Search Results

Search found 14841 results on 594 pages for 'performance monitoring'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 151/594 | < Previous Page | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >

  • Macbook Pro 2010 13,3'' 2,4 vs. 2,66Ghz

    - by Milde
    Hi, is the 13,3'' MBP 2,66ghz worth the extra 300€, comparing it to the 2,4ghz version? What CPUs are installed? P8600/P8800 ? 300€ for 70GB more space and 0,26ghz or would it be better to use the 300€ for a solid state disk? What's your opinion? Thanks in advance, Milde

    Read the article

  • 503 error Varnish cache when eAccelerator is started

    - by Netismine
    I have a Magento installation running on x-large Amazon server. I have Varnish, memcached and eAccelerator installed on the server. At first everything was working fine, but then at some point it stopped working, throwing 503 error with Varnish cache stamp below it. When I disable eaccelerator, error is gone and site is working. This is my eaccelerator config: extension="eaccelerator.so" eaccelerator.shm_size = "512" eaccelerator.cache_dir = "/var/cache/php-eaccelerator" eaccelerator.enable = "1" eaccelerator.optimizer = "1" eaccelerator.debug = 0 eaccelerator.log_file = "/var/log/httpd/eaccelerator_log" eaccelerator.name_space = "" eaccelerator.check_mtime = "1" eaccelerator.filter = "" eaccelerator.shm_ttl = "0" eaccelerator.shm_prune_period = "0" eaccelerator.shm_only = "0" eaccelerator.allowed_admin_path = "" any hints?

    Read the article

  • HP DL185 - very slow disk read speed

    - by fistameeny
    Hi, I have a HP DL185 G6 Server (12 disk model) with the following spec: Quad Core Xeon 2.27GHz 6GB RAM HP P212 RAID controller with battery backup 2 x 128GB 15K SAS 3.5" (RAID-1 for the operating system) 4 x 750GB 7.5K SAS 3.5" (RAID-5 for the data, 2TB usable space) The operating system is Ubuntu Server 9.10. Both drives have been formatted as EXT4. We are finding that read speed of the RAID-5 array is poor. Disk test results below: sudo hdparm -tT /dev/cciss/c0d1p1 /dev/cciss/c0d1p1: Timing cached reads: 15284 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7650.18 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 74 MB in 3.02 seconds = 24.53 MB/sec For info, the RAID-1 array performs as follows: sudo hdparm -tT /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 /dev/cciss/c0d0p1: Timing cached reads: 15652 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7834.26 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 492 MB in 3.01 seconds = 163.46 MB/sec We thought this was because with no battery, read/write cache is disabled. We have bought and installed the battery backup and have used the HP bootable CD to change the cache settings to 50% read / 50% write and check cache is enabled on the drives and the controller. Is there something I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • How To Troubleshoot Excess Time From Connect to First Byte?

    - by Gaia
    I measured load times for a wordpress 2.9.2 install on apache 2.2.3 and I was intrigued by the long periods between connect and first byte for the css and image files. Load Average is 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 and there are 150MB free RAM on the VPS. Pingdom results are at http://imagebin.ca/img/6UaiOU.png How do I gain insight into the possible causes of this problem and how would I troubleshoot it? Thanks

    Read the article

  • MongoDB: ReplicaSet slower than a corresponding Master/Slave config

    - by SecondThought
    Is it true that a mongoDB configured as a replicaset (lets say two nodes + an arbiter) will always be slower than the same DB and server specs but configured as a Master? I've run some tests and found out that for a fresh DB, RS is a little quicker than Master/Slave config but when the DB is getting bigger than ~100k records the latter is getting much snappier. am I missing something here? PS: I was testing it with mongoid driver for ruby.

    Read the article

  • Diagnostic high load sys cpu - low io

    - by incous
    A Linux server running Ubuntu 12.04 LTS with LAMP has a strange behaviour since last week: - cpu %sys higher than before, nearly equal %usr (before that, %sys just little compare with %usr) - IO reduce by half or 1/3 compare with the week before I try to diagnostic the process/cpu by some command (top/vmstat/mpstat/sar), and see that maybe it's a bit high on interrupt timer/resched. I don't know what that means, now open to any suggestion.

