Search Results

Search found 511 results on 21 pages for 'benchmark'.

Page 2/21 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Benchmark for website speed optimization

    - by gowri
    I working on website speed optimization. I mostly used 3 tools for analyzing speed of optimization. Speed analyzing Tools: Google pagespeed tool Yslow Firefox extenstion Web Page Performance Test I am measuring performance using above tool and benchmark result as below like before and after. Before optimization : Google PageSpeed Insights score : 53/100 Web Page Performance Test : 55/100 (First View : 10.710s, Repeat view : 6.387s ) Yahoo Overall performance score : 68 Stage 1 After optimization : Google PageSpeed Insights score : 88/100 Web Page Performance Test : 88/100 (First View : 6.733s, Repeat view : 1.908s ) Yahoo Overall performance score : 80 My question is ? Am i doing correct way ? What is the best way of benchmark for speed optimization ? Is there any standard ? Is there any much better tool for analyzing speed ?

    Read the article

  • High Tech Product Companies: Benchmark Your Sales & Marketing Data Management

    - by user709269
    Aberdeen’s Q4 2010 Quarterly Business Review found that 74% of the Sales and Marketing organizations in High Tech product manufacturing have strategic CRM initiatives in 2011. Aberdeen Group is conducting a survey that will help high tech product companies such as yours determine the Best-in-Class procedures for capturing, managing, and disseminating business data. If your product company is planning on implementing a CRM solution or is simply evaluating the potential benefits, we would appreciate your feedback in this brief, 10-minute survey. You will be able to compare your experiences in leveraging customer information for sales and marketing compare with your peers, benchmark your performance, and see how you can achieve Best-in-Class results. Individual responses will be kept strictly confidential, and data will only be used in aggregate. In appreciation for sharing your time and thoughts with us, we will provide complimentary access for you to the full benchmark report as soon as it is published (a $399 value). Take the survey.

    Read the article

  • Temenos WealthManager: performance benchmark on Exadata

    - by Javier Puerta
    Temenos WealthManager is at work in financial institutions of all sizes. No matter the size, each of Temenos’ customers has one requirement in common: a need for fast technology. This led Temenos to conduct a performance benchmark, running its WealthManager platform on Oracle Exadata Database Machine. During the study, Temenos executed high-intensity financial engines two- to three-times faster than its previous internal benchmarks and/or largest customer throughput. The company also demonstrated greater than two-times the average improvement in response times for six-times the number of users and data volumes. Further, Temenos secured a two-times gain in service-level agreements for batch and user-oriented workloads via dedicated or parallelized processing windows. Last year Temenos also communicated the availability of its T24 core banking system and how the benchmark run demonstrated the ability of Oracle’s Exadata platform to comfortably support the highest banking volumes for T24. Read full story here  

    Read the article

  • Update of SAE Benchmark Presentation to M6/T5/ZFS

    - by uwes
    Strategic Applications Engineering (SAE) published in March an updated Benchmark presentation showing the performance of Oracle systems, software and Virtualization. SPARC M6/T5/ZFS Benchmarks March 2014 The presentation is available via our eSTEP portal.  You will need to provide your email address and the pin below to access the downloads. Link to the portal is shown below. URL: http://launch.oracle.com/ PIN: eSTEP_2011 The material can be found under tab eSTEP Download Located under: Recent Updates and Miscellaneous

    Read the article

  • HP ProLiant DL980-Oracle TPC-C Benchmark spat

    - by jchang
    The Register reported a spat between HP and Oracle on the TPC-C benchmark. Per above, HP submitted a TPC-C result of 3,388,535 tpm-C for their ProLiant DL980 G7 (8 Xeon X7560 processors), with a cost of $0.63 per tpm-C. Oracle has refused permission to publish. Late last year (2010) Oracle published a result of 30M tpm-C for a 108 processors (sockets) SPARC cluster ($30M complete system cost). Oracle is now comparing this to the HP Superdome result from 2007 of 4M tpm-C at $2.93 per tpm-C, calling...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Oracle Database I/O Performance Tuning Using Benchmark Factory

    The real test of how heavily an Oracle database will tax its underlying I/O subsystem and related infrastructure is to actually tax that infrastructure using representative database application workloads. Jim Czuprynski tells you how to choose appropriate database schema(s) for realistic testing, how to create example TPC-E and TPC-H database schemas and how to perform initial loading of these schemas using Quest Benchmark Factory.

