f3probe for Mac? - macos

I'm using f3, a Linux version of the Windows tool H2testw, to test on a Mac the actual capacity of some flash memory I bought. Trouble is that the quicker test, done via f3probe, is only available for Linux, so I'm using the standard test, via the GUI F3X, which does a full integrity test with f3write/f3write rather than just a total capacity test. Trouble is that the flash I bought is claimed to be 512GB large, so it's taking forever. What are alternative best bets? Running f3probe in a VirtualBox? Running H2testw through Wine?

Related

Choosing an OS for Jmeter load generator server

I am currently reviewing a Jmeter framework set up. I wanted check get some feedback if there are any specific advantages of choosing a Linux server to run Jmeter as Load Generator over using a Windows server.
Are there any specific advantages in terms of the cost, efficiency if I choose Linux over Windows to run Jmeter?
As per JMeter project website
The Apache JMeter™ application is open source software, a 100% pure Java application designed to load test functional behavior and measure performance
it means that JMeter will run whenever Java runs and Java will run whenever it's possible to install Java Virtual Machine. So for Java/JMeter there is no difference between Linux and Windows
I can think of the following "advantages":
Linux can have "minimal" installation with only base system, an SSH server and JVM while in Windows in majority of cases you will have GUI causing increased resources consumption
Pricing. As of now Home version of Windows costs $139 and Pro version is $199, for extremely high loads you may even have to go for Windows Server options,theoretically you can use trial versions for assessment but if you plan to have load generators up and running longer than the allowed trial period - you will have to pay. The majority of Linux distributions are free as long as you don't need "support" from the distribution vendors
When it comes to "efficiency" I cannot state anything as it mainly depends on hardware, specific Windows or Linux distribution and mainly the nature of your test as both Windows and Linux might need to be properly tuned. You need to make sure that JMeter isn't the bottleneck as if JMeter isn't capable of sending the requests fast enough you will get false negative results so be extremely careful while calculating how many users you can run on this or that load generator.

how to enable cuda only for computing purpose, not for display

Iam using nvidia gt 440 gpu. It is used for both display and computational purpose which leads to less performance while computation. can i enable it only for computational purpose? if so how can i disable it from using display.
It depends -- are you working on Windows or Linux? Do you have any other display adapters (graphics cards) in the machine?
If you're on Linux, you can run without the X Windows Server (i.e., from a terminal) and SSH into the box (or attach your display to another adapter).
If you're on Windows, you need to have a second display adapter. As long as your display is connected to your GeForce 440 GT, there's no way to use it only for computational purposes. That also includes Remote Desktop, which won't work at all unless you have a Tesla card because of the way the WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model) was designed (it can't be accessed from within Session 0, which is where the RDP service runs).
I'm using Intel integrated graphics for display purposes and GPU for compute purpose on Linux.
You'll need to setup from bios to use the integrated graphics on mobo. This will leave your GPU free. It depends on your hardware available. =)
How much does it affects the performance? I did checked before, the display in windows did takes up some memory (less than 10mb).
Check that you have write permission on the /dev/nvidia* devices. The CUDA C Getting Started Guide for Linux contains a script that automatically sets the correct permissions at startup.

Building a dedicated visual studio 2010 virtual machine, which path has least resistance?

