G560 random performance issues
I'm encountering performance issues after a random time with my G560 Laptop. I couldn't correlate any software within this problem, so I guess it's more about drivers/BIOS... I'm running Win7 64bit actually.
The performance drop is random timed but doesn't wear off after some time, it persists the whole "session" (until a reboot). The mouse is lagging like hell and there can't be neither sound nor video displayed with an appropiate framerate.
Any ideas?
I apologize for the delay but I wasn't able to access the notebook for some time.
Whatever, I just tried the Safe Mode and although I didn't run it very long (It's hard to use a computer without being able to play a sound, display graphics well or just play solitaire), I guess there is no such problem as I used to have.
As I'm writing this post, the problem just occured... Hibbernating (? I press Fn + F1) solves it pretty fast... Until the next performance drop occurs
Similar Messages
-
Cache-flush VM-related performance issue
Dear forum,
I've got a peculiar performance issue going on with the BDB pagecache being flushed to disk. I've managed to reproduce the issue perfectly on three out of three quite different systems that I've tried on, so it is at least quite well-defined.
My usage pattern for the database in question is such that I periodically (perhaps once every 10-60 seconds or so) need to read through an amount of values (around 500-2000 or so) from a database containing a rather large amount (in the millions, at least) of keys. There are a few writes for every such batch, but not very many (a couple of tens). The keys that are read each batch are quite random, and very likely to be completely different from batch to batch. The database is a DB_HASH.
When I do that, BDB seems to dirty a lot of pages in the page cache (which I have currently sized at 512 MB so that pages don't have to be forced out from it), from what I can tell by manipulating refcounts and stuff, so all in all, a single batch seems to dirty some 10-40 MB or so of the mmapped cache region. (I check this using pmap -x on Linux.) Note that when I speak of pages and the dirtying of them here, I mean at the VM level, not the BDB level.
A while after this has happened, the VM comes around and wants to flush the dirty pages to disk, so it batches writes of large portions (often the entire set of dirty pages, but sometimes it only does 10-20 MB or so at a time; this detail shouldn't matter) of the dirtied pages to the backing block device. Since the dirty pages are often rather interspersed in the region file, such a flush usually requires a couple of thousands of write ops, so it might sometimes take up to 10-20 seconds for the requests to complete.
If the program, then, again tries to dirty any of the pages while they are waiting to be flushed, which is often the case, the VM will block it until the page in question is flushed. This means that the thread in question might very well be blocked for up to 20 seconds, causing quite annoying wait times.
How to deal with this problem? I've considered trying to put the region files on tmpfs or so, but that seems like such an excessive measure for a problem which, from what I can tell, should be commonplace.
On a very related note, I've noticed a large discrepancy in the I/O performance between the systems I've tried this on. Two of the systems in question manage to carry out some 200-500 write ops per second on my test load, while the third manages closer to 2000-3000 write ops per second, which makes quite a difference. What makes it very weird is that the faster system uses the exact same hard drive as one of the slower systems. I know this isn't exactly a BDB-specific question, but I thought someone around here might have experience in the matter. All three systems use Linux and S-ATA hard disks (not SSDs), but they use different S-ATA host adapters, different kernel versions and are configured in quite different ways.
Thanks for reading my wall of text! I'm sorry for dragging on so long, but I didn't know how to describe the situation more briefly.
Edited by: Dolda2000 on Mar 23, 2013 8:08 AMAs a follow-up on this, it appears that the blocking behavior was introduced in Linux 3.0 to stabilize pages under writeback:
http://lwn.net/Articles/486311/
It seems that the commits that introduced the behavior can be safely patched away, and also that it is due to change in 3.9, but for now, this is not the route I took to solve it.
Rather, I wrote a patch to Berkeley DB to allow me to store the region files in another directory than the environment root directory, and used it to store them in /dev/shm -- that is, on tmpfs, which avoids writeback of the region files altogether.
If you want the patch, it is here for db4.8 (which what Debian Stable uses), and here for 5.1, which is what Debian Testing uses.
(For some reason, the hyperlink format suggested by the forum doesn't seem to be working?) -
I am experiencing Performance issues with queries generated by OBIEE. The query generated by OBIEE run 2+ hours. Looking at the generated SQL, the execution plan is not utilizing indexes on the FACT table.
We have dimension table linked to a partitioned FACT table. We have created local bitmap indexes on all dimension keys. The execution plan generated for the OBIEE generated SQL statement does not use indexes, it executes a FULL table scan on our FACT table which has approximately 260 million rows. When I extract out the SELECT portion retrieving the information from the tables, the execution plan changes and indexes are used. Does anyone know what would cause oracle not to execute the same execution plan for the OBIEE generated SQL?