    Read the article

  • Why change net.inet.tcp.tcbhashsize in FreeBSD?

    - by sh-beta
    In virtually every FreeBSD network tuning document I can find: # /boot/loader.conf net.inet.tcp.tcbhashsize=4096 This is usually paired with some unhelpful statement like "TCP control-block hash table tuning" or "Set this to a reasonable value." man 4 tcp isn't much help either: tcbhashsize Size of the TCP control-block hash table (read-only). This may be tuned using the kernel option TCBHASHSIZE or by setting net.inet.tcp.tcbhashsize in the loader(8). The only document I can find that touches on this mysterious thing is the Protocol Control Block Lookup subsection beneath Transport Layer in Optimizing the FreeBSD IP and TCP Stack, but its description is more about potential bottlenecks in using it. It seems tied to matching new TCP segments to their listening sockets, but I'm not sure how. What exactly is the TCP Control Block used for? Why would you want to set its hash size to 4096 or any other particular number?

    Read the article

  • Weblogic Threads Usage

    - by Hila
    I have an application deployed on WebLogic 10.3, which exhibits a strange behavior. I am running a constant (not too high) load on my application (20 concurrent users, running a light activity). The response time is reasonable (well below 100ms after the application stabilizes) Memory consumption seems fine (My application creates a lot of short-living objects, but they are garbaged collected so the overall memory consumption stays under 500 mb). Threads stats seem healthy as well: And yet, after I leave my test running for a while, more and more execute threads ("[ACTIVE] ExecuteThread: '3' for queue: 'weblogic.kernel.Default (self-tuning)'") are created, until eventually the application crashes: This test hasn't been running for a long time (All the new threads that you don't see in the first screenshot were created while I was writing this question), and I've seen much more threads being created. Any idea why these threads are being created?

    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

  • Linux server became extremely slow

    - by Ariel Aharonson
    I have a file sharing website, and my files hosted in a server with those system specifications: 32GB RAM 12x3TB 2x Intel Quad Core E5620 I have files in this server up to 4gb for each file. 446gb is full (/36TB) [root@hosted-by ~]# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda2 50G 2.7G 44G 6% / tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 97M 57M 36M 62% /boot /dev/mapper/VolGroup01-LogVol00 33T 494G 33T 2% /home And take a look at this: Why is the wa% so high? (I think that what makes the server to be so slow)

    Read the article

  • Should I use "Raid 5 + spare" or "Raid 6"?

    - by Trevor Boyd Smith
    What is "Raid 5 + Spare" (excerpt from User Manual, Sect 4.17.2, P.54): RAID5+Spare: RAID 5+Spare is a RAID 5 array in which one disk is used as spare to rebuild the system as soon as a disk fails (Fig. 79). At least four disks are required. If one physical disk fails, the data remains available because it is read from the parity blocks. Data from a failed disk is rebuilt onto the hot spare disk. When a failed disk is replaced, the replacement becomes the new hot spare. No data is lost in the case of a single disk failure, but if a second disk fails before the system can rebuild data to the hot spare, all data in the array will be lost. What is "Raid 6" (excerpt from User Manual, Sect 4.17.2, P.54): RAID6: In RAID 6, data is striped across all disks (minimum of four) and a two parity blocks for each data block (p and q in Fig. 80) is written on the same stripe. If one physical disk fails, the data from the failed disk can be rebuilt onto a replacement disk. This Raid mode can support up to two disk failures with no data loss. RAID 6 provides for faster rebuilding of data from a failed disk. Both "Raid 5 + spare" and "Raid 6" are SO similar ... I can't tell the difference. When would "Raid 5 + Spare" be optimal? And when would "Raid 6" be optimal"? The manual dumbs down the different raid with 5 star ratings. "Raid 5 + Spare" only gets 4 stars but "Raid 6" gets 5 stars. If I were to blindly trust the manual I would conclude that "Raid 6" is always better. Is "Raid 6" always better?

