Performance Booster

Hi ,
We found a huge boost in the performance when we changed the reload period
for the web applications to "-1" ( which means never check for changes). The performane
actually improved 3 times.
My question is regarding the implications of this change. Will it cause any problems
which are not visible as of now? With this parameter setting , I will have to
probably restart the server everytime I modify the application...right? In the
case of our system, this web application is rarely going to change.
Are there any other issues that could occur?
Thanks in Advance
Amit

Reply to ensure that no one using WLS 6.0 sp1 or sp2, implements whats written
previously. DO NOT SET the reload parameter for web-applications to -1 in WLS
6.0 sp1 and sp2 . You will get an error. ITs a known problem.
The performance boost reported earlier was due to wrong observation.
-Amit
Kumar Allamraju <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
Amit wrote:
Hi ,
We found a huge boost in the performance when we changed the reloadperiod
for the web applications to "-1" ( which means never check for changes).The performane
actually improved 3 times.
My question is regarding the implications of this change. Will it causeany problems
which are not visible as of now? With this parameter setting , I willhave to
probably restart the server everytime I modify the application...right?In the
case of our system, this web application is rarely going to change.You are right. In production systems it's not recommended to set this
flag.
If you are packaging your webapp's in .war format, you will have to restart
the server
anyway, as we do not support hot deploy of webapps in 51. ( i presume
you are on 51)
Are there any other issues that could occur?
I don't think you will encouter any issues by setting this property to
-1.
You will not be able to reload modified jsp's on the fly. that's it.
Thanks in Advance
Amit

Similar Messages

8.0.2 and new ram, performance boost or waste of time?

Hi all,
I am going to add more ram to my MacBook. I understand that my MacBook officially only accepts of 2GB of ram (2x 1 gig sticks)I have read that many folks have put 4 gigs in a 2x2 gig matched pair configuration in there machine to get a maximum of 3 gigs. As I understand it this is not a supported configuration.
I don't mind paying for 4 gigs to only 3 my question is, would this make Logic unstable? I only use this machine for Logic and the apps that come with Logic Studio 1. I only go on line with it for updates and such so my main concern is keeping this machine stable for Logic.
Also I am imaging that increasing ram from 1 gig to even just the 2 that is officially supported will give me a bit of a performance boost but in what ways will I notice it in relation to Logics performance?
Also any recommendations for RAM in the UK would be very welcome.
Sorry for such a dull question,
Regards,
Jay
Message was edited by: NoteFarm

Hey Notefarm, a lot of my friends ( including myself and I noticed somebody else linked it here as well the other day ) use Crucial because of the macapp you can download which will tell you want you can have RAM wise and how much it's gonna cost you.
http://www.crucial.com/

Is there a big performance boost from 2008 MacBook Pro to i7 iMac/Mac Pro?

I'm trying to determine if a new desktop is worth the investment. I have a 2008 MacBook Pro, 2.4 GHz and 4GB of RAM. I'm getting a little frustrated with it when using it with Aperture and Final Cut Express. It's just too sluggish for me.
But before I drop about $2500 on a new Mac Pro or iMac, I want to be sure I'm going to see a huge performance boost over my laptop. I'd hate to spend all the money only to find my photos and videos process only 10 or 15% faster than before. I'd like to see a new machine perform twice as fast but maybe that's unrealistic. I'm just not sure.
Can someone please tell me what I should expect? Thanks.

Hi,
Barefeats has done all sorts of tests http://www.barefeats.com/
Maybe these two http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp20.html http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp18.html can give an impression on what to expect (i7 iMac - MBP 3.06 C2D)
Hope it helps
Stefan

Performance boost?

What kind of performance boost can I expect by switching to a Macbook Black Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz 4GB Ram from a Macbook white CoreDuo 2.0Ghz 2GB Ram? I am into photoshop and use iMovie HD a lot. I notice that in iMovie things begin to get laggy when importing, or editing. Will the Upgrade in Sped and RAM eliminate this? Would the experience be comparable to the 2.4 Ghz iMac? I really don't have the money for the Macbook Pro, so will the upgrade help my situation at all? I am looking for advice from anyone who had the CoreDuo then Upgraded to A santa rosa or the newest processor.

iMovie and Photoshop like lots of RAM. Is your current MacBook upgraded to its max (it depends on which iteration of MacBook you own, so I don't know from the information you provided.) If you can upgrade beyond 2GB that would provide a speed boost.
The difference between the older Santa Rosa and the very newest MacBooks and their older siblings isn't insignificant so if you have an original MacBook you'll find that the newest ones are faster. But fast enough to suit your needs? Dunno. If you can get to a local Mac shop check them out for yourself.
You might find that your better solution is an iMac. Again, a trip to a Mac reseller is probably your best bet.

Performance boost with 10.5.3 and LP 7/multicore ?

There is a HUGE performance boost reported from LP8 users when updating to 10.5.3. They can run up to 40 percent more plugins on 4 and 8 core machines.
I wonder if it is due to the 10.5.3 update or the combination 8.0.2 and 10.5.3.
It would be nice to hear some reports from 7.2 users with 4/8 core Mac:s.
Logic has been optimized for only two cores too long, only been using 50 percent of each core on 4/8 core machines. Maybe 10.5.3 is a booster even for LP7 users?

Here's one person's experience with LP7 and 10.5.3:
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=7305592#7305592
Disuye,
I've got a Mac Pro with LP 7.2.3 and OSX 10.5.2, and it runs pretty smoothly. I get the occasional core audio overload, but not enough to cause a concern.

Alchemy performance boost

Little CMS is a great open source colour management system by a fellow named Marti Maria. The key benefit of his software is being able to easily exploit ICC color profiles in image processing projects. With two minor edits to the makefile and some glue, the Little CMS code compiles and runs on Flash Player 10 quite nicely. If any application is good at evaluating performance of Alchemy that would be raw image processing. The difference in processing time between Alchemy and natively compiled C I found to be generally about 8-10x. Converting a 1,500 x 1,500 pixel CMYK image to sRGB takes just under 9 seconds in Flash and .9 seconds when running natively on my testbed. This is impressive. Experiments to do the same conversion with hand-optimized ActionScript cause Flash Player to abort the script for running too long. Only much smaller test images succeed with the pure ActionScript version, and the per-pixel processing time is over 80x slower when compared to Little CMS compiled with Alchemy. It's possible that a Pixel Bender version could improve on this time, but the whole idea of Alchemy is to re-use existing C/C++ codebases ....... right? The bottom line is Alchemy provides very substantial gains in performance over pure ActionScript, and the ability to re-use C/C++ opens up a whole new realm of Flash applications that were not possible before. It's disappointing for developers that Alchemy hasn't progressed beyond research status, when it has so much potential for creating killer applications that can exploit about a bazillion lines of open source.

I wrote this article up last week to provide just the
information you're looking for:
Understanding
Adobe Alchemy
Alchemy first compiles the C/C++ through LLVM into a
combination of ActionScript and inlined bytecode (for some special
FP10 bytecodes). Then it compiles that AS3 into a SWF and packages
it into a SWC.
Any performance boost comes from a combination of using the
new bytecodes and the fact that certain tasks are just faster with
how Alchemy does them (functions calls for example don't require
boxing/unboxing).

What is MacKeeper - 911 for your Mac, Instant Mac cleanup, High-level security, Mac performance boost, Univ? I keep getting a pop up on my iMac?

What is MacKeeper - 911 for your Mac, Instant Mac cleanup, High-level security, Mac performance boost, Univ? I keep getting a pop up on my iMac?

Do not install MacKeeper (and how to uninstall it if you have):
https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-6221
(Please note that references to the original developers, Zeobit, also now refer to Kromtech Alliance Corp, who acquired MacKeeper and PCKeeper from ZeoBit LLC in early 2013.)
This recent court case is illuminating:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/21/64695.htm

Performance boost from Dual 1.8 PowerPC G5 tower to a 2.4 Intel MBP?