OBIEE generated SQL
WITH SAWITH0
AS ( SELECT SUM (T92891.DEBIT_AMOUNT) AS c1,
SUM (T92891.CREDIT_AMOUNT) AS c2,
T91932.COMPL_ACCOUNT_NBR AS c3,
T92541.APPROP_SYMBOL AS c4,
T92541.FUND_CODE AS c5,
T91992.ACCOUNT_SERIES_NAME AS c6,
T91932.ACCOUNT_NBR AS c7
FROM DW_FRR.DIM_FUND_CODE_FISCAL_YEAR T92149,
DW_ICE.DIM_FUND T92541,
DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT T91932,
DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT_SERIES T91992,
DW_ICE.FACT_GL_TRANSACTION_DETAIL T92891
WHERE (T91932.ACCOUNT_SID_PK = T92891.ACCOUNT_SID_FK
AND T91932.ACCOUNT_SERIES_SID_FK =
T91992.ACCOUNT_SERIES_SID_PK
AND T92149.FUND_CODE_FISCAL_YEAR_SID_PK =
T92891.FUND_CODE_FISCAL_YEAR_SID_FK
AND T92541.FUND_SID_PK = T92891.FUND_SID_FK
AND T92149.FISCAL_YEAR >= :"SYS_B_0")
GROUP BY T91932.ACCOUNT_NBR,
T91932.COMPL_ACCOUNT_NBR,
T91992.ACCOUNT_SERIES_NAME,
T92541.FUND_CODE,
T92541.APPROP_SYMBOL),
SAWITH1 AS (SELECT DISTINCT :"SYS_B_1" AS c1,
D1.c3 AS c2,
D1.c4 AS c3,
D1.c5 AS c4,
D1.c2 AS c5,
D1.c1 AS c6,
D1.c6 AS c7,
D1.c7 AS c8
FROM SAWITH0 D1)
SELECT D1.c1 AS c1,
D1.c2 AS c2,
D1.c3 AS c3,
D1.c4 AS c4,
D1.c5 AS c5,
D1.c6 AS c6
FROM SAWITH1 D1
ORDER BY c1,
c3,
c2,
c4
Execution PLan
Plan
SELECT STATEMENT ALL_ROWS Cost: 1 M
29 PX COORDINATOR
28 PX SEND QC (ORDER) PARALLEL_TO_SERIAL SYS.:TQ10005 :Q1005 Cost: 1 M Bytes: 1019 M Cardinality: 11 M
27 SORT GROUP BY PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1005 Cost: 1 M Bytes: 1019 M Cardinality: 11 M
26 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1005 Cost: 972 K Bytes: 1019 M Cardinality: 11 M
25 PX SEND RANGE PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10004 :Q1004 Cost: 972 K Bytes: 1019 M Cardinality: 11 M
24 HASH JOIN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004 Cost: 972 K Bytes: 1019 M Cardinality: 11 M
4 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004 Cost: 2 Bytes: 3 K Cardinality: 179
3 PX SEND BROADCAST PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10002 :Q1002 Cost: 2 Bytes: 3 K Cardinality: 179
2 PX BLOCK ITERATOR PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1002 Cost: 2 Bytes: 3 K Cardinality: 179
1 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_ICE.DIM_FUND :Q1002 Cost: 2 Bytes: 3 K Cardinality: 179
23 HASH JOIN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004 Cost: 972 K Bytes: 843 M Cardinality: 11 M
20 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004 Cost: 9 Bytes: 54 K Cardinality: 962
19 PX SEND BROADCAST PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10003 :Q1003 Cost: 9 Bytes: 54 K Cardinality: 962
18 HASH JOIN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1003 Cost: 9 Bytes: 54 K Cardinality: 962
15 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1003 Cost: 6 Bytes: 814 Cardinality: 22
14 PX SEND BROADCAST PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10001 :Q1001 Cost: 6 Bytes: 814 Cardinality: 22
13 MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 6 Bytes: 814 Cardinality: 22
9 BUFFER SORT PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1001
8 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 2 Bytes: 16 Cardinality: 2
7 PX SEND BROADCAST PARALLEL_FROM_SERIAL SYS.:TQ10000 Cost: 2 Bytes: 16 Cardinality: 2
6 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TABLE DW_FRR.DIM_FISCAL_YEAR Cost: 2 Bytes: 16 Cardinality: 2
5 INDEX RANGE SCAN INDEX (UNIQUE) DW_FRR.UNQ_DIM_FISCAL_YEAR_IDX Cost: 1 Cardinality: 2
12 BUFFER SORT PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 4 Bytes: 319 Cardinality: 11
11 PX BLOCK ITERATOR PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1001 Cost: 2 Bytes: 319 Cardinality: 11
10 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT_SERIES :Q1001 Cost: 2 Bytes: 319 Cardinality: 11
17 PX BLOCK ITERATOR PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1003 Cost: 2 Bytes: 10 K Cardinality: 481
16 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT :Q1003 Cost: 2 Bytes: 10 K Cardinality: 481
22 PX BLOCK ITERATOR PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1004 Cost: 971 K Bytes: 4 G Cardinality: 207 M Partition #: 28 Partitions accessed #1 - #12
21 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_ICE.FACT_GL_TRANSACTION_DETAIL :Q1004 Cost: 971 K Bytes: 4 G Cardinality: 207 M Partition #: 28 Partitions accessed #1 - #132
Inner SQL Statement without the OBIEE wrap around SQL
SELECT SUM (T92891.DEBIT_AMOUNT) AS c1,
SUM (T92891.CREDIT_AMOUNT) AS c2,
T91932.COMPL_ACCOUNT_NBR AS c3,
T92541.APPROP_SYMBOL AS c4,
T92541.FUND_CODE AS c5,
T91992.ACCOUNT_SERIES_NAME AS c6,
T91932.ACCOUNT_NBR AS c7
FROM DW_FRR.DIM_FUND_CODE_FISCAL_YEAR T92149,
DW_ICE.DIM_FUND T92541,
DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT T91932,
DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT_SERIES T91992,
DW_ICE.FACT_GL_TRANSACTION_DETAIL T92891
WHERE (T91932.ACCOUNT_SID_PK = T92891.ACCOUNT_SID_FK
AND T91932.ACCOUNT_SERIES_SID_FK =
T91992.ACCOUNT_SERIES_SID_PK
AND T92149.FUND_CODE_FISCAL_YEAR_SID_PK =
T92891.FUND_CODE_FISCAL_YEAR_SID_FK
AND T92541.FUND_SID_PK = T92891.FUND_SID_FK
AND T92149.FISCAL_YEAR >= :"SYS_B_0")