    Read the article

  • Run serveral daemon using python

    - by ylc
    I noticed that serveral daemon invoked python seperately. For example, I have both wicd and ibus daemon running on my machine. Instead of launching a single instance of python, the daemons run with two python instance at the same time in htop: /usr/bin/python2 -O /usr/share/wicd/daemon/monitor.py python2 /usr/share/ibus/ui/gtk/main.py Is it a waste of doing that? If yes, how can I improve this? If no, why avoid putting all daemons run on a single python instance?

    Read the article

  • Multiple columns in a single index versus multiple indexes

    - by Tim Coker
    The short version of my question is what's the difference between three indexes each indexing a single column and one index indexing three columns. Background follows. I'm primarily a programmer but have to do DBA work because we don't have a DBA. I'm evaluating our indexes versus the queries run against a particular table. The table as 3 columns that I'm often filtering against or getting the max value of. Most of the time the queries look like select max(col_a) from table where col_b = 'avalue' or select col_c from table where col_b = 'avalue' and col_a = 'anothervalue' All columns are independently indexed. My question is would I see any difference if I had an index that indexed col_b and col_a together since they can appear in a where clause together?

    Read the article

  • Why is MySQL table_cache full but never used

    - by Jeremy Clarke
    I have been using the tuning-primer.sh script to tune my my.cnf settings. I have most things working well but the part about TABLE CACHE makes no sense: TABLE CACHE Current table_cache value = 900 tables. You have a total of 0 tables You have 900 open tables. Current table_cache hit rate is 1% , while 100% of your table cache is in use. You should probably increase your table_cache When I do SHOW STATUS; I get the following table-related numbers: Open_tables = 900 Opened_tables = 0 It seems like something is going wrong. I have some extra memory I could use on increasing the table_cache size, but my sense is that the 900 tables already available aren't doing anything, and increasing it will just waste more energy. Why might this be happening? Are there other settings that could cause all my table_cache slots to be used even though there are no hits to them? I have 150 max connections and probably no more than 4 tables per join, FWIW. Here is the tuner script output for temp tables, which I've also been tuning: TEMP TABLES Current max_heap_table_size = 90 M Current tmp_table_size = 90 M Of 11032358 temp tables, 40% were created on disk Perhaps you should increase your tmp_table_size and/or max_heap_table_size to reduce the number of disk-based temporary tables. Note! BLOB and TEXT columns are not allow in memory tables. If you are using these columns raising these values might not impact your ratio of on disk temp tables.

    Read the article

  • Important hardware components to avoid bottlenecks/improve speed on a laptop?

    - by joelhaus
    Looking for a powerful general use (including web development) laptop running Windows. Price points seem to be all over the place. Many less powerful machines are priced much higher than machines with better specs. How does one navigate this market? Are there any unpublished/under-publicized specs/bottlenecks you look for? Understanding that hardware improves over time, is there an efficient ratio that can be used (or something similar, like Windows Experience Index?) which will indicate how powerful a system is? Thanks in advance! P.S. Here is an example from a laptop released on September 17, 2010. Can anyone pick apart these specs? Is there missing information you would be looking for? OS: Win 7 Display: 16.4" LED backlit Processor: Intel Core i7-740QM, 6MB L3 Cache RAM: 6GB DDR3 1333MHz (8GB max.) Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M (1 GB of dedicated DDR3) HDD: 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive Removable Disc: Blue-ray with DVD±R/RW Misc: webcam/mic/speakers/bluetooth (via Sony Vaio VPC-F137FX/B)

    Read the article

  • Why Can't I Pre-Zip Server Files?

    - by ThinkBohemian
    It's just good common sense to have your server gzip your files before they send them to users (I use Nginx) Is there anyway to save the server some overhead and pre-zip those files for the server, and if not why? For instance rather than giving the server an myscript.js and having the server zip the file and send it to the user, is there a way to create myscript.js.zip so the server doesn't have to?

