I have in my company, SBS 2011, on a mother board that handles Dual Xeon Quad Core 3.2 Ghz processors (X5492), 16GB of ram, 500GB main drive, 1 TB raid, and a gigabit network...
The administrator says it takes between 10 to 15 minutes to boot, and fully load for functionality. Can someone here explain why?
I use to be an administrator at other companies and entities, including at home where I am running OS X Server.
OS X Server takes less than 5 minutes to load on a Mac Mini maxed out. Why is Windows SBS 2011 being on a vastly more expandable and more robust hardware platform (Xeon Processors compared to i5)...
My administrator tells me it's complex and I won't understand. I say nuts to that, but I let them think they know more than me.
I just can't agree that SBS 2011 is so complex of an OS that it takes more time to start up everything than it does to make a plate of nachos from scratch (including frying the chips yourself).
Can someone explain to me why it takes so long? All we are doing using it for a file sharing and email server.
The main problem seems to be that it's loading a lot of services like Exchange, SQL Server, etc. that are considerably more bloated than Mac/Linux counterparts such as MySQL.
Also, NTFS is supposed to be an error-resistant journaling filesystem like the Mac and Linux, BUT it is much more prone to corruption due to abrupt power-off shutdowns than Mac/Linux AND the filesystem check and cleanup on reboot takes an incredible amount of time compared to Mac/Linux.
Related
I have this project in laravel 6.0 stored locally in my laptop. I am just wondering if I can still run this same project to another local PC and use it as a server for local only. I know it would be better to have a dedicated server for this project but this is not a bigtime system. I just want to run it only in my property. Is it okay if the said server is with these specs?
Processor- Intel® Core™ i7-4770
MotherBoard- Gigabyte GA-Z97X Gaming 7 ATX
Cooler- Stock Cooler
RAM- 1x8gb ddr3 Team Elite
GPU- Asus RX 570 4gb ddr5
HDD- WD Green 1TB (100% Healthy)
PSU- Seasonic M12II 620watts fully modular
I don't know if I should I this here or to another site. Thanks if you could help me enlightened.
First of all, in addition to the hardware of the machine where you want to host the application, a more thorough study would be necessary such as the type of application you want to host and the data traffic that you will have. In addition to the type of database manager you are going to use, if it will be hosted on the same machine or remotely.
As you said, I understand that it is for domestic use and I imagine that you will use MySql hosted on the same machine (correct me if I am wrong), so with the hardware you described it should not cause you problems.
Hope this can help you
Your hardware should suffice, however if you can manage it, try setting it up on a Linux command only OS. Most importantly—if possible—replace your HDD with an SSD, even if it is a small one, it will improve a lot the performance of your application.
I'm running windows 10 with 4GBs of DDR3 1066 on Intel second generation i5 mobile architecture.
I come from a OSX background mostly and memory has always been a concern for me because I prefer to have many tabs open. I noticed on OSX that the memory usage didn't relate that much to the performance of the applications so long as it wasn't fully saturated but easily on my iMac I can run 80% of memory and find no noticeable lag or stuttering. However on Windows I'm finding memory to be the major bottleneck in my system, I understand that upgrading to 8 or 16GBs of memory would be the upgrade path for me. However I would love to understand why my system slows down noticeably when I saturate 80% of the memory unlike OSX that seems to handle it just fine. Is it a bandwidth limitation? I know that Windows NT and Darwin are completely different Kernels and I would love to be educated in exactly how that affects the same usage scenario so differently.
Thank you in advance.
Let me keep it simple. I am working in a company on a Software which has a built in auto marking system (Which needs a lot of computer resources). There are Many PCs in my department all with Windows 7 32-Bit and have almost same specs (Same Modal, RAM, Processor). They are connected by LAN Network with 100 Mbps speed. Now i want to make a cluster of computers so i can Run that software on that by utilizing maximum resources of all computers. Is there any special software for that?
I would recommend using a much faster switch. Because they are limited to 100mbps, you will see a low performance gain if any. Here is a link where there are instructions of how to setup a cluster with Windows. But I recommend getting at least a 1Gbps switch since the nodes will need to send data back and forth to each other. Of course, make sure that the computer's ethernet port supports 1Gbps.
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/2539.diy-supercomputing-how-to-build-a-small-windows-hpc-cluster.aspx
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
While this many not seem like a programming question directly, it impacts my development activities and so it seems like it belongs here.
It seems that more and more developers are turning to virtual environments for development activities on their computers, SharePoint development being a prime example. Also, as a trainer, I have virtual training environments for all of the classes that I teach.
I recently purchased a new Dell E6510 to travel around with. It has the i7 620M (Dual core, HyperThreaded cpu running at 2.66GHz) and 8 GB of memory. Reading the spec sheet, it sounded like it would be a great laptop to carry around and run virtual machines on.
Getting the laptop though, I've been pretty disappointed with the user experience of developing in a virtual machine. Giving the Virtual Machine 4 GB of memory, it was slow and I could type complete sentences and watch the VM "catchup".
My company has training laptops that we provide for our classes. They are Dell Precision M6400 Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 running at 2.54Ghz with 8 GB of memory and the experience on these laptops is night and day compared to the E6510. They are crisp and you are barely aware that you are running in a virtual environment.
Since the E6510 should be faster in all categories than the M6400, I couldn't understand why the new laptop was slower, so I did a component by component comparison and the only place where the E6510 is less performant than the M6400 is the graphics department. The M6400 is running a nVidia FX 2700m GPU and the E6510 is running a nVidia 3100M GPU. Looking at benchmarks of the two GPUs suggest that the FX 2700M is twice as fast as the 3100M.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
3100M = 111th (E6510)
FX 2700m = 47th (Precision M6400)
Radeon HD 5870 = 8th (Alienware)
The host OS is Windows 7 64bit as is the guest OS, running in Virtual Box 3.1.8 with Guest Additions installed on the guest. The IDE being used in the virtual environment is VS 2010 Premium.
So after that long setup, my question is:
Is the GPU significantly impacting the virtual machine's performance or
are there other factors that I'm not
looking at that I can use to boost the
vm's performance? Do we now have to
consider GPU performance when
purchasing laptops where we expect to
use virtualized development
environments?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Dave
EDIT:
The HDDs in the two systems are 7200 RPM, the E6510 having 500GB vs. the M6400 have 2x 250GB in a non-RAID configuration.
Also, when I turn off some of the graphics features of Windows 7 (host and guest) by going to non-Aero themes, VM performance visibly increases.
Just to closer off this question with my findings, what we have discovered was that driver performance was limiting the perceived performance of that virtual machine. With the default Dell drivers, which are built for "stabilty" the virtual machines would be visibly impacted in "visual" applications like IDEs (Visual Studio 2010) such that VS 2010 could not keep up with my typing. When we had some nVidia reference drivers installed, the IDEs were crisp and you couldn't really tell that you were in a VM anymore, which was my experience with the M6400s.
Thanks to everyone who threw out some ideas on the subject.
I am running two VMs on my development system simultaneously, one for development, and one for TeamCity. My graphics card on my Dell Optiplex is an ATI 2450, which is, quite honestly, complete crap. Personally, I have found RAM and CPU to make the most significant impact on my desktop. But since you are on a laptop, have you thought about the disk? Our M6400 has an SSD, and perhaps that is the biggest difference for your two laptops. I would not expect GPU to affect anything, unless of course you are trying to use the experimental Direct3D features in VirtualBox.
You guys are looking in the wrong places. Go to bios look for virturalization extensions AMD-v or VT-X. Off by default on most system. if it dosent have that option take a look at Sun Virtual box runs good on my older laptop with out virt support.
A GPU can significantly impact performance of any system. Visual Studio, for example, has a huge performance difference between on board video vs dedicated graphics.
That said, I would expect there are other differences. First, how do the two hard drives compare? notebook manufacturers love putting slow disks in machines in order to beef up their battery longevity numbers; and other the other side, sometimes they put in the faster drives to boost performance numbers. It really depends on what the new machine was marketed towards. Along these lines some hard drives also have configuration settings to determine their power / performance / noise levels. Depending on the drive you might be able to tweak this.
Another expected difference is the quality of memory. Nearly every dell I've used has had second or third tier ram installed. Sure they might both be DDR3 of a certain Ghz, but the quality of the chips is going to determine how they really perform. Sometimes by 200% of more.
Beyond those you start getting into chipset differences, mainly in the hard drive controllers. You can't do anything about this though.
The next thing I can think of is drivers. Make sure your up to date on everything you can. Also, test both Dell and nvidia supplied drivers. Sometimes nvidia has better drivers, sometimes the original ones from dell are better. That part is a crap shoot.
And, finally, consider blowing away the new machine and doing a complete reinstall from the bare metal up. Before installing any anti-virus or CPU sucking software, test your VM performace.
Is anyone using Virtual PC to maintain multiple large .NET 1.1 and 2.0 websites? Are there any lessons learned? I used Virtual PC recently with a small WinForms app and it worked great, but then everything works great with WinForms. ASP.NET development hogs way more resources, requires IIS to be running, requires a ridiculously long wait after recompilations, etc., so I'm a little concerned. And I'll also be using Oracle, if that makes any difference.
Also, is there any real reason to use VM Ware instead of Virtual PC?
I've used VirtualPCs for a few years for development of some fairly hefty web apps without much problem. Lots of RAM is important. I keep my VPCs on an external USB drive and they perform great from there. This gives me the flexibility to take the drive with me if I need to do work somewhere else... just install VPC on a host plug in the USB drive and start coding.
For servers, we use VMWare and have had little to no trouble with it.
Recently I went back to working on my local machine as you lose the benefit of dual monitors with VPCs, and I don't need to be as mobile as I used to.
Virtual PC 2007 is very fast esp on a CPU that has hardware support for VM's. 3GB RAM a must for anything not small. XP makes a good guest OS, Vista works well as a host.
Thanks for all the answers. So RAM is the key.
As far as dual monitor capability, I found that I could use dual monitors, as long as one of those monitors was my actual machine. And that was what I wanted anyway.
Mike
As long as you have the resources (separate hard disk for the virtual machine, sufficient RAM), I don't see why you would have any problems.
If you are going to be using VPCs as a server...perhaps Hyper-V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_Virtualization) is something to look at.
Its pretty powerful, in how it lets you assign RAM / CPU Cores to a virtualized machine.