GROUP BY T91932.ACCOUNT_NBR,
T91932.COMPL_ACCOUNT_NBR,
T91992.ACCOUNT_SERIES_NAME,
T92541.FUND_CODE,
T92541.APPROP_SYMBOL
Execution Plan
Plan
SELECT STATEMENT ALL_ROWS Cost: 25 K Bytes: 79 M Cardinality: 728 K
28 PX COORDINATOR
27 PX SEND QC (RANDOM) PARALLEL_TO_SERIAL SYS.:TQ10002 :Q1002 Cost: 25 K Bytes: 79 M Cardinality: 728 K
26 HASH GROUP BY PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1002 Cost: 25 K Bytes: 79 M Cardinality: 728 K
25 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1002 Cost: 25 K Bytes: 79 M Cardinality: 728 K
24 PX SEND HASH PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10001 :Q1001 Cost: 25 K Bytes: 79 M Cardinality: 728 K
23 HASH GROUP BY PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 25 K Bytes: 79 M Cardinality: 728 K
22 HASH JOIN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 12 K Bytes: 190 M Cardinality: 2 M
4 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 2 Bytes: 319 Cardinality: 11
3 PX SEND BROADCAST PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10000 :Q1000 Cost: 2 Bytes: 319 Cardinality: 11
2 PX BLOCK ITERATOR PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1000 Cost: 2 Bytes: 319 Cardinality: 11
1 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT_SERIES :Q1000 Cost: 2 Bytes: 319 Cardinality: 11
21 NESTED LOOPS PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 12 K Bytes: 142 M Cardinality: 2 M
6 PX BLOCK ITERATOR PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1001
5 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_FRR.DIM_ACCOUNT :Q1001 Cost: 2 Bytes: 12 K Cardinality: 481
20 VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE VIEW PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT SYS.VW_GBC_17 :Q1001 Bytes: 660 Cardinality: 11
19 SORT GROUP BY PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 10 K Bytes: 376 K Cardinality: 5 K
18 HASH JOIN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 10 K Bytes: 2 M Cardinality: 36 K
7 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_ICE.DIM_FUND :Q1001 Cost: 2 Bytes: 7 K Cardinality: 179
17 NESTED LOOPS PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001
15 NESTED LOOPS PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Cost: 10 K Bytes: 1 M Cardinality: 36 K
8 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_FRR.DIM_FISCAL_YEAR :Q1001 Cost: 2 Bytes: 16 Cardinality: 2
14 PARTITION LIST ALL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Partition #: 22 Partitions accessed #1 - #11
13 PARTITION LIST ALL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001 Partition #: 23 Partitions accessed #1 - #12
12 BITMAP CONVERSION TO ROWIDS PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001
11 BITMAP AND PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1001
9 BITMAP INDEX SINGLE VALUE INDEX (BITMAP) PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_ICE.FK_ACCOUNT_GLTRANS_IDX :Q1001 Partition #: 23 Partitions accessed #1 - #132
10 BITMAP INDEX SINGLE VALUE INDEX (BITMAP) PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_ICE.FK_FUNDCODE_FY_GLTRANS_IDX :Q1001 Partition #: 23 Partitions accessed #1 - #132
16 TABLE ACCESS BY LOCAL INDEX ROWID TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DW_ICE.FACT_GL_TRANSACTION_DETAIL :Q1001 Cost: 10 K Bytes: 401 K Cardinality: 18 K Partition #: 23 Partitions accessed #1
Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.Have you gathered statistics in the data warehouse recently? That's one reason the optimizer might choose the wrong execution plan.
Is the schema a star schema? If so do you have the init.ora parameter 'STAR_TRANSFORMATION_ENABLED' set to yes in the DW? This can drastically affect performance.
Please test any changes you make in a test system before applying to live as altering things can have unrequired impacts/
Thanks
Robin -
Dear experts:
I got a problem with ABAP memory performance issue. I need to export an internal table to ABAP memory, and it's ID is sales order number. So, I will bulid too many ABAP memory in SAP...
Does it will couse performance issue or will it be lost?
tyroluHi Tyrolu,
There are some settings in basis which decides size of your abap memory.
If you are consuming most of the abap memory by exporting heavy objects to abap memory then
you may face a problem as many standard sap program aslo uses abap memory and
if there is no free abap memory then they will start thowing short dumps like "Page allocation error"
or "Could not allocate shared memory" or something like that, I don't remember exact term now.
In some cases you won't have any problem if users are less, but as the no of concurrent users
running your program increased then every user who runs the program would consume abap memory
and if there is no free abap memory then this may again lead to above mentioned problem.
Also ensure FREE MEMORY ID is used which clears abap memory immediatly.
Other wise abap memory is cleared by the garbage collector on random basis and by that time
your memory remains consumed and not available for other programs to use
which may again lead to above mentioned problem.
Regards,
Vishal -
2.0 performance issues, new Encore user, typically do AE work
I keep great tabs on my machine and have just recently started to learn Encore because it came with my Production Studio Premium. I don't typically do the final authoring at the prod house, I'm the effects guy and this laptop run AE like a champ (HP nx9420).
But when I run Encore I take tremendous performance hits... brand new project lags a little bit, the Library is pointless because the scroll speed is incredibly slow. With that closed, and nothing yet imported to make the project, Encore seems ok. Add one clip, start one menu setup and now I wait forever for Encore to catch up to what I am doing.
Is there known issues? Tweaks? Performance tips/tricks out there? I used the software for about 4 hours tonight, forcing process kills to get back to a usable state every so often.
Any help would be great! Thanks guys!Yeah I know all that.
Appreciate the post though... others that are not hardware savvy might no know this... I am more a hardware guru than software.
I got this laptop with 1gb, and I am doing no multitasking. Well, I was at first, but after the performance issues I totally stopped trying to even run PS and create all the graphics ahead of time instead of as needed.
After looking at it more over the last couple nights I have decided what What I am seeing is a memory leak... its random, I've not been able to isolate it to anything specific yet. I have not been able to duplicate the issue anywhere but I do know this: if i run it, i it will happen. Encore takes typical 20-40k on Process Mem Usage under Task Manager. Every time I've hit this slow down I hit Task Manager and Encore is using 150-400k Mem Usage, the really bad hits it takes even more. Even after quitting out I have to reboot to clear memory, or run a ram scrubber to clear it all out...
Thanks for the look at my post, and the help! -
I just moved to a new apartment and I've been having wireless performance issues. While using wireless I am getting 20-30 mbps less than the 50 mbps that I should be. The mbps is also very shotty and random. While hooked directly to the modem I get the 50 mbps that I should be getting.
Here is what I've tried to fix it so far: cycle the power, reset the router, update the firmware, turned of the 5.0 frequency, and checked for foreign MAC address that might be using my interenet. Any suggestions?Are you experiencing this with both wired and wireless devices? If you are, then you need to update or reflash the router's firmware. Just make sure to reset the router after the update then reconfigure it. If you're only experiencing this with your wireless devices, then change the wireless channel on your router to avoid interference. Preferred channels to use are 1, 6, 9 and 11 since they're considered as non-overlapping channels. Make sure to use one channel at a time, so you can observe which channel will provide you a stable connectivity.
-
Performance Issue: Central Instance not utilizing full network resources.
Hi All,
I have experienced a problem regarding network usage by central instance.
At random times, even at peak load, SAP application server utilizing not more than 0.30%-0.35% of network resources, resulting in very poor performance.
As Primary observation, i have checked at operating system level that no other service/application is consuming network at that time.
Please help, how i can monitor/check and enhance the network resources utilization to the fullest for better performance.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
SurjitSAP application server utilizing not more than 0.30%-0.35% of network resources, resulting in very poor performance.
To be honest with you I can't see the network to been the performance issue unless you have serius trouble with network latency or maybe your system been located in a remote location.
You can check the average GUI time (in milliseconds) in ST03N, then you can make conclutions on if the info travelling to the frontend is been compromised because of network issue.
Also, usually comunication in between the instances should be based on a private fast VLAN to allow free traffic in between them
Regards
Juan -
Hello,
We have a medium sized internet application which is experiencing random performance problems. The applications data is stored in xml which is read/saved every page hit to a clob. The table which holds the clob has the cacheing option enabled and the clob is stored out of line (clob sizes range from 14k - 1mb)
THE PROBLEM - Normally the read/write takes 5-10 seconds. We have been experiencing times of up to 350+ seconds. This is not a locking issue. When writing the clob to the database, we do not chunk, we simply pass the entire xml string at one time.
Any ideas how you would debug this problem? Has anyone ran into any other similar problems?Joshua,
Have you checked out LOB performance guidelines at http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/appdev.920/a96591/adl09bes.htm#120857? What release (9.2?), configuration (JDBC OCI or thin?), storage options (tablespaces, extent sizes, etc.) are you using? Do you have connection pooling in place? There are many possib
If you have a customer ID, you can also file a TAR at http://metalink.oracle.com to someone help track down what the problem might be.
Regards,
Geoff -
17" MBP 500GB 7200RPM Hard Disk - Performance Issues
Am I the only 17" MBP user that is having performance issues, along with the click+beep?
My Hard Disk performs terribly:
-3 hours to install 10.5.6 (Erase and Install).
-30 minutes to duplicate 10GB of data.
-An XBench Disk Test score of 15.22
Results 15.22
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6 (10A421a)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro5,2
Drive Type ST9500420ASG
Disk Test 15.22
Sequential 15.01
Uncached Write 60.44 37.11 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 37.41 21.16 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 5.38 1.57 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 26.89 13.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 15.42
Uncached Write 5.95 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 35.97 11.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 27.85 0.20 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 36.33 6.74 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Apple refuses to replace it without me visiting a retail store (almost an hour drive).
Should I just take the hit and buy a new drive?Personally, I would take it back, try a new one right in the store, and if that didn't work, I would demand my money back and wait until Apple fixes this hard drive issue. Oh, and tell the manager of the Apple Store you want an iTunes gift certificate for all your troubles and traveling time.
Dave M.
MacOSG Founder/Ambassador An Apple User Group iTunes: MacOSG Podcast
Macsimum News Associate Editor Creator of 'Mac611 - Mobile Mac Support' -
Report Performance Issue - Activity
Hi gurus,
I'm developing an Activity report using Transactional database (Online real time object).
the purpose of the report is to list down all contacts related activities and activities NOT related to Contact by activity owner (user id).
In order to fullfill that requirment I've created 2 report
1) All Activities related to Contact -- Report A
pull in Acitivity ID , Activity Type, Status, Contact ID
2) All Activities not related to Contact UNION All Activities related to Contact (Base report) -- Report B
to get the list of activities not related to contact i'm using Advanced filter based on result of another request which is I think is the part that slow down the query.
<Activity ID not equal to any Activity ID in Report B>
Anyone encountered performance issue due to the advanced filter in analytic before?
any input is really appriciated
Thanks in advanced,
FinaFina,
Union is always the last option. If you can get all record in one report, do not use union.
since all records, which you are targeting, are in the activity subject area, it is not nessecery to combine reports. add a column with the following logic
if contact id is null (or = 'Unspecified') then owner name else contact name
Hopefully, this is helping. -
Report performance Issue in BI Answers
Hi All,
We have a performance issues with reports. Report is running more than 10 mins. we took query from the session log and ran it in database, at that time it took not more than 2 mins. We have verified proper indexes on the where clause columns.
Could any once suggest to improve the performance in BI answers?
Thanks in advance,I hope you dont have many case statements and complex calculations that you do in the Answers.
Next thing you need to monitor is how many rows of data that you are trying to retrieve from the query. If the volume is huge then it takes time to do the formatting on the Answers as you are going to dump huge volumes of data. Database(like teradata) returns initially like 1-2000 records if you hit show all records then even db is gonna fair amount of time if you are dumping many records
hope it helps
thanks
Prash -
BW BCS cube(0bcs_vc10 ) Report huge performance issue
Hi Masters,
I am working out for a solution for BW report developed in 0bcs_vc10 virtual cube.
Some of the querys is taking more 15 to 20 minutes to execute the report.
This is huge performance issue. We are using BW 3.5, and report devloped in bex and published thru portal. Any one faced similar problem please advise how you tackle this issue. Please give the detail analysis approach how you resolved this issue.
Current service pack we are using is
SAP_BW 350 0016 SAPKW35016
FINBASIS 300 0012 SAPK-30012INFINBASIS
BI_CONT 353 0008 SAPKIBIFP8
SEM-BW 400 0012 SAPKGS4012
Best of Luck
Chris
BW BCS cube(0bcs_vc10 ) Report huge performance issueRavi,
I already did that, it is not helping me much for the performance. Reports are taking 15 t0 20 minutes. I wanted any body in this forum have the same issue how
they resolved it.
Regards,
Chris -
Interested by performance issue ? Read this ! If you can explain, you're a master Jedi !
This is the question we will try to answer...
What si the bottle neck (hardware) of Adobe Premiere Pro CS6
I used PPBM5 as a benchmark testing template.
All the data and log as been collected using performance counter
First of all, describe my computer...
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 8 Pro 64-bit
CPU
Intel Xeon E5 2687W @ 3.10GHz
Sandy Bridge-EP/EX 32nm Technology
RAM
Corsair Dominator Platinum 64.0 GB DDR3
Motherboard
EVGA Corporation Classified SR-X
Graphics
PNY Nvidia Quadro 6000
EVGA Nvidia GTX 680 // Yes, I created bench stats for both card
Hard Drives
16.0GB Romex RAMDISK (RAID)
556GB LSI MegaRAID 9260-8i SATA3 6GB/s 5 disks with Fastpath Chip Installed (RAID 0)
I have other RAID installed, but not relevant for the present post...
PSU
Cosair 1000 Watts
After many days of tests, I wanna share my results with community and comment them.
CPU Introduction
I tested my cpu and pushed it at maximum speed to understand where is the limit, can I reach this limit and I've logged precisely all result in graph (See pictures 1).
Intro : I tested my E5-XEON 2687W (8 Cores Hyperthread - 16 threads) to know if programs can use the maximum of it. I used Prime 95 to get the result. // I know this seem to be ordinary, but you will understand soon...
The result : Yes, I can get 100% of my CPU with 1 program using 20 threads in parallel. The CPU gives everything it can !
Comment : I put 3 IO (cpu, disk, ram) on the graph of my computer during the test...
(picture 1)
Disk Introduction
I tested my disk and pushed it at maximum speed to understand where is the limit and I've logged precisely all result in graph (See pictures 2).
Intro : I tested my RAID 0 556GB (LSI MegaRAID 9260-8i SATA3 6GB/s 5 disks with Fastpath Chip Installed) to know if I can reach the maximum % disk usage (0% idle Time)
The result : As you can see in picture 2, yes, I can get the max of my drive at ~ 1.2 Gb/sec read/write steady !
Comment : I put 3 IO (cpu, disk, ram) on the graph of my computer during the test to see the impact of transfering many Go of data during ~10 sec...
(picture 2)
Now, I know my limits ! It's time to enter deeper in the subject !
PPBM5 (H.264) Result
I rendered the sequence (H.264) using Adobe Media Encoder.
The result :
My CPU is not used at 100%, the turn around 50%
My Disk is totally idle !
