I have a piece of code that I need it to run as fast as possible. It is written in C# and I cannot change anything about that code (and jeez I don't want to).
I been given a task to make it work fast and cheap as possible.
Now so far I tried Digital Ocean servers, I found that there are optimized servers. It is running much better though I still couldn't make it be cheap as I wanted.
So far I was able to run it in ~4s in $160 server in DO (8 cores), it is actually running faster on my PC (16 cores).
Now I am new to all the cloud computing, but is there any cloud provider that can get me more CPU cores with less memory/networking for cheaper?
This code can run on 2GB memory machine in the same speed, I don't need 32GB .
I read about AWS Lambda, is it really faster? I didn't see anywhere that they publish CPU cores of their "server-less" servers.
Related
So I've really got two questions here.
If I have about 100GB of documents that I want to make searchable with elasticsearch, is it bad to just stick it in a single node / shard? ( I can figure out replicas later when we start looking at production)
Also, how much RAM do I need? Is it possible to run this ES instance on a machine with only 8gb ram or something (just during development) and just have it run slower, or do I need to need shell out now for a system with more memory?
My use case is that I am prototyping a system and need to get our full document set indexed so we can compare it apples to apples in usability testing against the existing system. Performance isn't huge right now. My dev machine is just a i7 ultrabook with 8gb of ram, and for the first, smaller version of the prototype that only had about 30mb of documents, my machine was just fine. Is it even possible for me to use this machine for dev with the next version of the prototype or do I need to shell out now for a more powerful machine?
So, yesterday I opened task manager in Win 8 (64 bit) and noticed that Chrome (32-bit for some reason) didn't use the whole power my PC has got. So I was running an AI JavaScript program and I noticed that my CPU was running at 1% and Memory was only runnning 120 MB, and that forced me to think why would I wait 5 minutes for it to run instead of somehow boosting it to at least 60%. As far as I know Windows automatically distributes the hardware usage to programs so I'm asking what's the problem:
Is it because it's x32?
Is it because I should manually configure windows to give it more power?
Note: I did search Google, but all I got is that people actually complain about High CPU usage and I've got the opposite.
32 bit doesn't make a difference here. Javascript is inherently single-threaded, so by default (not counting web workers) it won't use more than a single core on your machine. It just cannot. Also memory usage doesn't necessarily tell you how hard a program is working. Some need lots of memory, others only little.
It's up to programs to use the resources of the machine most efficiently; if they don't, there is nothing you can do with Windows to make them run better or faster.
Hypervisors and Memory Management
I have been using virtual machines for years and never really had any issues. I have primarily used VMWare's free single ESXi host and had nothing but success. Because I have never had any issues I have never delved in much deeper. I have however always been very wary of loading the system up and get a lot of spare resources handy.
I have recently purchased a new server and we have decided to give Hyper-V a try and see how that goes. We have a fairly small team but utilise lots of servers for testing etc.
My question relates to memory and how much I need to leave free or available for the host machine to run appropriately.
Setup:Dell Server 24 Cores: 48GB Ram
When I run taskmgr in the windows host instance I see the following:
Physical Memory: 49139
Cached: 14933
Available: 17743
Free: 2982
What exactly do these figures mean? What is the difference between free and available?
My server uses hardly any CPU resources ever and has 10 Production servers running on it without a single user complaint ever about speed of the services.
Am I able to run up another server with 2GB ram effectivly leaving 982MB free? or am I starting to push my requirements a little?
Thanks for the help.
You shouldn’t use the host partition for anything other than Hyper-V (although you can run security and infrastructure software such as management agents, backup agents and firewalls). Therefore, that 2GB recommendation assumes you aren’t going to run any extra applications or server roles in the parent partition.
Hyper-V doesn’t let you allocate memory directly to the host partition. It essentially uses whatever memory is left over. Therefore, you have to remember to leave 2GB of your host server’s memory not allocated so it’s available for the parent partition.
Source
We run a Fortran console program we have run for years. Recently we purchased identical new HP server class machines (4 processors, 8 gig ram, 4 hard drives) for everyone in the office. We configured them identically as nearly as we know. We can compile the Fortran program on one machine, pass the executable to the different machines, and on two machines it executes painfully slow, while on two others it has modest performance (but not as good as before we upgraded from XP machines).
It uses almost no console output (about 40 lines) but outputs about 15 megs of files.
We open task manager to see what's going on, and we see that on the slow machines it's loading ONE CPU to about 15%. On the fast machines it's loading ALL CPUs to about 40% (but one of them seems to load more than the others). As I recall, on XP it loaded the CPU to 99%, and ran much faster.
These machines are the employees' general purpose machines, and have lots of company bloatware on them. And there is the possibility they have slightly different directory structures. But what seems totally puzzling to me is why Vista is not giving them more CPU time. If the CPUs were loading up, I might blame the performance variation on different directory structures, but not loading up the CPUs just boggles my mind.
David
if there's a bottleneck in IO, the CPU wouldn't be loaded as much because it's mostly waiting for the IO to take place. One could even imagine this to cause the one CPU vs many CPUs problem if there's just no point in kicking in another CPU because there's plenty of time between while waiting. What if you take an external HD and try out if the differences also take place if you run the same program on that HD on different machines?
Please go into Windows task manager, Performance / - Select in [View] the option: [Kernel Times] and look what's displayed on the bars during program execution.
If its only 15% load on quad+hyperthreading box, that says basically, OpenMP, MPI (or whatever it uses) - isn't properly working - works on 1/8 => 15%. Can you run the MPI-test command for your specific system in order to check for errors in multiprocessing on each box? Therefore, the question would be - why does the multiprocessing environment not work?
Regards
rbo
SWAG, but have you checked your virus scanner configuration? If the scanner isn't set to ignore the type of file you're writing on the slow machine, then each write to those files might be getting intercepted and scanned before being written to the disk. This could lead to the process sitting in I/O wait and not getting scheduled as often.
Vista had a problem with some uncontrollably memory leaks, perhaps this is your error, some conflict in the "bloatware" is causing a memory leak and so your Fortran program is running so much slower?
I assume you have tested this with all programs ended. It seems unlikely that your console program is the issue. Sounds like there's definitely a memory conflict going on though.
I have an data transformation query which takes a long time to run on my development machine (Core i7 920 running at 3.9GHz, and with 12GB of RAM under Windows Server 2003 x86 and with 2 Velociraptors 300GB iN RAID0).
When I look at the task manager, the CPU stays around 26%, with the third (out of 4) core being the most active.
As this is not a production environment, is there any way to tell SQL Server 2008 that I am alright with it using more of my CPU or is it because my query can not be parallelized for some reason?
If, shouldn't SQL Server be smart enough to cut the query in smaller chunks and run it across several threads so each core can get it?
Thanks.
Optimize your query. Chances are that the issue is with it and not SQL Server.
It already knows that it's okay unless you specifically limited it to use only a certain number of CPUs either through configuration or through setting the MAXDOP parameter.
It sounds like you may be constrained by your hard drives or memory more than anything.
Note that because you are running an x86 version of windows (and by extension sql server), you may be RAM limited to around 3GB. And even with the PAE (physical addressing extensions) turned on, it's going to be a world of difference slower than if you have an x64 OS and SQL Server to begin with.
In other words, you might consider reinstalling the machine from the ground up to take advantage of all the x64 goodness you have.