Search Results

Search found 78653 results on 3147 pages for 'performance object name s'.

Page 264/3147 | < Previous Page | 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • What Defines an AD Object as "Inactive"

    - by Malnizzle
    I am going to be using some DSQUERY/DSMOVE scripts to clean up my AD Domin. One option is to move inactive objects to a OU that has restrictive GPOs applied to it. Something like: DSQUERY computer -inactive 10 | DSMOVE -newparent <distinguished name of target OU> My question is what value defines an object, both user and computer, as "inactive" for a period of time? Is it the last time a computer was logged on to for computer accounts, and for users is it the last time that the user account logged on to a computer? But what if, say for example, I had a web server that wasn't rebooted and or logged into for a couple of months but remain powered on and functioning as normal, would it be defined as "inactive" where as technically it's still serving web pages and so on? Thanks for the help!

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Best 2x 4GB RAM for a Thinkpad X200s

    - by Tommy Jakobsen
    Hi, I need 2x 4GB RAM, a total of 8GB, in my upcoming Thinkpad X200s laptop. Before buying, I would like your advice on which modules to choose. I've been looking at Corsair's Value Select (P/N: CM3X4GSD1066) RAM, because in my experience they produce good RAM modules. However, Corsair lists 7 clock cycles for their modules while Lenovo lists 5 clock cycles. What do you think? Is Lenovo modules the best choice? Are they the fastest/most stable, or is it the Corsair modules? Or modules from a third vendor? Thanks in advance!

    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

  • How to mirror filesystems with millions of hardlinks?

    - by Thomas Berger
    We have one big problem at the moment: We need to mirror a filesystem for one of our customers. Thats usual not really a problem, but here it is: On this filesystem there is one folder with millions of hardlinks (yes! MILLIONS!). rsync requires more then 4 days to just build the filelist. We use the following rsync options: rsync -Havz --progress serverA:/data/cms /data/ Has anyone a idea how to speed up this rsync, or use alternatives? We could not use dd as the target disk is smaller then the source.

    Read the article

  • Pros/cons to turning off cable modem

    - by Jay
    A little off the wall perhaps, but ... I have a cable modem and a router for a wireless home network. Is it a good or a bad idea to turn it off at night and during the day when we're all at work or school? Or should I leave it on 24/7. I was thinking that leaving it on constantly makes me more vulnerable to hackers, not to mention wasting electricity. (Though I'd guess the amount of electricity used by a cable modem and a router is probably pretty trivial. Still, every little bit helps.) When I have turned it off and turned it on again, it takes several minutes for it to go through its little dialog with the cable company and get me connected to the Internet again, which is annoying but not a big deal. Anyone know any good reasons one way or the other?

    Read the article

  • Monitoring the Server load In Windows NT and triggering a scheduled task

    - by Gnanesh
    Hi, I am having the following problem. I am running a Windows NT server. I need to monitor the server utilization continuously (automated process) and need to know if the server load is high. And if it high I need to trigger a scheduled task. Can we write a VB script in order to do this? Can someone please help me? Kindly let me know in case you require more info on this Thanks

    Read the article

  • Apache2 BufferedLogs On - anybody using it ?

    - by Qiqi
    Greetings, I am wondering, whether anybody is using BufferedLogs On with Apache2 and found any issues ? Feature is marked as experimental, but for many years now, so I guess it's rather pretty stable. I am running some servers with constrained disk IO capacity at the moment, so I turned it on hoping that even a small benefit could help in the long run ;-) I do have several to several hundreds requests per seconds so by my thoughts there is really no need to write to log after each request, cause honestly I don't think that my filesystem is the best handler for many unnecessary writes. (OCFS2 shared among several DomUs in the Xen)

    Read the article

  • Throughput = BS * IOPS?

    - by Marvin
    I've seen in many places that throughput = bs * iops should be true. For example writing at 128k block size to a SAS disk that can support 190 IOPS should give a throughput of ~23 MBps - 23.75(MBs) = 128(BS)*190(SAS-15 IOPS)/1024. Now when I tested it in a VM against a monster NetApp filer I got theses results: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/dd.out bs=4k count=2097152 8589934592 bytes (8.6 GB) copied, 61.5996 seconds, 139 MB/s To view the IO rate of the VM I used iostat and esxtop, and they both showed around 250 IOPS. So to my understanding the throughput was supposed to be ~1000k: 1000(KBs) = 4(BS)*250(IOPS). dd of 8GB is twice the size of RAM of course, so no page caching here. What am I missing? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Debian tuning for increasing read/write buffer.

    - by Claudiu
    Is there a way to modify Debian settings so the memory could be used more for disk read/write caching ? I am already using RAID 0 but thats not enough for multiple users, and the disk is almost struggled. Torrents use the disk very much and rTorrent doesn't have cache settings.

    Read the article

  • Mac has become insanely slow : Processes SystemUIServer, UserEventAgent and loginwindow using a lot of memory

    - by SatheeshJM
    I have been using my Mac for for many months without any problem. But recently all of a sudden the Mac became insanely slow. I opened Activity Manager to see what was happening. For three processes SystemUIServer, UserEventAgent and loginwindow, the memory gradually increases and reaches upto 2 GB for each process. This completely hangs up my Mac. I tried the following : 1. Restart Mac 2. Restart Mac in safe mode 3. Manually kill the processes 4. Remove Date and Time from Menu bar(this was supposed to be the problem for the SysteUIServer process's memory according to many users) 5. Removed the externally connected keyboard and mouse(some had suggested this for UserEventAgent's memory) No luck with any of those. The moment I log in, the memory spikes up. Any idea what the hell is happening? Please help.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 Web VS SQL Server 2008 Enterprise

    - by Jeremy
    I wrote an application a few months ago, and was hosting it out of our offices on a workstation with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz, 8 GB RAM, Windows Server 2008 Enterprise and SQL Server 2008 Enterprise. Both the webserver and database server were run on the same machine. We had a huge influx in traffic, and moved ClubUptime.com, and got 2 of their top teir windows VMs. The Database server runs Windows 2008 R2 Standard and SQL Server 2008 R2 Web on 8 GB ram and an Intel Xeon e5620 @ 2.40GHz. Ever since switching, the database which used to run at around 400MB in RAM now runs at around 4-7GB, and there haven't been any changes to it (other than a couple columns here and there). Our traffic has quadrupled, and our DB is 6 GB on disk, why would SQL server take up 7 GB if the DB is only 6. And why would it be storing the ENTIRE database in memory? Another thing is why growing 4 times in size did the database's memory footprint grow 12 times? Last question: Why does the CPU peg at 100% now where it didn't before? The design is simple, VERY few joins, NO subqueries. I am just at a loss, unless it is the SQL server edition, or the fact that I moved from real hardware to a VM.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271  | Next Page >