All the process usage are idle except process of (Adobe Media Encoder)
The transfert rate seem to be a wave (up and down). Probably caused by (Encrypt time.... write.... Encrypt time.... write...) // It's ok, ~5Mb/sec during transfert rate !
CPU Power management give 100% of clock to CPU during the encoding process (it's ok, the clock is stable during process).
RAM, more than enough ! 39 Go RAM free after the test ! // Excellent
~65 thread opened by Adobe Media Encoder (Good, thread is the sign that program try to using many cores !)
GPU Load on card seem to be a wave also ! (up and down) ~40% usage of GPU during the process of encoding.
GPU Ram get 1.2Go of RAM (But with GTX 680, no problem and Quadro 6000 with 6 GB RAM, no problem !)
Comment/Question : CPU is free (50%), disks are free (99%), GPU is free (60%), RAM is free (62%), my computer is not pushed at limit during the encoding process. Why ???? Is there some time delay in the encoding process ?
Other : Quadro 6000 & GTX 680 gives the same result !
(picture 3)
PPBM5 (Disk Test) Result (RAID LSI)
I rendered the sequence (Disk Test) using Adobe Media Encoder on my RAID 0 LSI disk.
The result :
My CPU is not used at 100%
My Disk wave and wave again, but far far from the limit !
All the process usage are idle except process of (Adobe Media Encoder)
The transfert rate wave and wave again (up and down). Probably caused by (Buffering time.... write.... Buffering time.... write...) // It's ok, ~375Mb/sec peak during transfert rate ! Easy !
CPU Power management give 100% of clock to CPU during the encoding process (it's ok, the clock is stable during process).
RAM, more than enough ! 40.5 Go RAM free after the test ! // Excellent
~48 thread opened by Adobe Media Encoder (Good, thread is the sign that program try to using many cores !)
GPU Load on card = 0 (This kind of encoding is GPU irrelevant)
GPU Ram get 400Mb of RAM (No usage for encoding)
Comment/Question : CPU is free (65%), disks are free (60%), GPU is free (100%), RAM is free (63%), my computer is not pushed at limit during the encoding process. Why ???? Is there some time delay in the encoding process ?
(picture 4)
PPBM5 (Disk Test) Result (Direct in RAMDrive)
I rendered the same sequence (Disk Test) using Adobe Media Encoder directly in my RamDrive
Comment/Question : Look at the transfert rate under (picture 5). It's exactly the same speed than with my RAID 0 LSI controller. Impossible ! Look in the same picture the transfert rate I can reach with the ramdrive (> 3.0 Gb/sec steady) and I don't go under 30% of disk usage. CPU is idle (70%), Disk is idle (100%), GPU is idle (100%) and RAM is free (63%). // This kind of results let me REALLY confused. It's smell bug and big problem with hardware and IO usage in CS6 !
(picture 5)
PPBM5 (MPEG-DVD) Result
I rendered the sequence (MPEG-DVD) using Adobe Media Encoder.
The result :
My CPU is not used at 100%
My Disk is totally idle !
All the process usage are idle except process of (Adobe Media Encoder)
The transfert rate wave and wave again (up and down). Probably caused by (Encoding time.... write.... Encoding time.... write...) // It's ok, ~2Mb/sec during transfert rate ! Real Joke !
CPU Power management give 100% of clock to CPU during the encoding process (it's ok, the clock is stable during process).
RAM, more than enough ! 40 Go RAM free after the test ! // Excellent
~80 thread opened by Adobe Media Encoder (Lot of thread, but it's ok in multi-thread apps!)
GPU Load on card = 100 (This use the maximum of my GPU)
GPU Ram get 1Gb of RAM
Comment/Question : CPU is free (70%), disks are free (98%), GPU is loaded (MAX), RAM is free (63%), my computer is pushed at limit during the encoding process for GPU only. Now, for this kind of encoding, the speed limit is affected by the slower IO (Video Card GPU)
Other : Quadro 6000 is slower than GTX 680 for this kind of encoding (~20 s slower than GTX).
(picture 6)
Encoding single clip FULL HD AVCHD to H.264 Result (Premiere Pro CS6)
You can look the result in the picture.
Comment/Question : CPU is free (55%), disks are free (99%), GPU is free (90%), RAM is free (65%), my computer is not pushed at limit during the encoding process. Why ???? Adobe Premiere seem to have some bug with thread management. My hardware is idle ! I understand AVCHD can be very difficult to decode, but where is the waste ? My computer want, but the software not !
(picture 7)
Render composition using 3D Raytracer in After Effects CS6
You can look the result in the picture.
Comment : GPU seems to be the bottle neck when using After Effects. CPU is free (99%), Disks are free (98%), Memory is free (60%) and it depend of the setting and type of project.
Other : Quadro 6000 & GTX 680 gives the same result in time for rendering the composition.
(picture 8)
Conclusion
There is nothing you can do (I thing) with CS6 to get better performance actually. GTX 680 is the best (Consumer grade card) and the Quadro 6000 is the best (Profressional card). Both of card give really similar result (I will probably return my GTX 680 since I not really get any better performance). I not used Tesla card with my Quadro, but actually, both, Premiere Pro & After Effects doesn't use multi GPU. I tried to used both card together (GTX & Quadro), but After Effects gives priority to the slower card (In this case, the GTX 680)
Premiere Pro, I'm speechless ! Premiere Pro is not able to get max performance of my computer. Not just 10% or 20%, but average 60%. I'm a programmor, multi-threadling apps are difficult to manage and I can understand Adobe's programmor. But actually, if anybody have comment about this post, tricks or any kind of solution, you can comment this post. It's seem to be a bug...
Thank you.Patrick,
I can't explain everything, but let me give you some background as I understand it.
The first issue is that CS6 has a far less efficient internal buffering or caching system than CS5/5.5. That is why the MPEG encoding in CS6 is roughly 2-3 times slower than the same test with CS5. There is some 'under-the-hood' processing going on that causes this significant performance loss.
The second issue is that AME does not handle regular memory and inter-process memory very well. I have described this here: Latest News
As to your test results, there are some other noteworthy things to mention. 3D Ray tracing in AE is not very good in using all CUDA cores. In fact it is lousy, it only uses very few cores and the threading is pretty bad and does not use the video card's capabilities effectively. Whether that is a driver issue with nVidia or an Adobe issue, I don't know, but whichever way you turn it, the end result is disappointing.
The overhead AME carries in our tests is something we are looking into and the next test will only use direct export and no longer the AME queue, to avoid some of the problems you saw. That entails other problems for us, since we lose the capability to check encoding logs, but a solution is in the works.
You see very low GPU usage during the H.264 test, since there are only very few accelerated parts in the timeline, in contrast to the MPEG2-DVD test, where there is rescaling going on and that is CUDA accelerated. The disk I/O test suffers from the problems mentioned above and is the reason that my own Disk I/O results are only 33 seconds with the current test, but when I extend the duration of that timeline to 3 hours, the direct export method gives me 22 seconds, although the amount of data to be written, 37,092 MB has increased threefold. An effective write speed of 1,686 MB/s.
There are a number of performance issues with CS6 that Adobe is aware of, but whether they can be solved and in what time, I haven't the faintest idea.
Just my $ 0.02 -
Performance Issue for BI system
Hello,
We are facing performance issues for BI System. Its a preproductive system and its performance is degrading badly everyday. I was checking system came to know program buffer hit ratio is increaasing everyday due to high Swaps. So asked to change the parameter abap/buffersize which was 300Mb to 500Mb. But still no major improvement is found in the system.
There is 16GB Ram available and Server is HP-UX and with Netweaver2004s with Oracle 10.2.0.4.0 installed in it.
The Main problem is while running a report or creating a query is taking way too long time.
Kindly help me.Hello SIva,
Thanks for your reply but i have checked ST02 and ST03 and also SM50 and its normal
we are having 9 dialog processes, 3 Background , 2 Update and 1 spool.
No one is using the system currently but in ST02 i can see the swaps are in red.
Buffer HitRatio % Alloc. KB Freesp. KB % Free Sp. Dir. Size FreeDirEnt % Free Dir Swaps DB Accs
Nametab (NTAB) 0
Table definition 99,60 6.798 20.000 29.532 153.221
Field definition 99,82 31.562 784 2,61 20.000 6.222 31,11 17.246 41.248
Short NTAB 99,94 3.625 2.446 81,53 5.000 2.801 56,02 0 2.254
Initial records 73,95 6.625 998 16,63 5.000 690 13,80 40.069 49.528
0
boldprogram 97,66 300.000 1.074 0,38 75.000 67.177 89,57 219.665 725.703bold
CUA 99,75 3.000 875 36,29 1.500 1.401 93,40 55.277 2.497
Screen 99,80 4.297 1.365 33,35 2.000 1.811 90,55 119 3.214
Calendar 100,00 488 361 75,52 200 42 21,00 0 158
OTR 100,00 4.096 3.313 100,00 2.000 2.000 100,00 0
0
Tables 0
Generic Key 99,17 29.297 1.450 5,23 5.000 350 7,00 2.219 3.085.633
Single record 99,43 10.000 1.907 19,41 500 344 68,80 39 467.978
0
Export/import 82,75 4.096 43 1,30 2.000 662 33,10 137.208
Exp./ Imp. SHM 89,83 4.096 438 13,22 2.000 1.482 74,10 0
SAP Memory Curr.Use % CurUse[KB] MaxUse[KB] In Mem[KB] OnDisk[KB] SAPCurCach HitRatio %
Roll area 2,22 5.832 22.856 131.072 131.072 IDs 96,61
Page area 1,08 2.832 24.144 65.536 196.608 Statement 79,00
Extended memory 22,90 958.464 1.929.216 4.186.112 0 0,00
Heap memory 0 0 1.473.767 0 0,00
Call Stati HitRatio % ABAP/4 Req ABAP Fails DBTotCalls AvTime[ms] DBRowsAff.
Select single 88,59 63.073.369 5.817.659 4.322.263 0 57.255.710
Select 72,68 284.080.387 0 13.718.442 0 32.199.124
Insert 0,00 151.955 5.458 166.159 0 323.725
Update 0,00 378.161 97.884 395.814 0 486.880
Delete 0,00 389.398 332.619 415.562 0 244.495
Edited by: Srikanth Sunkara on May 12, 2011 11:50 AM -
RE: Case 59063: performance issues w/ C TLIB and Forte3M
Hi James,
Could you give me a call, I am at my desk.