    Read the article

  • World Record Batch Rate on Oracle JD Edwards Consolidated Workload with SPARC T4-2

    - by Brian
    Oracle produced a World Record batch throughput for single system results on Oracle's JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Day-in-the-Life benchmark using Oracle's SPARC T4-2 server running Oracle Solaris Containers and consolidating JD Edwards EnterpriseOne, Oracle WebLogic servers and the Oracle Database 11g Release 2. The workload includes both online and batch workload. The SPARC T4-2 server delivered a result of 8,000 online users while concurrently executing a mix of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Long and Short batch processes at 95.5 UBEs/min (Universal Batch Engines per minute). In order to obtain this record benchmark result, the JD Edwards EnterpriseOne, Oracle WebLogic and Oracle Database 11g Release 2 servers were executed each in separate Oracle Solaris Containers which enabled optimal system resources distribution and performance together with scalable and manageable virtualization. One SPARC T4-2 server running Oracle Solaris Containers and consolidating JD Edwards EnterpriseOne, Oracle WebLogic servers and the Oracle Database 11g Release 2 utilized only 55% of the available CPU power. The Oracle DB server in a Shared Server configuration allows for optimized CPU resource utilization and significant memory savings on the SPARC T4-2 server without sacrificing performance. This configuration with SPARC T4-2 server has achieved 33% more Users/core, 47% more UBEs/min and 78% more Users/rack unit than the IBM Power 770 server. The SPARC T4-2 server with 2 processors ran the JD Edwards "Day-in-the-Life" benchmark and supported 8,000 concurrent online users while concurrently executing mixed batch workloads at 95.5 UBEs per minute. The IBM Power 770 server with twice as many processors supported only 12,000 concurrent online users while concurrently executing mixed batch workloads at only 65 UBEs per minute. This benchmark demonstrates more than 2x cost savings by consolidating the complete solution in a single SPARC T4-2 server compared to earlier published results of 10,000 users and 67 UBEs per minute on two SPARC T4-2 and SPARC T4-1. The Oracle DB server used mirrored (RAID 1) volumes for the database providing high availability for the data without impacting performance. Performance Landscape JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Day in the Life (DIL) Benchmark Consolidated Online with Batch Workload System Rack Units BatchRate(UBEs/m) Online Users Users /Units Users /Core Version SPARC T4-2 (2 x SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz) 3 95.5 8,000 2,667 500 9.0.2 IBM Power 770 (4 x POWER7, 3.3 GHz, 32 cores) 8 65 12,000 1,500 375 9.0.2 Batch Rate (UBEs/m) — Batch transaction rate in UBEs per minute Configuration Summary Hardware Configuration: 1 x SPARC T4-2 server with 2 x SPARC T4 processors, 2.85 GHz 256 GB memory 4 x 300 GB 10K RPM SAS internal disk 2 x 300 GB internal SSD 2 x Sun Storage F5100 Flash Arrays Software Configuration: Oracle Solaris 10 Oracle Solaris Containers JD Edwards EnterpriseOne 9.0.2 JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Tools (8.98.4.2) Oracle WebLogic Server 11g (10.3.4) Oracle HTTP Server 11g Oracle Database 11g Release 2 (11.2.0.1) Benchmark Description JD Edwards EnterpriseOne is an integrated applications suite of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. Oracle offers 70 JD Edwards EnterpriseOne application modules to support a diverse set of business operations. Oracle's Day in the Life (DIL) kit is a suite of scripts that exercises most common transactions of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne applications, including business processes such as payroll, sales order, purchase order, work order, and manufacturing processes, such as ship confirmation. These are labeled by industry acronyms such as SCM, CRM, HCM, SRM and FMS. The kit's scripts execute transactions typical of a mid-sized manufacturing company. The workload consists of online transactions and the UBE – Universal Business Engine workload of 61 short and 4 long UBEs. LoadRunner runs the DIL workload, collects the user’s transactions response times and reports the key metric of Combined Weighted Average Transaction Response time. The UBE processes workload runs from the JD Enterprise Application server. Oracle's UBE processes come as three flavors: Short UBEs < 1 minute engage in Business Report and Summary Analysis, Mid UBEs > 1 minute create a large report of Account, Balance, and Full Address, Long UBEs > 2 minutes simulate Payroll, Sales Order, night only jobs. The UBE workload generates large numbers of PDF files reports and log files. The UBE Queues are categorized as the QBATCHD, a single threaded queue for large and medium UBEs, and the QPROCESS queue for short UBEs run concurrently. Oracle's UBE process performance metric is Number of Maximum Concurrent UBE processes at transaction rate, UBEs/minute. Key Points and Best Practices Two JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Application Servers, two Oracle WebLogic Servers 11g Release 1 coupled with two Oracle Web Tier HTTP server instances and one Oracle Database 11g Release 2 database on a single SPARC T4-2 server were hosted in separate Oracle Solaris Containers bound to four processor sets to demonstrate consolidation of multiple applications, web servers and the database with best resource utilizations. Interrupt fencing was configured on all Oracle Solaris Containers to channel the interrupts to processors other than the processor sets used for the JD Edwards Application server, Oracle WebLogic servers and the database server. A Oracle WebLogic vertical cluster was configured on each WebServer Container with twelve managed instances each to load balance users' requests and to provide the infrastructure that enables scaling to high number of users with ease of deployment and high availability. The database log writer was run in the real time RT class and bound to a processor set. The database redo logs were configured on the raw disk partitions. The Oracle Solaris Container running the Enterprise Application server completed 61 Short UBEs, 4 Long UBEs concurrently as the mixed size batch workload. The mixed size UBEs ran concurrently from the Enterprise Application server with the 8,000 online users driven by the LoadRunner. See Also SPARC T4-2 Server oracle.com OTN JD Edwards EnterpriseOne oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition oracle.com OTN Oracle Fusion Middleware oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement Copyright 2012, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners. Results as of 09/30/2012.

    Read the article

  • Benchmark Against 160 Identity and Access Programs Worldwide

    - by Naresh Persaud
    Aberdeen documented the results of taking a "platform approach" to Identity and Access Management in a recent study - you can read the complete report here. Aberdeen has created an assessment tool that allows organizations to take a similar survey and compare their performance to companies surveyed in the original report. The assessment takes 5 minutes to complete and provides a complete printable report with a statistical comparison for each performance indicator. In addition, the assessment report provides guidance on improvements that organizations can take to achieve better results based on the benchmark. Take the assessment by clicking here.  You can also attend one of the physical events and discuss the results of the survey with Derek Brink the author. In the events, Derek discusses how organizations take advantage of the report. Register here. 

    Read the article

  • Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database Performance on SPARC T4-2

    - by Brian
    The Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database is optimized to run on Oracle's SPARC T4 processor platforms running Oracle Solaris 11 providing unsurpassed scalability, performance, upgradability, protection of investment and return on investment. The following demonstrate the value of combining Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database with SPARC T4 servers and Oracle Solaris 11: On a Mobile Call Processing test, the 2-socket SPARC T4-2 server outperforms: Oracle's SPARC Enterprise M4000 server (4 x 2.66 GHz SPARC64 VII+) by 34%. Oracle's SPARC T3-4 (4 x 1.65 GHz SPARC T3) by 2.7x, or 5.4x per processor. Utilizing the TimesTen Performance Throughput Benchmark (TPTBM), the SPARC T4-2 server protects investments with: 2.1x the overall performance of a 4-socket SPARC Enterprise M4000 server in read-only mode and 1.5x the performance in update-only testing. This is 4.2x more performance per processor than the SPARC64 VII+ 2.66 GHz based system. 10x more performance per processor than the SPARC T2+ 1.4 GHz server. 1.6x better performance per processor than the SPARC T3 1.65 GHz based server. In replication testing, the two socket SPARC T4-2 server is over 3x faster than the performance of a four socket SPARC Enterprise T5440 server in both asynchronous replication environment and the highly available 2-Safe replication. This testing emphasizes parallel replication between systems. Performance Landscape Mobile Call Processing Test Performance System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Tps SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 218,400 M4000 SPARC64 VII+, 2.66 GHz 4 16 32 162,900 SPARC T3-4 SPARC T3, 1.65 GHz 4 64 512 80,400 TimesTen Performance Throughput Benchmark (TPTBM) Read-Only System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Tps SPARC T3-4 SPARC T3, 1.65 GHz 4 64 512 7.9M SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 6.5M M4000 SPARC64 VII+, 2.66 GHz 4 16 32 3.1M T5440 SPARC T2+, 1.4 GHz 4 32 256 3.1M TimesTen Performance Throughput Benchmark (TPTBM) Update-Only System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Tps SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 547,800 M4000 SPARC64 VII+, 2.66 GHz 4 16 32 363,800 SPARC T3-4 SPARC T3, 1.65 GHz 4 64 512 240,500 TimesTen Replication Tests System Processor Sockets/Cores/Threads Asynchronous 2-Safe SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4, 2.85 GHz 2 16 128 38,024 13,701 SPARC T5440 SPARC T2+, 1.4 GHz 4 32 256 11,621 4,615 Configuration Summary Hardware Configurations: SPARC T4-2 server 2 x SPARC T4 processors, 2.85 GHz 256 GB memory 1 x 8 Gbs FC Qlogic HBA 1 x 6 Gbs SAS HBA 4 x 300 GB internal disks Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (40 x 24 GB flash modules) 1 x Sun Fire X4275 server configured as COMSTAR head SPARC T3-4 server 4 x SPARC T3 processors, 1.6 GHz 512 GB memory 1 x 8 Gbs FC Qlogic HBA 8 x 146 GB internal disks 1 x Sun Fire X4275 server configured as COMSTAR head SPARC Enterprise M4000 server 4 x SPARC64 VII+ processors, 2.66 GHz 128 GB memory 1 x 8 Gbs FC Qlogic HBA 1 x 6 Gbs SAS HBA 2 x 146 GB internal disks Sun Storage F5100 Flash Array (40 x 24 GB flash modules) 1 x Sun Fire X4275 server configured as COMSTAR head Software Configuration: Oracle Solaris 11 11/11 Oracle TimesTen 11.2.2.4 Benchmark Descriptions TimesTen Performance Throughput BenchMark (TPTBM) is shipped with TimesTen and measures the total throughput of the system. The workload can test read-only, update-only, delete and insert operations as required. Mobile Call Processing is a customer-based workload for processing calls made by mobile phone subscribers. The workload has a mixture of read-only, update, and insert-only transactions. The peak throughput performance is measured from multiple concurrent processes executing the transactions until a peak performance is reached via saturation of the available resources. Parallel Replication tests using both asynchronous and 2-Safe replication methods. For asynchronous replication, transactions are processed in batches to maximize the throughput capabilities of the replication server and network. In 2-Safe replication, also known as no data-loss or high availability, transactions are replicated between servers immediately emphasizing low latency. For both environments, performance is measured in the number of parallel replication servers and the maximum transactions-per-second for all concurrent processes. See Also SPARC T4-2 Server oracle.com OTN Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database oracle.com OTN Oracle Solaris oracle.com OTN Oracle Database 11g Release 2 Enterprise Edition oracle.com OTN Disclosure Statement Copyright 2012, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners. Results as of 1 October 2012.

    Read the article

  • New SPC2 benchmark- The 7420 KILLS it !!!

    - by user12620172
    This is pretty sweet. The new SPC2 benchmark came out last week, and the 7420 not only came in 2nd of ALL speed scores, but came in #1 for price per MBPS. Check out this table. The 7420 score of 10,704 makes it really fast, but that's not the best part. The price one would have to pay in order to beat it is ridiculous. You can go see for yourself at http://www.storageperformance.org/results/benchmark_results_spc2The only system on the whole page that beats it was over twice the price per MBPS. Very sweet for Oracle. So let's see, the 7420 is the fastest per $. The 7420 is the cheapest per MBPS. The 7420 has incredible, built-in features, management services, analytics, and protocols. It's extremely stable and as a cluster has no single point of failure. It won the Storage Magazine award for best NAS system this year. So how long will it be before it's the number 1 NAS system in the market? What are the biggest hurdles still stopping the widespread adoption of the ZFSSA? From what I see, it's three things: 1. Administrator's comfort level with older legacy systems. 2. Politics 3. Past issues with Oracle Support.   I see all of these issues crop up regularly. Number 1 just takes time and education. Number 3 takes time with our new, better, and growing support team. many of them came from Oracle and there were growing pains when they went from a straight software-model to having to also support hardware. Number 2 is tricky, but it's the job of the sales teams to break through the internal politics and help their clients see the value in oracle hardware systems. Benchmarks like this will help.

    Read the article

  • CPU Benchmark - Set Load, usage spikes

    - by iulianchira
    I need a CPU benchmark to test the performance impact of various power management policies. I must be able to set the load (e.g. to get a relatively steady load of 20%-30%-60%) and to simulate usage spikes (set frequency of spikes). I would also like it to be scriptable so as to be able to change benchmark settings in an indirect manner.

    Read the article

  • IBM System x3850 X5 TPC-H Benchmark

    - by jchang
    IBM just published a TPC-H SF 1000 result for their x3850 X5 , 4-way Xeon 7560 system featuring a special MAX5 memory expansion board to support 1.5TB memory. In Dec 2010, IBM also published a TPC-H SF1000 for their Power 780 system, 8-way, quad-core, (4 logical processors per physical core). In Feb 2011, Ingres published a TPC-H SF 100 on a 2-way Xeon 5680 for their VectorWise column-store engine (plus enhancements for memory architecture, SIMD and compression). The figure table below shows TPC-H...(read more)

    Read the article

  • SOA performance on SPARC T5 benchmark results

    - by JuergenKress
    The brand NEW super fast SPARC T5 servers are available. The platform is superb to run large SOA Suite environments or to consolidate your whole middleware platform. Some performance advices, recommended for all workloads: Performance profile for SOA apps on Oracle Solaris 11 BPEL (Fusion Order Demo) instances per second OSB (messages / transformations per second) Crypto acceleration study for SOA transformations SPARC T4 and T5 platform testing, pre-tuning Performance suitable for mid-to-high range enterprise in stand-alone SOA deployment or virtualized consolidation environment shared with Oracle applications 2.2x to 5x faster than SPARC T3 servers 25% faster SOA throughput, core to core than Intel 5600-series servers (running Exalogic software) SPARC T5 has 2x the consolidation density of Intel 5600-class processors 2x faster initial deployment time using Optimized Solutions pre-tested configuration steps Over 200 Application adapters for easiest Oracle software integration Would you like to get details? We can share with you on 1:1 bases T5 SOA Suite performance benchmarks, please contact your local partner manager or myself! SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Mix Forum Technorati Tags: T5,TS Sparc,T5 SOA,bechmark,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • Hard Drive benchmark values show write very very slow

    - by John
    I recently started to have issues with my laptop being very slow. I ran a hard drive benchmarking tool (by ATTO) that showed that the write speed was very very slow on my boot drive. I ran the same benchmark on my usb drive and it was 650 times faster than my boot drive when it came to writing. Reading is very fast/normal on both. I swapped out an identical drive and ran the same benchmark. This time the drive showed proper write speed. Thinking that I had a hard drive going bad I cloned the old one onto the new one. I managed to clone the problem too. Anyone have any ideas on what in WinXP SP3 might be causing the write issues? I am on a corporate network and we have commercial anti-virus software installed. (AVG I think) I regularly run defraggler and have about 40 gig free on a 100 gig drive. The machine has 4 gigs of memory. Any ideas? TIA J

    Read the article

  • Baseline / Benchmark Physical and virtual server performance

    - by EyeonTech
    I am setting up a new server and there are some options. I want to perform some benchmarks and I need your help in determining the best tools and if possible run pre-configured benchmarks designed for SQL servers on Windows Server 2008/2012. Step 1. Run a performance monitor on the current Live SQL server (Windows Server 2008 Virtual machine running on ESXi. New server Hardware rundown: Intel® Server System R1304BTLSHBN - 1U Rack, LGA1155 http://ark.intel.com/products/53559/Intel-Server-System-R1304BTLSHBN Intel Xeon E3-1270V2 2x Intel SSD 330 Series 240GB 2.5in SATA 6Gb/s 25nm 1x WD 2TB WD2002FAEX 2TB 64M SATA3 CAVIAR BLACK 4x 8GB 1333MHz DDR3 ECC CL9 DIMM There are several options for configurations and I want to benchmark some of them and share the results. Option 1. Configure 2x SSDs at RAID 0. Install Windows Server 2008 directly to the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Store Database files on the RAID 0 Volume. Benchmark the OS direct on the hardware as an SQL Server. Store SQL Backup databases on the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Option 2. Configure 2x SSDs at RAID 0. Install Windows Server 2012 directly to the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Install Hyper-V. Install the SQL Server (Server 2008) as a virtual machine. Store the Virtual Hard Disks on the SSDs. Option 3. Configure 2x SSDs at RAID 0. Install VMWare ESXi on a partition of the 2TB WD Caviar HDD. Install the SQL Server (Server 2008) as a virtual machine. Store the Virtual Hard Disks on the SSDs. I have a few tools in mind from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768530(v=bts.10).aspx. Any tools with pre-configured test would be fantastic. Specifically if there are pre-configured perfmon sets avaliable. Any opinions on the setup to gain the best results is welcome. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Benchmark virtual machines?

    - by evan
    I'm looking for a good way to benchmark the performance of Ubuntu machines (preferably from the command line - only care about harddrive speed, memory, and cpu - not graphics). Are there any programs that could also be used on Mac or Windows so I could compare the results against an Apple or PC Desktop? Ultimately I'd like to use these benchmarks to compare different virtual machine configurations (speeds on different hosts and different hardware to get practical idea of the differences between different setups a rigs). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Samsung 830 very slow benchmark numbers

    - by alekop
    I just bought a new SSD, and installed a fresh copy of Windows on it. I didn't see any noticeable difference in boot times, app start-up times, so I decided to benchmark it. Asus P7P55D-E Intel i5-760 Samsung 830 256GB SATA III Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit The Windows experience index gave the drive a 7.3 rating, but real-world performance is not particularly impressive. Any ideas why the numbers are so low? UPDATE: It turns out that SATA III support is turned off by default on the P7P55D motherboard. After enabling it in BIOS (Tools - Level Up), the scores went up: Read Write Seq 325 183 4K 16 49 IOPS 32K 28K It's an improvement, but still far below what they should be for this drive.

    Read the article

  • How to benchmark apache/nginx setup

    - by Saif Bechan
    I am planning to setup nginx as reverse proxy. I will have apache to deliver my dynamic content, and nginx will deliver the static content. My configuration i have now is just Apache with fastCGI. This gives me no configuration problems and runs great. After I have set up nginx I want to run some benchmarks to see if I really got some performance increases, else i will switch back. Does anyone know how I can benchmark this type of setup? Or maybe someone did this already and have some canned results, I will be glad to hear them.

    Read the article

  • Benchmark an SSD

    - by Taylor Huston
    What is the best way to test/benchmark an SSD to make sure it's doing it's job. I invested in an SSD, have my OS on it, want to make sure I am getting my money's worth. I have heard some people making claims along the lines of: "I've had my SSD for X months and my read/write speeds have dropped Y%'. What is the best way to test for things like that (and what are good numbers to look for)? For reference I have a Samsung 830 128gb.

    Read the article

  • dell u2410 3dMark Benchmark distortion problems

    - by Scanningcrew
    Ive been doing burn in testing for a new system I have put together and I am running into some video distortion problems with running the 3DMark benchmark tools (Both 06 and Vantage). The graphics will be fine, then sometimes during a test switch the screen will light up with thin horizontal ranibow lines (Something that looks very "glitchy") If i turn the monitor off and back on it clears up. All the tests "pass" and my system gets good marks but it concerns me if I might have problems with games (The screen returns to normal if I dont resest monitor and just let tests pass). I want to return a problem component now before its too late if it is something with the new hardware. Also, I am monitoring temp with thermal laser gun and the card itself is not going above 65c. Any ideas? System: Asrock x58 Xtreme - Last BIOS (1.80) EVGA Geforce GTX 285 w/ latest nvidia drivers (Connect via DVI1) Dell U2410(Set to 59hz refresh 1900x1202 -although I believe benchmarks run 1200x1024) Windows 7 Ultimate 64 12Gb DDR3 1600 RAM

    Read the article

  • How accurate is apache benchmark?

    - by matthewsteiner
    Alright, so I'm in development right now and I'd like to understand exactly how good the benchmarks are. I've just been using apache benchmark. Do they include the server sending the files? Also, is "requests per second" literally how many users can visit the page within one second? If it's at 30 requests per second, can literally 30 people be refreshing pages every second and the server will be fine? It seems like a lot to me. I know a lot of people get way better stats out of their servers, but I haven't done much optimization yet. Also, will increasing your ram increase you rps linearly? I have 512mb, so if I upgrade to 1gb, would that mean I'd get about 60 rps? How does concurrency affect your rps?

    Read the article

  • What benchmark tool to use to benchmark hardware for VM server?

    - by Mark0978
    We are setting up a new piece of hardware to virtualize several of our servers on. Choices are RAID 5, RAID 6, and RAID 0+1. We are wanting to benchmark all three before we go live with the machine, but I'm not sure how to test the speed. Since we will be using it to host VMs, what will the actual disk traffic look like? What can I use to see if RAID 6 is too slow? Short of setting up the system with all the VM's on it and running that way, then redoing on all the work, I'm not sure how to test it. It them becomes more of a subjective test than an objective one. I'm worried that RAID6 will have too much overhead, that RAID5 will be to fragile with 3TB drives and I've never worked with 0+1 at all. So in short I'd like to setup the base machine (which will be running Linux) and then test the underlying SW RAID for speed. What kind of tool exists to simulate this kind of load? Barring the lack of a specific tool, how about a generic FS testing tool that will simulate different loads?

    Read the article

  • Siege - running a stress test benchmark

    - by morgoth84
    I need to do a benchmark test of a HTTPS server using Siege, to see how it behaves under massive load. I'm initiating tests from another machine which is quite powerful and it is connected to the same physical switch the server is connected on. But when I initiate a test, I can't get it to make more than 170 requests per second. With this load the server's CPU usage is at 15-20% and the average response time for a request is approx. 0.03 seconds. Load of the client machine is approx. at 10%. So, I gradually increase the number of users in Siege (the number of worker threads) and request rate linearly increases up to 170 reqs/sec, but it never gets over it. No matter how many more worker threads I start, the load on the server is never more than 20% (and the client's load also doesn't increase any more). How can I overcome this? I've googled a bit and found out that after a request is completed, a socket associated with one ephermal port remains in WAIT_TIME state for some time during which it can't be reused. I tried to overcome this by doing these things: sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range="1024 65535" echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_tw_recycle Oh, and the client machine is a Linux (RedHat, I think, but I'm not sure). Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to run benchmarking on MySQL?

    - by HexaHow
    My server has installed MySQL Server 5.1. I would like to run benchmarking on the MySQL, but I couldn't found sql-bench, which is Benchmark Suite provided by MySQL. The MySQL Benchmark Suite seem like complicated to be install or setup into my server. I need one can be direct setup to test the benchmark without using Perl script liked the benchmark suite from MySQL. Do anyone knows how to get the most popular benchmarking tool to measure MySQL performance? I need to measure the performance of my SQL written in ASP.Net that connecting to MySQL. I need to optimize the SQL script. It's better has a benchmarking tool where can be read my SQL in many times and return me the query result's time for comparison, etc. I just need to know the time consuming and performance for the each SQL runs in many times.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >