Download Server-1 (faster)
Tressie Hillier
As for which virtual disk is faster? Fixed size is much faster than that dynamic type, which has a cost of expansion. Fixed disk is close to speeds as Raw (as long as you aren't doing sequential writes with a database), but still much faster than dynamic.
This may be obvious, but I've often been too quick to publish to the server without checking the results from analyzing. Just go to File->Analyze Map and do a quick check to see if your map has any issues. The faster your map can render, the faster it can cache.
Let's suppose I have a 2GB file that I want to move, and I have two hard drives that are exactly the same.Would it be faster to move the file from one drive to another, or will it be faster-moving the file inside the same drive?
I'm asking this because I suppose it will be faster transferring from one drive to another even though they are exactly the same, as you are performing a read operation on one drive and a write operation on another, instead of making a read/write operation on the same drive. Can someone answer this, and, if I'm correct, explain to me why more technically?
Once you move a file from one filesystem to another filesystem however, the entirety of that file's contents have to be read and written to disk. And if you have two disks to share that IO load it will be much faster. Especially considering all the head movement in a rotational drive.
I think moving files from one hard drive disk to other drives is faster because if we want to move several different files to one drive, it is slower due to several events such as fragmentation of files in different parts of the drive and to solve this problem, the drive must be defragmented.
The software company has recommended that we "move our server VM on to SSD so that it will run faster". So I have identified SSD hard drives that are 240GB, which will be enough to host their server VM.
Both SSD SAS drives and SSD SATA drives are faster than their HDD counterparts. They have the same characteristics though: SATA is still faster writing data, while SAS is faster at reading and writing data continuously.
In simple terms, SAS & SATA are two technologies that enables transfer of data from motherboard to hard drives and vice versa. As far as usability is concerned SAS hard drives are usually preferred where higher data transfer rates are high, mostly in data centers and enterprise networks. Installing SAS HDD in a workstation and Servers helps in achieving higher performance while ensuring that the data transfer rates are optimal. Since servers can utilize multiple hard drives, there is no issue with the storage capacities & limitations of a singe sas hard drive. Comparatively SAS hard drives have lower data storage capacities but the tech enables its data transfer performance much higher than those in SATA. SATA hard drives are mainly a preferred option for desktop pcs, due to their high storage capacities. When it comes to SSDs & HDDs the SSDs (Solid State Drives) are much better & faster than HDDs (hard disk drives)
HDD is limited with the spinning Disks Transferrate. SSD Cells are faster als the Interface Transferrate. SATA is limited by 6Gb/s, SAS is limited by 12Gb/s (if the Disk and Controller can handle the Speed) So you can see what Drive is faster.
What were the results of your speed tests? Based on what you said I got the impression you were saying the SATA SSD would be faster than the SAS HDD. Logically, I thought the same thing, but I happened to find myself in this situation and my speed tests revealed the opposite. Disclaimer - I am not the most knowledgable on this so I may be missing something obvious to explain my results.
I've taught over 200 people at live workshops, worked with dozens of clients, and thousands of readers to make their Rails apps faster. What have I learned about performance work and Rails in the process? What makes apps slow? How do we make them faster?
WebFonts are awesome and here to stay. However, if used improperly, they can also impose a huge performance penalty. In this post, I explain how Rubygems.org painted 10x faster just by making a few changes to its WebFonts.
1) My biggest question here is. There a VM named "A" hosted in server "1" with Raid1 policy. Checking disk placement, data is being distributed in server "2" and server "3". Why isn't a copy of the data being stored locally in server "1"? It just doesn't make sense to me. It should be way faster reading/writing locally (having a redundancy) than doing it in other hosts.
Writing locally wouldn't faster necessarily as the write always needs to be mirrored elsewhere (raid-1). So even if you write locally, you would still have to wait for the write to be acknowledged from the remote copy. Copying a file within a Windows VM isn't really decent performance test. To test the capabilities of vSAN I would recommend to use something like hcibench:
Confluence needs to regularly check the current user's permissions in order to determine what to display. The faster permissions service changes the way permissions information is stored in the database to optimize these permissions checks. Although this comes with some overhead, it can provide a significant performance improvement in sites with a lot of content and complex permissions. If you only have a small amount of content or very simple permissions (just a few groups, or few nested page restrictions), this service is unlikely to make your Confluence site significantly faster.
Unfortunately, a load balancer running on a round robin algorithm won't be able to treat the two servers accordingly. In spite of the two servers' disproportionate capacities, the load balancer will still distribute requests equally. As a result, Server 2 can get overloaded faster and probably even go down. You wouldn't want that to happen.
There can be instances when, even if two servers in a cluster have exactly the same specs (see first example/figure), one server can still get overloaded considerably faster than the other. One possible reason would be because clients connecting to Server 2 stay connected much longer than those connecting to Server 1.
This can cause the total current connections in Server 2 to pile up, while those of Server 1 (with clients connecting and disconnecting over shorter times) would virtually remain the same. As a result, Server 2's resources can run out faster. This is depicted below, wherein clients 1 and 3 already disconnect, while 2, 4, 5, and 6 are still connected.
Setting up your own machine is really easy. Even a 1060 (sub $200) will blow the doors of AWS P2 instance and will be no monthly costs. The 1070 is the sweet spot but will go for around $400. I highly recommend using Linux as Windows is always fighting against the grain when installing dependencies and linux just works faster and smoother. Especially Jupyter notebooks, the difference is huge.
For example, I had a 4.3GHz overclocked Ivy Bridge (Intel 3770K) with an nVidia 1070 and would get around 324s times training lesson 1 first fit. When I upgraded to a Kaby Lake 7700k using the same GPU but faster CPU and Gen 3 PCI Express, my times dropped nearly 30% to 229s.
As mentioned above, data has become one of the most important assets for any business. Database technologies have recently seen a faster development pace, which is arguably correlated with artificial intelligence, machine learning, blockchain, and cloud technologies picking up their pace of development.
The Average Disk sec/Read metric, along with Average Disk sec/Read (presented next), is one of the most important disk performance metrics. Both metrics can be tracked on logical and physical disk levels and show disk latency. The shorter the time needed to read or write data, the faster the system
df19127ead