I had meetings all day and couldn't respond to your calls earlier.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Min [mailto:jminbrio.forte.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:50 PM
To: Sharma, Sandeep; Pyatetskiy, Alexander
Cc: sophiaforte.com; kenlforte.com; Tenerelli, Mike
Subject: Re: Case 59063: performance issues w/ C TLIB and Forte 3M
Hello,
I just want to reiterate that we are very committed to working on
this issue, and that our goal is to find out the root of the problem. But
first I'd like to narrow down the avenues by process of elimination.
Open Cursor is something that is commonly used in today's RDBMS. I
know that you must test your query in ISQL using some kind of execute
immediate, but Sybase should be able to handle an open cursor. I was
wondering if your Sybase expert commented on the fact that the server is
not responding to commonly used command like 'open cursor'. According to
our developer, we are merely following the API from Sybase, and open cursor
is not something that particularly slows down a query for several minutes
(except maybe the very first time). The logs show that Forte is waiting for
a status from the DB server. Actually, using prepared statements and open
cursor ends up being more efficient in the long run.
Some questions:
1) Have you tried to do a prepared statement with open cursor in your ISQL
session? If so, did it have the same slowness?
2) How big is the table you are querying? How many rows are there? How many
are returned?
3) When there is a hang in Forte, is there disk-spinning or CPU usage in
the database server side? On the Forte side? Absolutely no activity at all?
We actually have a Sybase set-up here, and if you wish, we could test out
your database and Forte PEX here. Since your queries seems to be running
off of only one table, this might be the best option, as we could look at
everything here, in house. To do this:
a) BCP out the data into a flat file. (character format to make it portable)
b) we need a script to create the table and indexes.
c) the Forte PEX file of the app to test this out.
d) the SQL staement that you issue in ISQL for comparison.
If the situation warrants, we can give a concrete example of
possible errors/bugs to a developer. Dial-in is still an option, but to be
able to look at the TOOL code, database setup, etc. without the limitations
of dial-up may be faster and more efficient. Please let me know if you can
provide this, as well as the answers to the above questions, or if you have
any questions.
Regards,
At 08:05 AM 3/30/00 -0500, Sharma, Sandeep wrote:
James, Ken:
FYI, see attached response from our Sybase expert, Dani Sasmita. She has
already tried what you suggested and results are enclosed.
++
Sandeep
-----Original Message-----
From: SASMITA, DANIAR
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 6:43 PM
To: Pyatetskiy, Alexander
Cc: Sharma, Sandeep; Tenerelli, Mike
Subject: Re: FW: Case 59063: Select using LIKE has performance
issues
w/ CTLIB and Forte 3M
We did that trick already.
When it is hanging, I can see what is doing.
It is doing OPEN CURSOR. But not clear the exact statement of the cursor
it is trying to open.
When we run the query directly to Sybase, not using Forte, it is clearly
not opening any cursor.
And running it directly to Sybase many times, the response is always
consistently fast.
It is just when the query runs from Forte to Sybase, it opens a cursor.
But again, in the Forte code, Alex is not using any cursor.
In trying to capture the query,we even tried to audit any statementcoming
to Sybase. Same thing, just open cursor. No cursor declaration anywhere.==============================================
James Min
Technical Support Engineer - Forte Tools
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1800 Harrison St., 17th Fl.
Oakland, CA 94612
james.minsun.com
510.869.2056
==============================================
Support Hotline: 510-451-5400
CUSTOMERS open a NEW CASE with Technical Support:
http://www.forte.com/support/case_entry.html
CUSTOMERS view your cases and enter follow-up transactions:
http://www.forte.com/support/view_calls.htmlEarthlink wrote:
Contrary to my understanding, the <font face="courier">with_pipeline</font> procedure runs 6 time slower than the legacy <font face="courier">no_pipeline</font> procedure. Am I missing something? Well, we're missing a lot here.
Like:
- a database version
- how did you test
- what data do you have, how is it distributed, indexed
and so on.
If you want to find out what's going on then use a TRACE with wait events.
All nessecary steps are explained in these threads:
HOW TO: Post a SQL statement tuning request - template posting
http://oracle-randolf.blogspot.com/2009/02/basic-sql-statement-performance.html
Another nice one is RUNSTATS:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/ASKTOM.download_file?p_file=6551378329289980701
Maybe you are looking for
-
Please help me capturing data from HTML table
Hello Everyone, Our Storage subsystem generates a html table containing all LUN allocation for printing. I am saving this html file on disk to collect all table infomation and to put it into a database. I am having problems extracting table informati
-
Hi all, I'm looking for a script that can rename "n" files inside a folder in reverse order (preserving extension): OLD NAME --> NEWNAME file1.ext --> file(n).ext file2.ext --> file(n-1).ext file3.ext --> file (n-2).ext file(n) --> file 1 Is there so
-
Safari & FireFox freeze when I try to upload a file from my hard drive.
Safari & FireFox freeze when I try to upload a file from my hard drive. This just started happening in the past couple of days. I haven't installed any software, or made any updates (that I can remember.) When the browser freezes I can't "force quit"
-
Is it possible to have a bad iPad2 WiFi receiver?
I have two iPad2s in the family and one has a better/stronger WiFi signal. They are the same iPad2, same configuration, and same case. I have experienced instances where the iPads are in the same room, side by side and one iPad has a WiFi signal and
-
Itunes won't install on updated windows XP
for a long time i had itunes working on my computer (windows XP), but all of a sudden when i went to upgrade it, it said i didnt have the proper windows installation. I went back and updated everything from Microsoft's website, but it still wont work