It's time for a computer upgrade but I wanted to make sure this is going to make things faster for me. I'm currently working with a Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 tower with 7gb of ram and wanting to invest in a MBP (mid-ranged model, 2.4 - model that was released just before this current release)
I'm just wondering if this is going to make things faster for me. I'm a graphic designer and use CS3 programs like Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign regularly. So I occasionally have to open multiple hi-res images at the same time. I'm hoping to not have significant lag times with this or the dreaded beachball.
My job has shifted since I bought my DP 1.8 mac and I now travel a lot more so I need something more portable. My thinking for work when I'm in town would be to have the lid of the MBP closed and connect it to my 30" Apple Cinema display.
My concern is that I may not notice a speed increase. If I go with this MBP, is the concensus that I will be able to work similarly or better than my DP 1.8 now? I'm open to adding more RAM if that's necessary as well.
Thanks in advance!

Rod Hagen wrote:
Big MaCanadian seemed to be more concerned that performance might actually be no better or worse, Ewen.
With CS2 there were certainly some major problems with Photoshop on Intels, but from what I can see CS3 (while not as good as it should be) will almost certainly give Big MaC at least equal performance, and probably a useful boost, when compared with his 1.8 G5 Dual...
... One test does not a summer make (and, as others have pointed out, maximum memory will be an issue in some circumstances) , but by and large , with CS3, an Intel Mac will easily beat a G5 Mac with similar processor speed, all other things being equal. All things aren't equal here, of course, but I very much doubt that BigMac will be disappointed with the speed of a 2.4 SantaRosa Core2Duo MBP when compared with his old 1.8 G5 Dual.
Cheers
Rod
Message was edited by: Rod Hagen
I have read your post, Rod. I just think you don't have a decent third-party Mac enthusiast site speed test comparison and some of your facts are wrong.
Going to the first major point, you in fact seem to be agreeing with us that the MB Pro may not be offering a vast preformance increase: +but from what I can see CS3 (while not as good as it should be) will almost certainly give Big MaC at least equal performance...+ . I think it will be a bit faster too, maybe even twice as fast in certain tasks as indicated by the comparison you made with the higher end Intel desktop system, but that isn't an out-of-this-world improvement imo.
Second point, +an Intel Mac will easily beat a G5 Mac with similar processor speed+ is a little erroneous as to my understanding due to the different architecture of PPC and Intel chips you shouldn't be directly comparing on the basis of clock speed and then suggesting that system are comparative if these are equal.
CS3 works fine with Intel Mac, but an issue many of us have is the disappointment that it hasn't been optimized at all for the latest Intel Macs.
(point 2 is also I believe idiosyncratically called the Megaherts myth, link to a Wiki article to bring you up to speed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth , and also http://www.asia.apple.com/g4/myth/)
Message was edited by: Ewen
Message was edited by: Ewen

Performance boost question for G5 Dual 2.3 PPC

I have a late '05 PPC G5 that has been giving me fits so I bought a Jupiter 1TB 7200 RPM 32 MB Cache drive from OWC (to replace the oem 250 gb HD) along with 4-2 GB ram modules to replace the 8-512 MB modules that came with the computer. I have been unable to run Drive Genius to Verify, Rebuild or Defrag the oem 250 GB HD and Disk Warrior also failed to operate. OWC techs suspected bad ram... so I first installed the new 8GB ram modules and did a clean install of the original OS, Tiger, as my wide format Epson is not supported by Apple's later operating systems.
The old drive now appears to be perfect and both Drive Genius and Disk Warrior work... so bad ram must have been the issue.
With the old dive wiped clean and the new 1 TB drive to install, is there any point in keeping the oem 250 GB drive for scratch or anything else? It didn't get used much and I'm wondering if the old drive can be used to somehow boost the overall performance of the system?
Finally, since I use this computer for Aperture and Photoshop only, is there any point in installing the full 16 gb ram this G5 will accept or is this overkill for running Photoshop CS3 and Aperture 2?
Thanks for any advice!

Great news Lawrence, thanks!
I'll be working on files as large as 750 MB
Strange as it seems that'll likely require 4 times the RAM or VM for that, so 3GB just to edit that file!
wondering if there is any advantage to partitioning the 1TB hard drive and allocating a certain portion to scratch disk?
Not really, OSX is a strange beast, the more free disk space it has the better/smoother it runs... actually with one TB you might get away with Partitioning without slowing OSX, but you'd really gain nothing at all
Perhaps a Second really fast Drive like a WD Caviar Black in the other slot might help.
Can the HD be partitioned once Tiger has been installed (and before I install any software) or should this have been done before installing the OS?
Any Partitioning should be done first, & though I wouldn't bother doing it, it can be done after the fact...
Drive Genius 2…
http://www.prosofteng.com/products/drive_genius.php
iPartition...
http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iPartition.php
I wanted to attempt to become self sufficient at these things as there won't always be a Mac technician or Apple Store nearby. Your guidance is much appreciated.
I'm certain you will, you pick up things rather well.. and there are tons of helpers here looking forward to easing your quest... so feel quite free to post a new query on whatever!
PS. Helping others here has learned me real good!

More Ram Performance Boost?

Has anyone noticed a perfomance boost by increasing the ram in their G5 iMac with iSight? I am considering getting the 2gb chip. I realized a pretty good improvement running multiple apps and browsing the internet on my 17" iMac Intel core duo.
What say yee?
Mikel
Mac Pro 3ghz Mac OS X (10.4.8) Killer Video Editing Machine

Are you still using the stock 512MB RAM? If so, you will see a huge improvement especially if you are running multiple apps like you are.

VMWare Netweaver 70 Java & Abap, Performance Boost

Hi all,
a small tip how to improve the performance of the VM Edition:
0. Create and Add a new VM Ware harddisk with a link to a physical empty partition
1. Logon to Linux with root:sap123 and format the new mounted harddisk with e.g. ext3, mount the new disk to /netweaver_new
2. edit file /etc/init.d/netweaver line 30, comment out #exit 0
3. Stop ALL running Instances /etc/init.d/rc5.d/S12netweaver stop
4. Copy all files from from /netweaver to /netweaver_new with all permisions e.g. cp -fvpr /netweaver /netweaver_new
5. Change mountpoint of old WMware harddisk to /netweaver_old and change new phisical linked hardisk mountpoint /netweaver_new to /netweaver
6. Start ALL /etc/init.d/rc5.d/S12netweaver start
This is 50% faster than running from a virtual disk, have fun !

...

RAM NOT GIVING PERFORMANCE BOOST?

I had 1gb of Ram in my Pc, and it was slow.
I bought 2x 1gb ram and now have 2gb ram, and it is slower than before, why is this? is the Ram faulty? maybe too much use from used product?

There are other factors also:
1.May be other programs are running in the background,which are consuming memory and CPU-You can check that by opening Task Manager.
2.Optimize Drives by Disk Defragmenter
Ref:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-in/windows/improve-performance-defragmenting-hard-disk#1TC=windows-7
3.Manually run the Chkdsk
Open the "Computer"
Right-click on the drive.
Select the "Tools" tab
In the Error-checking area, click <Check Now>.
4.Malwares-if present will again make your system slower.
5..Anti virus application runs at the background and it makes things slower.
See also:
How to perform a clean boot in Windows
S.Sengupta, Windows Entertainment and Connected Home MVP

2.0.0.7111 GOOD performance Boost

Hats Off to playbook developers for bringing a much powerful OS.
The browser is very good now. But there is still lots of room for improvement like javascript.
Graphics performance has also improved which can be noticed after running some GPU hungry apps.
But as we all agree that its still BETA, so definitely there are bugs, and there is no reasons to not have it either.
So we all testers should help them find out & inform.
I must say BB Pb still doesnt have an equiliser for the music player, a major setback & if its not sorted out soon, its gonna hurt.
Good news is that the native video player app has now support for some .mkv video files. I may say most.
But but if we look at the file transfer speeds in this version it has worsen a lot, and god knows it must be corrected as early as possible.
Please look at it. its a request from all of us.
Thanks.

I updated my playbook 1.0.8 to 2.0 when using 1.0.8, I got around 5MB/s file transfer speed though USB. & 3 MB/s speed via wifi. but after updating to the 2.0.0.6149 & 7111 beta versions its very annoying to have reduced speed of 1.5MB/s via USB and a terrible 340-500 KB/s on wifi. BB please solve this issue in the next release. another issue the free RAM available to use is very less.memory management needs improvement. I also observed that apps likes pictures, music & video players are taking just a little more time to open in the 2.0.0.7111 release than that of the 2.0.0.6149.

Bc4j,dacf:[3.2.3] Searching for the performance boost switch

As I mentioned in the thread http://technet.oracle.com:89/ubb/Forum2/HTML/008025.html
I am investigating the performance of an application.
Some new Information on this. I get some speedup by deactivating the locking. But the app is not really responsive. Paging down a grid takes about 4-6sec per page. Another test showed that there is no difference if I use one table or a join.
Now I made some JSP. These are running real fast. The normal pages load under 2sec.
So far I can see the problems seems to in the communication between the BC4J and the DACs.
Has anyone some optimization suggestion? (I use the generated frames and JSPs)
Bernd

Hi Bernd,
currently I try to speed up our application that is based on applets and DACFs in local deployment mode, too.
Here are my results and I would like to discuss my observations within this thread:
- Startup time (login) about 30 sec. is normal and can't be improved programmatically.
- Use JDK 1.3 (The Swing stuff is improved a lot and the dacs are derived from them).
- Use Lov-Controls instead of Comboboxes wherever possible.
- Trace the sql-statements generated by the business-components and analyze the results. Mybe your code executes some queries unnecessarily.
- Build a prototype of a form with high complexity (much business logic) and check if this speed is sufficent for all your clients - this should be a KO-Criteria! If this test fails, you have to search for another architecture (JSPs).
But the most boostable advice is this: Try to reduce the data-transfer between your forms and the database as much as you can.
* Using a grid control is very convenient, but is it really necessary to fill it with a statment like SELECT * FROM BLAH_TABLE...?
* SetRestrictedQuery(...) with a parameter to reduce the transfer fo the query results of the LOV control.
* ViewLinks are fine - they fetch the detailed information only when its necessary.
* I doubt, that it will be a good three tier server side component design, but what about defining a View for complex joins in the database and wrap a bc-entity around it (of course you have to rethink your UI) instead of setting up different entities, views and view-links in the bc-layer?
What I really want to know is, if putting the bc-tier in the database will end up in better response time for applets. I won't go on this last adventure trip, if I'm not convinced that it will be worth the effort.
Can anyone admit or am I wrong in some points?
Have fun!
@i

Samba Performance Boost for Samba on Freebsd

I had been struggling with various options in the smb.conf but failed to realize the operating system may be at fault for my slow (3.6m/sec) transfers. The following sysctl variable: "net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable" has solved my problem, more than doubling the throughput (wired network) to more than 7.5m/sec. Simply set this to 0 to disable it. It was originally designed for very fast networks with very little latency, like Gigabit, ATM, FDDI. For my simple 100mb/sec switch at home, this worked just awesome! Thanks to the Freebsd Performance Mailing list for the tips!!!

Here's one person's experience with LP7 and 10.5.3:
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=7305592#7305592
Disuye,
I've got a Mac Pro with LP 7.2.3 and OSX 10.5.2, and it runs pretty smoothly. I get the occasional core audio overload, but not enough to cause a concern.

Performance Booster

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for