I'd like to ask anybody who has built a virtualized VS2010 environment in VirtualBox or VMware, which one was able to work out of the box without too much tweaking? Or both need workarounds to get stuff working?
Both are fine as long as you install the respective tools and drivers provided for the guest OS
If you're using VMWare Workstation, you can leverage even more out of the environment by installing Visual Studio on the Host PC, and using the Guest VM for debugging, if your application crashes you can actually rewind back to before the crash and step through your code with the same heap and stack before it crashed!
Basically, I suggest going with VMWare Workstation. It's pretty cheap (assuming you get paid to program) and has many, many awesome features that you'll come to love. If you're a hobbyist/student programmer however, you'll likely find VirtualBox to be a little more functional than the free VMWare Player.
As far as performance goes, Intel and AMD both have shipped chips with hardware virtualization since 2005/2006 respectively. This is called VT-x or AMD-V, and often has to be enabled in the bios on older machines.
Basically this means that your BIOS handles Memory and I/O virtualization on this chip, while specialist drivers (e.g. VMWare Tools) are installed to improve graphics and mouse performance - effectively this means the resulting VM has near native performance with minimal overhead.
Hope that helps!
You can work with a VS2010/Windows virtualized environment with no problems.
I've worked with such combination and I had no problems. Both VMWare and VirtualBox are stable so far since years and Windows OS virtualization works properly.
Obviously, you can have performance loss, because a virtualized OS has more bottle necked access to resources than a host one, but current CPUs from Intel and AMD have advanced virtualization instruction extensions which accelerates virtualization operations.
So... Just go ahead!
I don't know your requirement but there is also a great alternative using Win 7.
You can create a vhd file and boot on the vhd file.
A few steps more, you can create a base vhd file with everything you need, mark it as readonly and create as many differential disk as you want.
The drawback of this method are these ones :
it's a bit tricky to create the base and diff disk, because you have to do it in the setup console of windows setup (but google can help you)
there is a small performance impact on the disk I/O (but lower than the visualization environment)
you can run only one system at a time. In fact, nothing disallow you to install a virtualization software
you can't have your "host" and it's potential tools (corporate email, etc.)
but at least, the performance will be greatly better than a virtualization software.

Doing coding in Linux through a virtual machine on Windows VS partitioning

I already have experience with setting up virtual machines, running them and other minor tasks. Im a gamer, so I wont get rid of windows (for now at least...) but I do want to be a great programmer and to be involved with the Open-Source community.
Id like to know if its a good idea to do my programming in linux through a virtual machine, vs giving it a partitioned section of the HDD. Id like to know about performance pros and cons and functionality.
All responses are appreciated, thanks in advance.
The type of programming I intend to dive into :
Android Dev, Web Dev, Desktop Dev...More Android and Web right now though.
So im looking at C#,C,C++,Java,PHP,HTML,MySQL...Off the top of the dome.
I do web designing as well, so dreamweaver is added as an "essential". But im sure I can do dreamweaver files and upload them to the server after programming in Linux...Right?
And any info on IDE's in Linux for the above mentioned are appreciated, but i would prefer going the coding route and understanding the essence of whats happening "under the covers"
Thanks to all for reading, I appreciate it.
Hope this isnt confusing :S
There is an easier solution..
I still have to use Windows for Symbian programming so I use a Wubi and Ubuntu to provide my double bout into Linux..you deploy Wubi uses a large file and thus no need to worry or mess with creating a partition..
I have used it for 18 months with no data loss and no worries..
There is also another tool called andlinux:
http://www.andlinux.org/
It uses colinux to run Linux as a program inside windows..
A couple things:
If you're using an IDE, there's no point to coding on Linux. Linux is nice for programming because the command line tools are awesome. Netbeans and Eclipse both work fine on Windows. All you'd be missing is makefiles (which IDEs don't use anyway).
Using a virtual machine would be annoying (working with the window and stuff) and slow. Try AndLinux if you want to have Linux running in Windows. It sets up X and Pulseaudio for you, so all of your programs will appear to be native. It's basically a way to run Ubuntu as a Windows service (all Ubuntu packages for your architecture are installable).
If you just want the fun of Linux command line programs without access to all of Ubuntu, cygwin is smaller and might be faster.
If by "Dreamweaver files", you mean HTML/PHP/CSS, then yes, you can just upload them to the server. As far as I know, the only ASP or ASP.net compatible server is Microsoft's, but why use that anyway?
EDIT: SO didn't give me enough space in the comments to answer your question..
AndLinux and Cygwin are basically just better ways to do your "virtual machine" idea.
Cygwin adds a posix layer to Windows (basically everything you need to compile Unix/Linux/BSD programs). This means that you can generally take a Linux program and just compile it on Windows and have it work. They also have repositories, but in my experience, the cygwin installer is slow and hard to use.
AndLinux runs the Linux kernel as a Windows service, giving you a similar experience as running it in VirtualBox/other virtualization programs. However, it also sets up X (the graphics layer for Linux) and PulseAudio (a sound system that lets you run sound over a network), so that when you run Linux programs they act and sound like native programs. I also like AndLinux better because you have access to all of Ubuntu's programs, and apt-get is easier to use than cygwin's installer. Also, if you use AndLinux and later to decide to go 100% Linux, you're basically already using it that way.
What I'm getting at is: If you want to run Linux in a virtual machine, don't. Just install AndLinux. It will be faster and it's much easier to work with (since everything is just a normal window).
Here's an example of the difference:
Screenshot of AndLinux: The program in the bottom right corner is running in AndLinux. Notice how it just looks like a badly themed Windows program? Compare that to something like this, where you have another desktop in a Window.
And still.. there's no reason to virtualize Netbeans. It's a native Windows program and you can gain nothing and lose a lot of speed.
If you're interested in Android development and you want to use Linux, then I would recommend you do your development in Eclipse. Eclipse is available for Linux and if you get Ubuntu then Eclipse is amazingly easy to install. I used VirtualBox + Ubuntu + Eclipse for several projects I worked on. If you decide that Linux is not for you and your project was in Eclipse then you will have no problem switching back to Windows since Eclipse is available for both operating systems.
The ONLY problem I had was the screen size on the virtual machine... if you have a big screen and you use a virtual machine then you might get limited to a fraction of your actual screen resolution. It's very easy to install Linux on a second partition, so I would just recommend you go with a second partition if you want to fully utilize the size of your monitor.
My setup is sort of the opposite: I run Linux as my main OS, both at work an at home, and I have Windows in a virtual machine. On a modern computer with adequate memory the performance of development tools is not a problem. I work with Visual Studio in the virtual machine, and I have seen few performance issues. (But note that this is on a fast computer, and that you may need more memory than otherwise, since you are running two OS:es at the same time. On an old computer with less memory it can become unbearable.)
Dual-boot, where you have to restart the computer to switch OS, doesn't work well for me. It takes way too much time to switch, and really need to switch back and forth. Having Windows in a window works much better for me, and you can maximize that "Windows window", so it looks like you're just running Windows.
One thing you may want to look at is to have Linux running in a VM, then configuring Samba to allow the host to network-mount pieces of the Linux filesystem so that you can operate using Windows tools, and have Linux running the server processes (e.g., httpd). Alternatively, I'm sure that there are shell extensions for using FTP, NFS, or SSH/SFTP servers from within Explorer, but I've not looked at any for a long time.
If you should happen to need to use graphical Linux tools then you can use the X server found in cygwin for that.
The downside of this plan is that Samba can be a bit tricky to configure, but you get to use the Windows tools you're already familiar with.
I had no issues running Ubuntu via VMWare. You can easily switch to full screen mode anytime. Strongly recommended. One shortcoming is that Linux will not be exposed to the full potential of your hardware. Compbiz Fusion failed to work as a result.
Given that you're a gamer, I'm thinking your machine should be fast enough to run Linux in a VM. Best to try out the VM before messing with disk partitions.
I use physically separate machines to run Linux and Windows (and MacOS X). This means that I don't have to reboot to do something different, and each system gets the full power of the hardware.
Disadvantages: more desk space used, more time and money spent maintaining hardware (though if you do a rolling upgrade, this is mitigated - Linux runs most happily on not-quite-new machines). Doesn't work so well if you like carrying laptops around.
Be aware that VMs universally don't give you full graphics acceleration. This can be a non-issue (many programs must cope with Intel GMA anyway), or it can be a showstopper. Your choice.

ATI Stream SDK on ubuntu 9.04

I have used ATI Stream SDK on windows XP SP3 and implemented one algorithm on GPU. But Now I am interested in scaling this algorithm on multiple GPUs on mutiple machines I switched to UBUNTU to use MPI ( To send messages ).
I googled this but I got references for installation on SLES and RHEL but I am looking for UBUNTU 9.04.
Thanks
GG
AMD is switching to OpenCL based API soon. May be it will be worthwhile holding your horses till the OpenCL API stabilizes. Cuda is far ahead of the curve in terms of GPU usability, there is a nice project called MAGMA which is bringing together the LAPACK library for joint CPU-GPU usage.
I know of people who are using the ATI Stream SDK and ACML-GPU on Ubuntu without any special problems -- that is, no problems that they wouldn't have on any other Linux distro.
If you can get the Catalyst drivers installed correctly (which in this case will probably mean compiling your kernel modules) and your X windows configured correctly (especially DRI module, and there are security issues if you want Stream to work with remote access) it should work.
I'm tempted to ask/comment how you plan to share GPUs between multiple MPI processes, but that's probably wandering off-topic.

Resources