Search Results

Search found 20904 results on 837 pages for 'disk performance'.

Page 145/837 | < Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >

• Do you run anti-virus software?

  - by Paolo Bergantino

  Do you find the crippling effect that most anti virus software has on a computer's performance worth the "security" they provide? I've never been able to really tell myself its worth it, and have used my computer without "protection" for years without any problems. Jeff Atwood wrote about this a while back, taking a similar stance. So I'm looking for some discussion on the merits and downfalls of antivirus software, and whether you personally think its worth the hassle. One point I do think is valid is that I am probably okay with not running it because I know if something goes wrong I have the ability to make it right (most of the time) but I can't really recommend the same for family as they may not be able to...

  Read the article

• Tuning (and understanding) table_cache in mySQL

  - by jotango

  Hello, I ran the excellent MySQL performance tuning script and started to work through the suggestions. One I ran into was TABLE CACHE Current table_cache value = 4096 tables You have a total of 1073 tables. You have 3900 open tables. Current table_cache hit rate is 2%, while 95% of your table cache is in use. You should probably increase your table_cache I started to read up on the table_cache but found the MySQL documentation quite lacking. They do say to increase the table_cache, "if you have the memory". Unfortunately the table_cache variable is defined as "The number of open tables for all threads." How will the memory used by MySQL change, if I increase this variable? What is a good value, to set it to?

  Read the article

• Is it a good idea to have the operating system on a solid state drive?

  - by Kenji Kina

  There is something I don't quite understand. I know a SSD helps with OS load times, but I'm not sure if all this boost is only noticeable/interesting when booting, or gives an all around considerably better experience thereafter. I am interested in having a quick and responsive environment after booting, which leads me to think that it'd be better to spend the SSD capacity in my most used apps (and the page file? Another inside question) and not the OS itself. This, of course, means that I don't know just how much the OS reads/writes its files during normal usage. So, how good an idea is it to dump the whole 20GB+ of Windows 7 OS into the SSD (considering the hefty price per GB of SSD capacity) if I can put up with the usual hard disk boot times? Would I be missing on a lot if I didn't?

  Read the article

• SQL Server Replication Agent priority

  - by Wikser

  Every hour a server replicates SQL server data with some external web server. During this time, which takes about 2-5minutes, the database seriously slows down. Colleagues, which work with the front end applications of that on another terminal server, even regularly start complaining. The databases are also synchroniously mirrored (via SQLServer mirroring, no replication) to a third server. Note that 99% of the data is replicated outgoing, so the server should rarely need to update its data. As the (merge and transactional) replication tasks are not time-critical, I would like to reduce their priority or somehow slow them down, so they don't affect the database performance that much. How would you implement that?

  Read the article

• iSCSI RAID1 on two servers, fail scenario

  - by Franz Kafka

  Hallo, a simple question: Image I have two servers, each server has two disks in RAID1. Now I merge the two arrays with iSCSI to one RAID1 disk. Two questions: Can I do the merging of the 4 disks in one go? I can't image how. First I will have to install the os, and then the raid controller is already set up to RAID1. If a whole server fails the other server would continue working without any problems? Does iSCSI notice that the other server is missing and treet this as if the two disks were broken? When the server comes back online the data is resynced, as if I installed new disks into a array? Can I image that this way? Thanks alot.

  Read the article

• How complex of a daemon should be run through inetd?

  - by amphetamachine

  What is the general rule for which daemons should be started up through inetd? Currently, on my server, sshd, apache and sendmail are set up to run all the time, where simple *NIX services are set up to be started by inetd. I'm the only one who uses ssh on my computer, and break-in attempts aren't a problem because I have it running on a non-standard port, and my HTTP server gets maybe 5 hits a day that aren't GoogleBot. My question is, what are the benefits vs. the performance hits associated with running a complex daemon like sshd or apache through superserver, and what, if any successes or failures have you had running your own daemons in this manner?

  Read the article

• How to Mirror or Clone a Spanned Volume in Windows 2008

  - by Matt

  I have a spanned volume (3x6+ TB disks spanned to one 20+ TB volume) that I need to mirror or clone to a new 20+ TB (unspanned) volume. Once mirrored or cloned I'm going to destroy the original volume and reuse the storage elsewhere. Windows 2008 will not allow me to mirror it because the original is a spanned volume. I cannot simply copy the data, because there are sparse files on the volume. So the OS thinks there is 150+ TB used on the disk when there really is only around 18TB used physically. When I try to use the copy command it won't run because it thinks the destination volume needs to be 150+ TB to hold it all. A conundrum, but I figure someone here has the answer. Thanks, Matt

  Read the article

• Is a larger hard drive with the same cache, rpm, and bus type faster?

  - by Joel Coehoorn

  I recently heard that, all else being equal, larger hard are faster than smaller. It has to do with more bits passing under the read head as the drive spins - since a large drive packs the bits more tightly, the same amount of spin/time presents more data to the read head. I had not heard this before, and was inclined to believe the the read heads expected bits at a specific rate and would instead stagger data, so that the two drives would be the same speed. I now find myself looking at purchasing one of two computer models for the school where I work. One model has an 80GB drive, the other a 400GB (for ~$13 more). The size of the drive is immaterial, since users will keep their files on a file server where they can be backed up. But if the 400GB drive will really deliver a performance boost to the hard drive, the extra money is probably worth it. Thoughts?

  Read the article

• Does anyone still use Iometer?

  - by Brian T Hannan

  "Iometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. It is used as a benchmark and troubleshooting tool and is easily configured to replicate the behaviour of many popular applications." link text Does anyone still use this tool? It seems helpful, but I'm not sure if it's for the thing I am trying to work on. I am trying create a benchmark computer performance test that can be run before and after a Windows Optimization program does its stuff (ex: PC Optimizer Pro or CCleaner). I want to be able to make a quick statement like CCleaner makes the computer run 50% faster or something along those lines. Are there any newer tools like this one?

  Read the article

• master-slave-slave replication: master will become bottleneck for writes

  - by JMW

  hi, the mysql database has arround 2TB of data. i have a master-slave-slave replication running. the application that uses the database does read (SELECT) queries just on one of the 2 slaves and write (DELETE/INSERT/UPDATE) queries on the master. the application does way more reads, than writes. if we have a problem with the read (SELECT) queries, we can just add another slave database and tell the application, that there is another salve. so it scales well... Currently, the master is running arround 40% disk io due to the writes. So i'm thinking about how to scale the the database in the future. Because one day the master will be overloaded. What could be a solution there? maybe mysql cluster? if so, are there any pitfalls or limitations in switching the database to ndb? thanks a lot in advance... :)

  Read the article

• Suggested benchmark for testing CPU footprint of antivirus software

  - by Alex Chernavsky

  Our organization is currently running Symantec Corporate Antivirus, which is rumored to be a big resource hog. I know that we do have a lot of older machines that are running slow. Our PCs are all running Windows XP Pro and are used only for business applications (mostly Microsoft Office), e-mail, and web surfing. They're not used for gaming (one would hope not, anyway). I'd like to take one of the old PCs and do a speed benchmark test while it's running Symantec AV, then another test with no antivirus, and a third test with ESET NOD32. As I said, I don't care much about graphics performance. What would be an appropriate benchmarking program program to use? Freeware is best, of course. Thank you for considering my question.

  Read the article

• perfmon reporting higher IOPs than possible?

  - by BlueToast

  We created a monitoring report for IOPs on performance counters using Disk reads/sec and Disk writes/sec on four servers (physical boxes, no virtualization) that have 4x 15k 146GB SAS drives in RAID10 per server, set to check and record data every 1 second, and logged for 24 hours before stopping reports. These are the results we got: Server1 Maximum disk reads/sec: 4249.437 Maximum disk writes/sec: 4178.946 Server2 Maximum disk reads/sec: 2550.140 Maximum disk writes/sec: 5177.821 Server3 Maximum disk reads/sec: 1903.300 Maximum disk writes/sec: 5299.036 Server4 Maximum disk reads/sec: 8453.572 Maximum disk writes/sec: 11584.653 The average disk reads and writes per second were generally low. I.e. for one particular server it was like average 33 writes/sec, but when monitoring in real-time it would often spike up to several hundreds and also sometimes into the thousands. Could someone explain to me why these numbers are significantly higher than theoretical calculations assuming each drive can do 180 IOPs? Additional details (RAID card): HP Smart Array P410i, Total cache size of 1GB, Write cache is disabled, Array accelerator cache ratio is 25% read and 75% write