    Read the article

  • Identify Long Running or Slow PHP Scripts

    - by Kirk
    I have web server that is getting around 25K visits a day up at yougetsignal.com. Sometimes the site feels a bit sluggish. I am hosting it on nginx with php5-fpm. Is there a way for me to see a list of all of the long running requests that are coming to the site? I'd love to have a real-time list of all of the active requests that PHP is handling and how long they have been running. Kind of like top, but just for the web server. This would let me know how long requests are taking and which script is the culprit. Anyone have any ideas on how I can do this?

    Read the article

  • How to interpret IOZone results?

    - by homer5439
    Here are the resuts of running IOZone on an ext3 filesystem on an LVM volume residing on a SAN LUN (it was ran with 5 parallel processes). "Throughput report Y-axis is type of test X-axis is number of processes" "Record size = 4 Kbytes " "Output is in Kbytes/sec" " Initial write " 81628.55 " Rewrite " 83354.72 " Read " 115595.02 " Re-read " 119306.09 " Reverse Read " 47684.20 " Stride read " 10011.09 " Random read " 16751.27 " Mixed workload " 5659.77 " Random write " 1661.85 " Pwrite " 36030.83 Now this is all nice and dandy, but my question is: how do I know whether the values are as good as they could be or there is something to tweak (and if so, what?) The actual usage I will have for that Logical Volume is to act as virtual disk for a VM.

    Read the article

  • How can I simulate a slow machine in a VM?

    - by Nathan Long
    I'm testing an AJAX-heavy web-application. I develop on a new Mac, but I use VmWare Fusion (currently 3.1.2) to test in Windows XP, using IETester to simulate older versions of IE. This lets me see how older IE versions would render the site, but I'd also like to see how the site would perform on an older machine. I see in the VM's settings that I can decrease the RAM; is there a way to also dial down the processor speed? How else might I simulate a slow machine? (I am also going to check out how to simulate a slow internet connection.)

    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

  • What is the effect on LVM snapshot size when a file block is rewritten with it's original contents?

    - by NevilleDNZ
    I'm exploring using LVM snapshot's to off site incremental archives from a snapshot "master" file system. In essence: simply copy across only the files on the "master" that have changed since the last incremental copy to the "archive". Then snapshot the "archive" to retain the incremental. I am a bit puzzled as to the block usage behaviour of the archive's own incremental snapshot. I'm expecting that LVM is not smart enough to know that the "file block" is actually unchanged, and the a new copy will be allocated and written for the fresh "archive" file system. Can anyone confirm this, or point me to a document/page that gives some hints? BTW: the OS hard disk cache, hard disk physical cache and hard disk itself also doesn't need to do any actual "disk writes" as the "disk block" likewise is unnecessary. Any pointers to discussion of this style of optimisation would also be ineresting.

    Read the article

  • How to tell if linux disk IO is causing excessive (> 1 second) application stalls

    - by noahz
    I have a Java application performing a large volume (hundreds of MB) of continuous output (streaming plain text) to about a dozen files a ext3 SAN filesystem. Occasionally, this application pauses for several seconds at a time. I suspect that something related to ext3 vsfs (Veritas Filesystem) functionality (and/or how it interacts with the OS) is the culprit. What steps can I take to confirm or refute this theory? I am aware of iostat and /proc/diskstats as starting points. Revised title to de-emphasize journaling and emphasize "stalls" I have done some googling and found at least one article that seems to describe behavior like I am observing: Solving the ext3 latency problem Additional Information Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.3 (Tikanga) Kernel: 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 Primary application disk is fiber-channel SAN: lspci | grep -i fibre 14:00.0 Fibre Channel: Emulex Corporation Saturn-X: LightPulse Fibre Channel Host Adapter (rev 03) Mount info: type vxfs (rw,tmplog,largefiles,mincache=tmpcache,ioerror=mwdisable) 0 0 cat /sys/block/VxVM123456/queue/scheduler noop anticipatory [deadline] cfq

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >