve up a static version of the cached page from the filesystem. The results are very similar to my original test; I'm capped at around 180 RPS. Splitting the HTML page in half gives me double the RPS, so it's definitely limited by the size of the page. If I internally ApacheBench from the local server, I get consistent results of around 4k RPS on both the Full Page and the Half Page, at high transfer rates. Transfer rate: 62586.14 [Kbytes/sec] received If I AB from an external server, I get around 180RPS - same as the blitz.io results. How do I know it's not intentional throttling? If I benchmark from multiple external servers, all results become poor which leads me to believe the problem is in MY servers outbound traffic, not a download speed issue with my benchmarking servers / blitz.io. So I'm back to my conclusion that my server can't send data fast enough. Am I right? Are there other ways to interpret this data? Is the solution/optimization to set up multiple servers + load balancing that can each serve 180 hits per second? I'm quite new to server optimization, so I'd appreciate any confirmation interpreting this data. Outbound traffic Here's more information about the outbound bandwidth: The network graph shows a maximum output of 16 Mb/s: 16 megabits per second. Doesn't sound like much at all. Due to a suggestion about throttling, I looked into this and found that linode has a 50mbps cap (which I'm not even close to hitting, apparently). I had it raised to 100mbps. Since linode caps my traffic, and I'm not even hitting it, does this mean that my server should indeed be capable of outputting up to 100mbps but is limited by some other internal bottleneck? I just don't understand how networks at this large of a scale work; can they literally send data as fast as they can read from the HDD? Is the network pipe that big? In conclusion 1: Based on the above, I'm thinking I can definitely raise my 180RPS by adding an nginx load balancer on top of a multi nginx server setup at exactly 180RPS per server behind the LB. 2: If linode has a 50/100mbit limit that I'm not hitting at all, there must be something I can do to hit that limit with my single server setup. If I can read / transmit data fast enough locally, and linode even bothers to have a 50mbit/100mbit cap, there must be an internal bottleneck that's not allowing me to hit those caps that I'm not sure how to detect. Correct? I realize the question is huge and vague now, but I'm not sure how to condense it. Any input is appreciated on any conclusion I've made.

    Read the article

  • Zabbix machine is going crazy with HD writes!

    - by gshankar
    I recently installed Zabbix on a Ubuntu box I had sitting around. It's only monitoring 2 servers but I've noticed that it's continuously smashing the HD with writes. I don't remember Zabbix being this resource heavy when I've used it in the past... Any ideas on why this is happening and what I can do about it? Running iotop gives me this: 1710 be/4 mysql 0.00 B/s 102.12 K/s 0.00 % 0.00 % mysqld --basedir=/usr --datadir=/var/lib/mysql --user=mysql --pid-file=/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.pid --socket=/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock --port=3306 1723 be/4 mysql 0.00 B/s 0.00 B/s 0.00 % 0.00 % mysqld --basedir=/usr --datadir=/var/lib/mysql --user=mysql --pid-file=/var/run/mysqld/mysqld I'm pretty sure it's Zabbix that's causing all that mysql activity as it's the only thing which uses mysql which is running on the box...

    Read the article

  • Cause of slow download speed on a particular EC2 instance?

    - by James
    I have a networking issue I'm trying to solve. I have two EC2 instances, same zone, same type. On one of the two EC2 instances (the 'bad' instance), the download speed is really poor (200k/s), while on the other (the 'good' instance), the download speed is fine, comfortable at 30M/s +). To clarify, I'm talking about downloading files to the EC2 instance while ssh'd into the server, e.g running wget with a large file. I've tried different files, including S3 objects and a large linux ISO from elsewhere. Running ethtool eth0 only returns 'Link detected: yes' for both. When running ifconfig, both return the same for most part, aside from how the good instance shows no error packets yet the bad instance shows many: UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:168372370 errors:5075643 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:122116480 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 Both servers are configured the same, at least were supposed to be. How can I go about diagnosing the cause for the slow download speed? Is there anything particular to EC2 instances that could cause this? Having trouble knowing where to start. Thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • Making a C# w/ WPF multiple frame text / pseudo-calendar GUI application [closed]

    - by Gregor Samsa
    I am editing a recently asked question and making it specific, taking the advice of some people here. I would like to program of the following simple form: The user can produce X number of resizable frames (analogous to HTML frames). Each frame serves as a simple text editor, which you can type into and save the whole configuration including resized windows and text. The user should be able alternately "freeze" and present the information, and "unfreeze" and edit frames. I want to use C## with WPF, in Microsoft's Visual C#. I do not yet know this language. I am sure I can pick up the syntax, but I would like to ask about some general advice for how to structure such a program. I have never made a GUI program, let alone one that interfaces with a notepad or some basic text editor. Can someone either direct me to a good resource that will teach me how to do the above? Or outline the basic ingredients that such a program will require, keeping in mind that though I know some C and Python, I have no experience with GUIs or advanced programming generally? In particular I don't know how to incorporate this "text editor" aspect of the program, as well as the resizable frames I would greatly appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • HD movies stutter.

    - by Absolute0
    I just put together a new system build in the hopes that all of my daily tasks would run smoothly and without any hiccups. Unfortunately I am still seeing some sound and sometimes video stuttering when playing HD movies in VLC (no problems with xvid/divx files). My setup is as follows: Intel core i5 750 quad core 2.66mhz 4GB ram asus p55 motherboard radeon hd 5570 video card 650gb 7200rpm western digital sata HDD 23" Nec ea23wmi monitor Operating System: Windows 7 What might be the main bottleneck that needs upgrading to fix my delays? Seems like the hard drive might be the problem but anything faster than 7200rpm is beyond my budget for a decent hard drive. Could it be anything else?

    Read the article

  • Extracting one file from archive: 7-zip requires decompressing entire archive?

    - by siikamiika
    I've noticed that when browsing an archive containing multiple files with 7-zip 9.20 Windows GUI, extracting one file for previewing takes significantly longer with .7z than .rar archives. With .7zips it also cycles through the filenames in the archive. To me it looks like decompressing the entire archive and keeping just one file. Is there a setting in 7-zip (current or beta/alpha versions) that allows RAR-like behavior?

    Read the article

  • Is it reasonable that a random disk seek & read costs ~16ms?

    - by fzhang
    I am frustrated about the latency of random reading from a non-ssd disk. Based on results from following test program, it speeds ~16 ms for a random read of just 512 bytes without help of os cache. I tried changing 512 to larger values, such as 25k, and the latency did not increase as much. I guess it is because the disk seek dominates the time. I understand that random reading is inherently slow, but just want to be sure that ~16ms is reasonable, even for non-ssd disk. #include <sys/stat.h> #include <sys/time.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/unistd.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <limits.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> int main(int argc, char** argv) { int fd = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY); if (fd < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "Failed open %s\n", argv[1]); return -1; } const size_t count = 512; const off_t offset = 25990611 / 2; char buffer[count] = { '\0' }; struct timeval start_time; gettimeofday(&start_time, NULL); off_t ret = lseek(fd, offset, SEEK_SET); if (ret != offset) { perror("lseek error"); close(fd); return -1; } ret = read(fd, buffer, count); if (ret != count) { fprintf(stderr, "Failed reading all: %ld\n", ret); close(fd); return -1; } struct timeval end_time; gettimeofday(&end_time, NULL); printf("tv_sec: %ld, tv_usec: %ld\n", end_time.tv_sec - start_time.tv_sec, end_time.tv_usec - start_time.tv_usec); close(fd); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • dd oflag=direct 5x fast

    - by César
    I have Centos 6.2 in server with this specs: 2xCPU 16 Core AMD Opteron 6282 SE 64GB RAM Raid controller H700 1GB cache NV - 2HD 74GB SAS 15Krpm RAID1 stripe 16k (OS Centos 6.2) sda - 4HD 146GB SAS 15Krpm RAID10 stripe 16k (ext4 bs 4096, no barriers) sdb -> /vol01 Raid controller H800 1GB cache nv - MD1200 12HD 300GB SAS 15Krpm RAID10 stripe 256k (For DB Postgres 8.3.18) (ext4 bs 4096, stride 64, stripe-width 384, no barriers) sdc -> /vol02 I'm benchmarking IO speed with dd, and view thah if in RAID10 12 disk exec: dd if=/dev/zero of=DD bs=8M count=10000 oflag=direct 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 83886080000 bytes (84 GB) copied, 126,03 s, 666 MB/s but if I remove "oflag=direct" option obtain about 80 MB/s. In read benchmark, results are similar: dd of=/dev/null if=DD bs=8M count=10000 iflag=direct 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 83886080000 bytes (84 GB) copied, 79,5918 s, 1,1 GB/s If remove iflag=direct obtain 150MB/s... I don't understand this huge differences, on other machines y don't have this behavior. Can I have some kernel parameter misconfigured? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Apache is spawning more and more processes!!

    - by erotsppa
    We have a LAMP setup that is working prety good for half a year. All of a sudden today the apache server (mysql servers are not on this box) started to die. It seems to have started to spawn more and more processes over time. Eventually it will consume all the memory and the server would just die. We are using prefork. In the mean time what we are doing is just added more ram and increased the MaxClients and ServerLimit parameter to 512. We're just prolonging the crash. The number still goes up slowly. Maybe in a day, it would reach that limit. What is going on? We only have around 15-20 request per second. We have 1Gb memory and it's not half used, there's no swapping going on. Why is apache creating more and more processes? It's almost like theres a leak somewhere! The database boxes are fine, they are not causing a delay to requests. We tested some queries everything is quick!

    Read the article

  • Drawbacks of installing linux on usb stick?

    - by Znarkus
    I am setting up a router/nas/http/whatever server based on an ION mini-ITX board. I've installed Ubuntu Server on an old 160 GB drive, but it generates a lot more heat and vibrates more than my other new drive (storage). It just doesn't fit the concept, and worse: it takes up a SATA port. As SSD's are crazy expensive I'm thinking of buying an extra 4 GB USB stick, and raid0 it. From my point of view, these are the pros/cons: Pros Low power consumption No vibrations No heat Smaller Get to buy new, larger USB stick (:D) Cons Shorter life time Slower Raid 0 More work maintaing/installing? I think the pros overweighs the cons. Shorter life time and raid 0 is countered by regular backups of the configs/settings. Slower is partially countered by raid 0, and I don't know about the last one. What do You think? Experience? Another solution?

    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 | 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200  | Next Page >