  Read the article

• Encryption of external HDD -- accessible from windows without installation

  - by Rainer

  I would like to use encryption on my external HDD but I would like to be able to access the encrypted data from Windows as well. As suggested in other questions, TrueCrypt is one option here, or I am using momentarily encfs, which is not available for Windows. But my question goes further: I would like to be able to access the encrypted partition from Windows without installation as I will be using it from different Windows machines for which I have no administrator access. My main OS is Linux and I have full root access to that computer. Is there a full disk or file based encryption which I can use cross platform and which does not require installation under Windows? ADDITION: It seems that TrueCrypt provides a portable mode which fulfills my requirements partly: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=truecrypt-portable, but still the TrueCrypt driver needs to be installed by an administrator... pitty Thanks

  Read the article

• GNOME/KDE Linux entirely in RAM?

  - by František Žiacik

  Hi. I'd like to have very responsive linux but I also like modern, elegant and functional desktops like gnome or kde, not the lightweight ones like xfce or lxde. Once I tried PuppyLinux and was impressed by the responsivity when I clicked an application. In my Ubuntu, it bothers me much when I click chromium and must wait 5 seconds of disk flashing until main window appears. Or evolution or anything else. Is it possible to make GNOME or KDE run entirely in RAM like PuppyLinux (of course, I mean frequently used applications and services, not all) if you have enough of it? I don't care if boot time is longer. I tried using "preload" but it didn't help much.

  Read the article

• Challenges w.r.t. proximity between application hosted outside Amazon and Amazon persistence service

  - by Kabeer

  Hello. This is about hosting a web portal. Earlier my topology was entirely based on Amazon AWS but the price factor (especially for EC2) now makes me re-think. I'll now quickly come to what I have finally arrived at. I'll launch the portal that'll be hosted on Godaddy (unlimited plan on Windows). The portal uses SimpleDB for storing metadata and S3 for blobs. Locally available MySQL will be used for the ASP.Net provider services. Once the portal is profitable, I intent to move to Amazon in totality. Now considering the proximity between Godaddy & Amazon, would I face 'substantial' performance problems? Are there any suggestions to improve upon my topology.

  Read the article

• Does splitting out Data, Logs, and TempDB matter using a SAN with SQL 2008

  - by MVCylon

  I'm not a server admin. So be gentle. But I was just at a conference and in one of the training classes the Instructor explained some SQL DBA best practices. One of which was to separate out Mdf,Ldf, and TempDB onto different drives to increase performance. Now at our office we have a san. The Sys Admins created 3 san drives one for data, one for Logs, and one for TempDB. My intuition tells me that was a wasted effort...was it? I don't know alot of the details, but if you ask i'll try to fill in any specs needed to answer this question accurately.

  Read the article

• How do you debug why Windows is slow?

  - by aaron

  I've got Vista Biz and when my machine chugs I think it is because of paging, but I never know how to verify this. Procexp doesn't seem to provide useful information because it appears that nothing is going on when the chugs happen. perfmon seems like it has the counters I need, but I'm never sure what counters I should add to cover the information I want. For perfmon, I prefer numbers that are percents, so I can gauge load. Here are the counters I have up, but they don't always seem to correlate to chugs: - % disk time (logical) - page faults/sec (an indicator of lots of paging activity) - processor/%priviliged time

  Read the article

• PC is very slow

  - by Appoos

  Hi All, My Windows XP system is very slow. I tried all possible ways of improving the performance. But now luck. I've 4GB RAM and AMD Phenon XII B53 processor. I don't see any applications consuming CPU resources. But the Page File usage is 4.18 GB(System Managed size in MyComputerPropertiesPeformance). There is enough RAM available, but still why OS is using Page File? How can I improve the Page File usage? Please help me.

  Read the article

• Signal strength and Speed of wireless network

  - by Tim

  As shown by Lenovo Access Connections on my Windows 7, the wireless network I am using has a speed of 54.0Mbps but a signal strength of 88%. I am using WinSCP with unlimited speed to download files. WinSCP shows that the speed fluctuates between 100 and 120KiB/s. I was wondering what are the difference between the two speeds from Lenovo Access Connections and WinSCP? How can I tell the actual speed performance, for example, from the above measurements: speeds and the signal strength mentioned in the two places. Thanks and regards!

  Read the article

• Is Software Raid1 Using mdadm with a Local Hard Disk and GNDB Possible?

  - by Travis

  I have multiple webservers which use many small files to created dynamic web pages. Caching the web pages isn't an option. The webserver also performs writes so I need a synchronous filesystem. I'm looking to maximise performance as it's my understanding that small files is the weakness (to varying degreess) of a cluster filesystem over ethernet. Currently I'm using Centos 5.5, 64 bit. Since it's only about 300MB of data, I'm looking at mdadm using RAID-1 with the GNBD and a local hard disk using the "--write-mostly" option so the reads are done using the local hard disk. Is this possible? If so, is there any advantage to making it a tmpfs disk instead of a local hard disk? Or will the files on the local hard disk just get cached in RAM anyway so I won't see a performance gain by using tmpfs, assuming there's enough RAM available?

  Read the article

• How SSD hard drive affected speed of your website (asp.net/linq/ms sql database)

  - by Sergey Osypchuk

  I have a small database (<1G) But we have a lot of complex logi? in website and client complains on render time, which is 3-5 seconds. We are not google, and thousands of users a day is our dream, so size is not a problem, but speed is important. Can anybody share with experience with SSD drives for ASP.NET (MVC)/LINQ/MS SQL based application ? How you performance increased? UPDATE: this whitepaper states that it will be 20 times faster. http://www.texmemsys.com/files/f000174.pdf

  Read the article

• Why am I seeing excessive disk activity when installing applications?

  - by Kev

  I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit on a Dell Vostro 1720 with 8GB of RAM, 7200RPM Disk, 2.53 GHz Core2Duo (Windows 7 64 bit is a supported option and the laptop came with the OS pre-installed). I'm noticing some fairly excessive disk activity when running installers. For example the Visual Studio 2010 RC installer constantly accessed the disk for ~10 minutes. It was so excessive that I was unable to use the machine until this ceased. Today I installed Trillian Astra 4.1 for Windows (latest build from the website). Again when I ran the installer I was pretty much locked out of the machine until the disk activity calmed down. In both cases when I eventually managed to launch task manager I could see that the CPU was sitting at around 5% to 7% utilisation whilst this was going on. All other disk related activity is fine, the machine is snappy and applications launch without delay. It's just when I run an installer I see this odd behaviour. Why would this be?

  Read the article

• RAID 1 not performing as expected

  - by Faken

  I recently bought a new 320Gb hard drive for my computer to set up RAID 1 on it for some added security. Installation went as smooth as could possibly be (plug in power, plug in data cable, start up computer, Intel software recognized new drive, right click create RAID 1, done!). However, for some inexplicable reason, I seem to have strange test results when using BENCH32. On my old configuration, a single 7200 rpm drive, I achieved about 60 MB/s write and 70 MB/s read. With a new RAID 1 configuration, I would expect the write to be slightly diminished but read to be significantly improved (though not exactly double speed). However, with the new configuration, I am getting 90 MB/s write and only about 80 MB/s read. I should NOT be getting improved write performance, especially NOT better than read! What's going on? My system setup is: q6600 2.4ghz CPU 4Gb DDR2 667mhz RAM on board Intel ICH9R "RAID chip" 2x Seagate 7200 RPM 320GB drives in RAID 1 Widows 7 home premium 64-bit

  Read the article

• Signal strength and Speed of wireless network

  - by Tim

  As shown by Lenovo Access Connections on my Windows 7, the wireless network I am using has a speed of 54.0Mbps but a signal strength of 88%. I am using WinSCP with unlimited speed to download files. WinSCP shows that the speed fluctuates between 100 and 120KiB/s. I was wondering what are the difference between the two speeds from Lenovo Access Connections and WinSCP? How can I tell the actual speed performance, for example, from the above measurements: speeds and the signal strength mentioned in the two places. Thanks and regards!

  Read the article

• A space-efficient guest filesystem for grow-as-needed virtual disks ?

  - by Steve Schnepp

  A common practice is to use non-preallocated virtual disks. Since they only grow as needed, it makes them perfect for fast backup, overallocation and creation speed. Since file systems are usually based on physical disks they have the tendency to use the whole area available1 in order to increase the speed2 or reliability3. I'm searching a filesystem that does the exact opposite : try to touch the minimum blocks need by an aggressive block reuse. I would happily trade some performance for space usage. There is already a similar question, but it is rather general. I have very specific goal : space-efficiency. 1. Like page caching uses all the free physical memory 2. Canonical example : online defragmentation 3. Canonical example : snapshotting

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >