Search Results

Search found 7359 results on 295 pages for 'triple channel ram'.

Page 20/295 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • power equation for RAM

    - by kashyapa
    How is the dynamic power consumption of memory determined . Can anybody give a canonical equation for power consumption of the RAM. What are the parameters involved in determing the dynamic power consumption of RAM ? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • windows live playback left and right audio channel

    - by user1254761
    I have a multichannel (4x stereo) audiocard (m-audio delta1010lt) and want to playback /playthru some of the channels live. But I am only able to playback/playthru the left channel on each stereo-input (CH1, CH3, CH5, CH7). For CH2,CH4,CH6,CH8 I see the Windows Volume-Indicator going up and down in the Windows Record-Audiosettings but I don't hear any playback sound. Is there a way to playback/playthru all input channels?

    Read the article

  • MongoDB and datasets that don't fit in RAM no matter how hard you shove

    - by sysadmin1138
    This is very system dependent, but chances are near certain we'll scale past some arbitrary cliff and get into Real Trouble. I'm curious what kind of rules-of-thumb exist for a good RAM to Disk-space ratio. We're planning our next round of systems, and need to make some choices regarding RAM, SSDs, and how much of each the new nodes will get. But now for some performance details! During normal workflow of a single project-run, MongoDB is hit with a very high percentage of writes (70-80%). Once the second stage of the processing pipeline hits, it's extremely high read as it needs to deduplicate records identified in the first half of processing. This is the workflow for which "keep your working set in RAM" is made for, and we're designing around that assumption. The entire dataset is continually hit with random queries from end-user derived sources; though the frequency is irregular, the size is usually pretty small (groups of 10 documents). Since this is user-facing, the replies need to be under the "bored-now" threshold of 3 seconds. This access pattern is much less likely to be in cache, so will be very likely to incur disk hits. A secondary processing workflow is high read of previous processing runs that may be days, weeks, or even months old, and is run infrequently but still needs to be zippy. Up to 100% of the documents in the previous processing run will be accessed. No amount of cache-warming can help with this, I suspect. Finished document sizes vary widely, but the median size is about 8K. The high-read portion of the normal project processing strongly suggests the use of Replicas to help distribute the Read traffic. I have read elsewhere that a 1:10 RAM-GB to HD-GB is a good rule-of-thumb for slow disks, As we are seriously considering using much faster SSDs, I'd like to know if there is a similar rule of thumb for fast disks. I know we're using Mongo in a way where cache-everything really isn't going to fly, which is why I'm looking at ways to engineer a system that can survive such usage. The entire dataset will likely be most of a TB within half a year and keep growing.

    Read the article

  • Should you disable page file with SSD?

    - by Pyrolistical
    I've been reading this question, and it has a lot of great information. But assuming you have more than enough ram, I think page file should be disabled on SSD to extend the life time. I know you would lose the core dump on crash, but not many people need that information. From my understand without a page file as you reach the limit of your ram that might trigger thrashing on disk. But for SSDs there is no concept of thrashing, reads are fast. What do you guys think?

    Read the article

  • Mapping of memory addresses to physical modules in Windows XP

    - by Josef Grahn
    I plan to run 32-bit Windows XP on a workstation with dual processors, based on Intel's Nehalem microarchitecture, and triple channel RAM. Even though XP is limited to 4 GB of RAM, my understanding is that it will function with more than 4 GB installed, but will only expose 4 GB (or slightly less). My question is: Assuming that 6 GB of RAM is installed in six 1 GB modules, which physical 4 GB will Windows actually map into its address space? In particular: Will it use all six 1 GB modules, taking advantage of all memory channels? (My guess is yes, and that the mapping to individual modules within a group happens in hardware.) Will it map 2 GB of address space to each of the two NUMA nodes (as each processor has it's own memory interface), or will one processor get fast access to 3 GB of RAM, while the other only has 1 GB? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Which protocol do clients use when communicating with servers in a SAN

    - by Mario De Schaepmeester
    I'm trying to wrap my head around how a SAN works and how it is implemented. If I understand this well, clients wanting to access the storage devices in a SAN need to communicate with the servers via the LAN. When the SAN is implemented with Fibre Channel, these servers are Fibre Channel compliant devices, and internally in the SAN they work with the Fibre Channel Protocol. Both data and communications are supported by Fibre Channel. But which application-layer protocol do the clients use in the LAN to communicate with the servers? Is the data simply transferred via ethernet as well? This is some part I am stuck on. I went trough a lot of sources but most sources don't really mention protocols and if they do, they only mention FCP.

    Read the article

  • Improve my System, Need some advice/suggestion

    - by Pennf0lio
    Processor: 2.40 gigahertz Intel Core2 Duo Board: ASUSTeK Computer INC. P5B-MX Memory: 2 Gb VideoCard: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT HDD: 80GB + 250GB both IDE Operating System: Windows 7 32bit Please give me some advice what to improve in my System. I mainly used it for Graphic Design (eg, Photoshop, Cinema4d, Illustrator, Flash). I was planning to increase my Memory adding 2 GB more, Pushing it to something like 4GB in total. But just found out that recently that I already have 2x2GB installed and should be 4GB in total. When I looked at the properties of my computer, It said "Installed Memory 2GB". I wonder why is that happening? Is the other ram broken?.. I never the computer casing since I bought. so I didn't realize that I already have 2 x 2gb ram. what can you advice. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Determine if Alpha Channel is Used in an Image

    - by Otaku
    As I'm bringing in images into my program, I want to determine if: they have an alpha-channel if that alpha-channel is used #1 is simple enough with using Image.IsAlphaPixelFormat. For #2 though, other than looping through every single pixel, is there a simple way I can determine if at least one of the pixels has an alpha channel that is used (i.e. set to some other value than 255)? All I need back is a boolean and then I'll make determination as to whether to save it out to 32-bit or 24-bit.

    Read the article

  • Windows Vista Home memory usage problem

    - by lordg
    Hi, I have a Windows Vista Home laptop from a client that is running on 1GB ram. The laptop is used for super basic things, word, internet, outlook, etc. What makes zero sense is that the RAM is being completely consumed, causing the PC to hang sometimes when it can't take it anymore. However, in task manager, the processes appear to only be consuming maybe 100MB (Private Working Set). The client literally has a simple setup, and is running kaspersky, though that does not seem to be indicating it is the cause of the excessive memory usage. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve the memory issue or how to track down what is actually happening and fix it? G

    Read the article

  • Windows Vista Home memory usage problem [closed]

    - by lordg
    Hi, I have a Windows Vista Home laptop from a client that is running on 1GB ram. The laptop is used for super basic things, word, internet, outlook, etc. What makes zero sense is that the RAM is being completely consumed, causing the PC to hang sometimes when it can't take it anymore. However, in task manager, the processes appear to only be consuming maybe 100MB (Private Working Set). The client literally has a simple setup, and is running kaspersky, though that does not seem to be indicating it is the cause of the excessive memory usage. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve the memory issue or how to track down what is actually happening and fix it? G

    Read the article

  • Why Are Minimized Programs Often Slow to Open Again?

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    It seems particularly counterintuitive: you minimize an application because you plan on returning to it later and wish to skip shutting the application down and restarting it later, but sometimes maximizing it takes even longer than launching it fresh. What gives? Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-driven grouping of Q&A web sites. The Question SuperUser reader Bart wants to know why he’s not saving any time with application minimization: I’m working in Photoshop CS6 and multiple browsers a lot. I’m not using them all at once, so sometimes some applications are minimized to taskbar for hours or days. The problem is, when I try to maximize them from the taskbar – it sometimes takes longer than starting them! Especially Photoshop feels really weird for many seconds after finally showing up, it’s slow, unresponsive and even sometimes totally freezes for minute or two. It’s not a hardware problem as it’s been like that since always on all on my PCs. Would I also notice it after upgrading my HDD to SDD and adding RAM (my main PC holds 4 GB currently)? Could guys with powerful pcs / macs tell me – does it also happen to you? I guess OSes somehow “focus” on active software and move all the resources away from the ones that run, but are not used. Is it possible to somehow set RAM / CPU / HDD priorities or something, for let’s say, Photoshop, so it won’t slow down after long period of inactivity? So what is the deal? Why does he find himself waiting to maximize a minimized app? The Answer SuperUser contributor Allquixotic explains why: Summary The immediate problem is that the programs that you have minimized are being paged out to the “page file” on your hard disk. This symptom can be improved by installing a Solid State Disk (SSD), adding more RAM to your system, reducing the number of programs you have open, or upgrading to a newer system architecture (for instance, Ivy Bridge or Haswell). Out of these options, adding more RAM is generally the most effective solution. Explanation The default behavior of Windows is to give active applications priority over inactive applications for having a spot in RAM. When there’s significant memory pressure (meaning the system doesn’t have a lot of free RAM if it were to let every program have all the RAM it wants), it starts putting minimized programs into the page file, which means it writes out their contents from RAM to disk, and then makes that area of RAM free. That free RAM helps programs you’re actively using — say, your web browser — run faster, because if they need to claim a new segment of RAM (like when you open a new tab), they can do so. This “free” RAM is also used as page cache, which means that when active programs attempt to read data on your hard disk, that data might be cached in RAM, which prevents your hard disk from being accessed to get that data. By using the majority of your RAM for page cache, and swapping out unused programs to disk, Windows is trying to improve responsiveness of the program(s) you are actively using, by making RAM available to them, and caching the files they access in RAM instead of the hard disk. The downside of this behavior is that minimized programs can take a while to have their contents copied from the page file, on disk, back into RAM. The time increases the larger the program’s footprint in memory. This is why you experience that delay when maximizing Photoshop. RAM is many times faster than a hard disk (depending on the specific hardware, it can be up to several orders of magnitude). An SSD is considerably faster than a hard disk, but it is still slower than RAM by orders of magnitude. Having your page file on an SSD will help, but it will also wear out the SSD more quickly than usual if your page file is heavily utilized due to RAM pressure. Remedies Here is an explanation of the available remedies, and their general effectiveness: Installing more RAM: This is the recommended path. If your system does not support more RAM than you already have installed, you will need to upgrade more of your system: possibly your motherboard, CPU, chassis, power supply, etc. depending on how old it is. If it’s a laptop, chances are you’ll have to buy an entire new laptop that supports more installed RAM. When you install more RAM, you reduce memory pressure, which reduces use of the page file, which is a good thing all around. You also make available more RAM for page cache, which will make all programs that access the hard disk run faster. As of Q4 2013, my personal recommendation is that you have at least 8 GB of RAM for a desktop or laptop whose purpose is anything more complex than web browsing and email. That means photo editing, video editing/viewing, playing computer games, audio editing or recording, programming / development, etc. all should have at least 8 GB of RAM, if not more. Run fewer programs at a time: This will only work if the programs you are running do not use a lot of memory on their own. Unfortunately, Adobe Creative Suite products such as Photoshop CS6 are known for using an enormous amount of memory. This also limits your multitasking ability. It’s a temporary, free remedy, but it can be an inconvenience to close down your web browser or Word every time you start Photoshop, for instance. This also wouldn’t stop Photoshop from being swapped when minimizing it, so it really isn’t a very effective solution. It only helps in some specific situations. Install an SSD: If your page file is on an SSD, the SSD’s improved speed compared to a hard disk will result in generally improved performance when the page file has to be read from or written to. Be aware that SSDs are not designed to withstand a very frequent and constant random stream of writes; they can only be written over a limited number of times before they start to break down. Heavy use of a page file is not a particularly good workload for an SSD. You should install an SSD in combination with a large amount of RAM if you want maximum performance while preserving the longevity of the SSD. Use a newer system architecture: Depending on the age of your system, you may be using an out of date system architecture. The “system architecture” is generally defined as the “generation” (think generations like children, parents, grandparents, etc.) of the motherboard and CPU. Newer generations generally support faster I/O (input/output), better memory bandwidth, lower latency, and less contention over shared resources, instead providing dedicated links between components. For example, starting with the “Nehalem” generation (around 2009), the Front-Side Bus (FSB) was eliminated, which removed a common bottleneck, because almost all system components had to share the same FSB for transmitting data. This was replaced with a “point to point” architecture, meaning that each component gets its own dedicated “lane” to the CPU, which continues to be improved every few years with new generations. You will generally see a more significant improvement in overall system performance depending on the “gap” between your computer’s architecture and the latest one available. For example, a Pentium 4 architecture from 2004 is going to see a much more significant improvement upgrading to “Haswell” (the latest as of Q4 2013) than a “Sandy Bridge” architecture from ~2010. Links Related questions: How to reduce disk thrashing (paging)? Windows Swap (Page File): Enable or Disable? Also, just in case you’re considering it, you really shouldn’t disable the page file, as this will only make matters worse; see here. And, in case you needed extra convincing to leave the Windows Page File alone, see here and here. Have something to add to the explanation? Sound off in the the comments. Want to read more answers from other tech-savvy Stack Exchange users? Check out the full discussion thread here.     

    Read the article

  • USB install from second internal hard drive in a MacBook Pro

    - by aaron.anderson
    I am trying to install Ubuntu (among others) on a second internal hard drive on my MacBook Pro. I have an 80 GB internal SSD with OS X on it, along with a 750 GB internal HD with a few partitions, one of which being for Ubuntu. I currently have rEFInd installed for switching between the OS's. I was wondering how one would go about installing Ubuntu from the USB install stick. I have followed the instructions on creating a bootable USB. Once this is bootable, could I just hold the Option key on startup, and it should appear in the menu? Or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Unable to boot Windows 7 after installing Ubuntu to MacBook with OS X & Windows 7 (bootcamp)

    - by Anthony
    I had Lion OSX partitioned with Windows 7 using BootCamp [on my MacBook]. I downloaded and installed Ubuntu last night and it went well. Until this morning when I tried to boot up Windows 7 and it took me to Ubuntu instead. I saw the windows 7 loader so I clicked on that. It brought me to a black screen with a white cursor in the top left. This is what windows usually looks like when it boots but this time it just stayed on the black screen. I also tried holding option and choosing the windows drive manually but it brought me back to Ubuntu. I think what happened was that I did not click on the Windows 7 loader when installing Ubuntu 12.04 last night. What can I do to fix this?

    Read the article

  • How to calculate RAM value on performance per dollar spent

    - by Stucko
    Hi, I'm trying to make decisions on buying a new PC. I have most specifications (processor/graphic card/hard disk) pin-downed except for RAM. I am wondering what is the best RAM configuration for the amount of money I'm spending. As the question of best is subjective, I'd like to know how would I calculate the value of RAM sticks sold. 1.(sample)The value of amount of memory: 1) CORSAIR PC1333 D3 2GB = costs $80 2) CORSAIR PC1333 D3 4GB = costs $190 would it be better to buy 2 of item 1) instead of 1 of item 2) ?? Although I would normally choose to have 1 of 2) as the difference is only (190-(80*2)) = 30 as I would save 1 DIMM slot, What I need is the value per amount: 1) 80/ 2 = $40 per 1GB 2) 190/ 4 = $47.5 per 1GB 2. The value of frequency: 1) CORSAIR PC1333 4GB = costs 190 2) CORSAIR PC1600C7 4GB = costs 325 Im not even sure of the denominator ... $ per 1 ghz speed? 3. The value of latency: 1) CORSAIR CMP1600C8 8-8-8-24 2GBx3 (triple channel) = costs 589 2) CORSAIR CMP1600C7D 7-7-7-20 2GBx3 (triple channel) = costs 880 Im not even sure of the denominator ... $ per 1 ghz speed? Just for your information i'd like to get the best out of the money im going to spend to put on a 6 DIMM slot i7core motherboard.

    Read the article

  • Can no longer boot with rEFIt and Grub on early 2006 MacBook Pro

    - by Don Quixote
    I don't know what happened to cause this. I have Snow Leopard, Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal and Windows XP SP3 on my early 2006 MacBook Pro. It is a Core Duo unit, NOT Core 2 Duo, so it is 32-bit only - Model Identifier MacBookPro1,1. I use rEFIt 0.14 for my boot menu. For some reason neither XP nor Ubuntu would boot anymore. I'd just get a black screen with a rapidly flashing underscore in the top-left corner. Having both those OSes failing to boot suggested a problem with the boot loader in my MBR. The rEFIT partition tool verified that my MBR partitions were still synced with my GPT partitions, so I rewrote my MBR partition table with fdisk while booted from Parted Magic: # fdisk /dev/sda (fdisk warns about the disk having a GPT. I press on anyway.) p (Print the existing partition table to make sure it's OK.) w (Write the old partition table back to disk. This also writes a new MBR boot loader.) After this XP would boot but Ubuntu would not, with the same symptom. Now I used update-grub while chrooted into Ubuntu from Parted Magic: # mount /dev/sda3 /mnt # mount --bind /dev /mnt/dev # mount --bind /sys /mnt/sys # mount --bind /proc /mnt/proc # chroot /mnt Chroot issues some warnings about not being able to identify some group IDs. I don't know why that happens, or whether it is a problem. At this point while I am still booted off of Parted Magic's kernel, I am running from Natty's filesystem. # update-grub Update-grub detects each of my operating systems then claims to complete successfully, but still won't boot. I asked this same question over at rEFIt's Sourceforge support forum but there have been no replies yet. I also Googled quite a bit, and see many who have the same black screen problem, but none of their situations seem quite like mine. Thanks for any help you can give me. -- Don Quixote

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu on USB does not boot on MacBook

    - by Sean H
    Ubuntu is installed on a 32 gigabyte flash-drive and it successfully booted every time up until I partitioned my hard-drive and installed Windows as a secondary boot (for programming reasons). Now every time I attempt to boot the Ubuntu flash-drive it boots into Windows XP. The same goes for partitions, I partitioned my hard-drive and installed Ubuntu and it only booted Windows XP. I am on a MacBook 6,1 with Mac OS X 10.6.8, 2 partitions, and I am using ReFit as my boot-loader. EDIT: I had Ubuntu working fine from FLASH DRIVE and at one point as a partition. I later uninstalled Ubuntu from my hard-drive and installed Windows. I then had to re-image my computer for certain reasons and I installed windows. Now when I attempt to boot anything other than Windows or OS X it boots into windows. Ubuntu was never on my hard drive while Ubuntu was on it. The flash-drive has been its own thing and has the boot-loader installed to it and loads from ReFit but boots into windows.

    Read the article

  • Help understanding my hard drive / partitioning situation... Pictures Included! :)

    - by xopenex
    So I have installed windows 7, and two different distros of linux... I have read and tried to understand things like "spanned" "extended" "primary" "swap" "dev/dev2/" "GRUB" "Windows Boot Loader/Manager" etc.... I have a very very limited understanding of all of it! :) I am trying to figure out how to get all OS boot options on one Boot manager (I'm thinking it will be GRUB), because at this point when i turn on my computer, I basically get two booting options (excluding the memtest options etc)... One options is to boot one of my Linux Distros and the second option is to boot my Windows 7. When i go with the first option, Linux boots up... when i go with the second Windows 7 option, I get the "windows boot manager screen" and I can choose Windows 7 or my other installation of Linux (Ubuntu)... In addition, I did not have swap partition from my first installation of Linux, I created it during the installation of my second distro... This is a lot of info for me, but I'm guessing that you linux Gurus, pretty much understand what is going on! Hope my question makes sense.. i will try and simplify... Can i get all 3 OS's optioned to boot from one GRUB? Can i get both Linux distros to use one swap file (I have seen this possible in other threads, but because of how my disk is partitioned, i dont know if i can do this) I hope that i dont have to start all over installing one after the other. Ive got some pics that may help understand my hard drive situation! Thanks guys! :) EDIT... i had some pics, but im a new member.. so cant post them... :( here is a description of the pics... incase i can email them or post later. [grub][3] First Screen I come to after turning on computer... "Ubuntu with linux 3.2.6" (highlighted) fires up Linux perfectly... other choice at bottom of list "Windows 7 (loader) (on dev/sda1)... brings me to the next picture below.. windows boot manager [win boot mngr][6] both options here load the os selected [Disk Manager Windows][1] picture of my hard drive situation through windows disk manager utility [gparted][2] picture of my hard drive situation through "gparted" [mycomp][4] picture of my hard drive situation through "my computer" [paragon][5] one last pic of my hard drive situation through the eyes of "paragon"

    Read the article

  • How to make a huge ram drive?

    - by Brandon Moore
    At my old job when a report was needed I could sit down with someone and pull up results and get immediate feedback, and then refine my queries and ultimately have the data we needed, in the format we needed within 30-90 minutes. I just started working for a new company with a database containing millions of records and I spent my whole 8 hours making a report that I feel I could have made in less than 2 hours if it were not for the massive amount of data the queries are working with, and the fact that I couldn't ask the person needing the data to sit down with me and give me feedback as I pulled up results as I am used to. So I am trying to think of how we can make the server faster... much faster, so that I can have the same level of productivity I'm used to. One thought that just came to mind is that memory is so cheap these days, and by my calculations I could buy 10 8gig ram sticks for 1000 bucks. What I have never heard of though is a device that would let me combine these into a huge ram drive. So I'd like to know if any such device exists, and if not what is the largest ram drive I could realistically make and how would I go about doing so? EDIT: To you guys who are saying the database shema needs to be analyzed... you can't make a query such as "Select f1, f2, f3, etc from SomeTable" run any faster by normalizing or indexing the table. What I'm talking about IS ABSOLUTELY a need for improved performance at the hardware level. I am used to having results come back to me in a few seconds, not a few minutes or much less a half an hour. Maybe that's what you guys are used to who have 100 billion record tables and you feel like that's fast, but I'm looking for results back from tables with about 10 million records to come back to me withing less than half a minute TOPS.

    Read the article

  • Windows XP seemingly out of resources but plenty of free RAM and swap available

    - by Artem Russakovskii
    This one has been bothering me for years and so far I couldn't find an adequate solution. The problem occurs on pretty much every XP install I've done. After opening a variety of programs or the system running existing programs for a while, Windows seemingly runs out of resources, without telling me. There's ALWAYS free RAM. For example, it just happened to me and I had over a gig of free RAM. There are no viruses, spyware, or other nonsense - it is a Windows resource problem, but the question is which resource is it running out of, how does one pinpoint it, and how does one prevent it? Sometimes, this happens after running specific programs - for example, today it happened when I started Photoshop CS4 and Flash CS4 at the same time. I also noticed that restarting The Bat (email client by Ritlabs) seems to get rid of this problem for a while but again, this happens on machines that don't even have The Bat installed. So what does exactly happen? The symptoms are: pressing alt-tab doesn't bring up the list anymore - it just jumps to the next window instantly, very similar to the way Alt-Esc works, however in this case, it's due to not having enough resources to bring up the alt-tab menu random programs would randomly crash, citing random errors, out of memory errors, system resources, inabilities to do system calls, etc. random programs would start missing random parts - for example, Firefox top menus might disappear, pull up partial selections, or not pull up anymore altogether. IE might lose a few of its toolbars. Some programs might fail to redraw or would just plain go gray where the UI used to be. Windows itself never complains about running out of RAM, virtual memory, or anything at all, yet it's running out of something. The only clue I was able to find and apply the fix today was this Desktop Heap Limitation. I haven't confirmed the fix working as not enough time passed. In the meantime, what are everyone's thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Apache Process question about RAM usage

    - by Andrew Fashion
    So everytime I load a new page, I notice a new HTTPD process opens, every time I click a page, and each process says it's using anywhere from 2-4.5% of memory. Does that mean every single process is running at that time using 2-4% of RAM? It's a brand new server and I'm the only one on the server at the moment. Or does it mean all the other processes are dying, and only the new one is active. Because 4% of my 2048MB of RAM is already 82MB for just one process!?!? Let me know, because I am trying to determine what I need to beef my server up in order to handle high loads of traffic. I'm expect to get 20,000 uniques per day on launch. I am currently running a Dual Quad Xeon server, with only 2GB of ram, I will upgrade to 8GB or more shortly. Let me know what you suggest! thank you [root@D18634 log]# top | grep 'httpd' 11315 apache 15 0 362m 82m 24m R 12.3 4.1 0:03.00 httpd 11310 apache 16 0 322m 41m 21m S 5.7 2.1 0:02.98 httpd 11315 apache 15 0 362m 83m 25m S 24.3 4.1 0:03.73 httpd 11319 apache 16 0 324m 42m 20m R 1.0 2.1 0:01.85 httpd 11319 apache 16 0 362m 82m 23m R 78.5 4.1 0:04.21 httpd 11321 apache 16 0 323m 44m 23m S 35.3 2.2 0:04.13 httpd 11319 apache 15 0 361m 82m 23m S 8.3 4.1 0:04.46 httpd 11321 apache 15 0 323m 44m 23m S 35.9 2.2 0:05.21 httpd 11313 apache 15 0 324m 41m 19m S 48.6 2.1 0:03.23 httpd 11322 apache 16 0 354m 72m 20m R 11.0 3.6 0:05.11 httpd 11322 apache 16 0 354m 72m 20m S 23.9 3.6 0:05.83 httpd 11314 apache 16 0 355m 75m 22m R 18.3 3.7 0:04.64 httpd

    Read the article

  • Ram question in VMware Server 2

    - by ToreTrygg
    Hi, I understand from the VMware Server 2 documentation that VMware Server 2 is capable of running a 64-bit guest OS underneath a 32-bit host OS, as long as the hardware running the box is 64-bit capable. Here's my situation. We currently have an underutilized XEON X3220 Quad Core 64bit Server, running Server 2003, 32-bit and 2gb of RAM (the motherboard is capable of 8gb ram). The server is currently used mainly for file and print services. It is also running Active Directory, Novell eDirectory and Groupwise 6.5. We are planning a micration to Microsoft Exchange, so the Novell eDirectory and Groupwise services will eventually be purged from this box, leaving only Active Directory, File and Print services. Being that this server is underutilized we are hoping to save hardware costs and virtualize our new Exchange investment. My question is this. Will VMware allow access to the "invisible" extra memory that Windows 32-bit won't see. Meaning, if we increase the full amount of system ram to 8gb (yes, I know the 32-bit host OS will only see a maximum of 4gb), will I be able to assign maybe 5gb to the new Server 2008 64-bit OS running Exchange and leave 3gb for the Guest OS (or maybe even a 6, 2 split). The second part of that would be, would it be better to just convert the main OS currently running to an image, convert the machine itself to ESXi and run both OSes as images under ESXi. Downtime for this box is critical, so my preference is most definitly with the first option because it presents very minimal downtime. Doing the second would make downtime quite a few hours to image the machine and then convert the image to a VMware Image.

    Read the article

  • Only half of RAM is recognized by BIOS

    - by Rick Crawford
    I got a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3 mainboard. Some time ago I noticed that Windows only showed 2GB instead of 4GB. I don't know exactly what caused it anyway. I tried putting in each of the 4 x 1GB RAM modules one by one, and tried every slot one by one, until every stick and slot worked. However, then I tried adding one more at a time, and it kept showing 1GB, until I put in all 4, where it only showed 2 GB instead of 4 (in BIOS and windows 7 64bit). I tried replacing the BIOS battery since I've read that low battery could cause it. It didn't help though. I also bought 4GB new RAM (yes, it's supported, I checked it), and it's still the same, it only shows 2GB (or 3GB, when I put in 4 of the new and 2 of the old). I also did the latest BIOS update, and used default BIOS settings, but nothing of that helped. When my PC boots it shows "RAM modules used 2 and 3", when 4 sticks are in - or "0 and 1", when only 2 are in.

    Read the article

  • explanation of RAM specs, and what do I need for a Gaming rig

    - by ewok
    I am looking into upgrading my custom built PC's RAM. I use the machine mostly for gaming, but I don't really know a ton about RAM, so I wanted to ask a few questions. The research I've done tells me there is a negligible increase in speed for anything above 1600 MHz. is this true or is it worth the extra money to go higher? Other than drawing more power from the PSU, is there any real difference in performance with different voltages (1.5V vs 1.65V)? most of the kits I've found in the 2x4 1600 range have a CAS latency of 9 and timing of 9-9-9-24. For a significant increase in price (usually about 1.5x), I can get either 8 or 7 and lower timing. Is it worth the cost? What I am looking for here is someone to give a good explanation of what the different specs represent, and how that relates to the performance of the machine. Specifically, I'm looking for what specs I need to focus on for a good gaming rig. I am NOT looking for a "buy this, it's the best RAM" without an explanation of why. The information will be much more valuable as it will allow me to make my own informed decision. As they say, give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his life.

    Read the article

  • Howto detect fake RAM

    - by Michael
    I just bought a virtual server which should have 2GB of RAM. Now i got a server with 4gb which looks very strange to me. I think it is just a virtual RAM. dmidecode only ouputs /dev/mem: Operation not permitted How can i check if it's a real RAM or just a virtual one? free -m outputs: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4093 364 3728 0 0 346 -/+ buffers/cache: 18 4074 Swap: 0 0 0 Output from cat /proc/user_beancounters Version: 2.5 uid resource held maxheld barrier limit failcnt 137: kmemsize 8922287 10194944 2145910784 2145910784 0 lockedpages 0 0 523904 523904 0 privvmpages 13387 59112 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 shmpages 769 785 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numproc 22 54 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 physpages 93377 106010 0 1047808 0 vmguarpages 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 oomguarpages 2471 2473 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numtcpsock 5 21 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numflock 4 13 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numpty 1 1 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numsiginfo 0 39 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 tcpsndbuf 102592 381632 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 tcprcvbuf 81920 4820184 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 othersockbuf 4624 61632 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dgramrcvbuf 0 9248 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numothersock 39 56 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dcachesize 4178917 4232732 1072955392 1072955392 0 numfile 378 535 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numiptent 24 24 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >