X4500 Best ZFS Performance

Hello all.
My company has recently purchased an x4500 and I am relatively new to ZFS. I am looking for the best performance configuration for the storage pool that I can get while still staying above 17TB in Raid-Z.
If anyone has any tips or best practices for the size of disk sets or their arrangement, your help would be appreciated.
Thanks.

This is what I did for 16TB with 2 spares (465GB disks). Not sure if it is best performance, but it is the best that I could figure out.
zpool create storage \
raidz2 c5t1d0 c{4,7,6,1,0}t4d0 c{4,7,6,1,0}t0d0 \
raidz2 c{5,4,7,6,1,0}t5d0 c{4,7,6,1,0}t1d0 \
raidz2 c{5,4,7,6,1,0}t6d0 c{4,7,6,1,0}t2d0 \
raidz2 c{5,4,7,6,1,0}t7d0 c{4,7,6,1,0}t3d0 \
spare c5t{2,3}d0
If any one sees any issues with this, please let me know.

Similar Messages

Best Scheme For Capturing For Best MPE Performance?

So let's say I'm still capturing from MiniDV tape @ 720p24. What's the best scheme for capturing for best MPE performance? I have a new HP Z800 with (so far) one i7 4-core with 12 gigs of ram and an Nvidia GeForce GTX285.
[moved from the FAQ forum]

You have to forgive me. I've been using Matrox RT.X2's for so long, I didn't realize there were no codec options when capturing from HDV tape, like there is with the RT.X2. So now I wonder how the MPE handles the playback of HDV captured footage.
I'm anxious to see what my new HP Z800 with one i7 quad core, 12 gigs of ram and Nvidia GeForce GTX 285 can do with PPro CS5. I got it two months ago and haven't even turned it on, waiting for CS5.

What does Apple mean by "For best battery performance, leave your device connected to a power source until the restore is complete."

I just recently returned an IPad air and exchanged it for another. I first set up this new one as a new IPad but then deleted all content and settings right away (since I wasn't getting the progress I had made in apps and games) in order to restore it from my previous IPad Air. I then checked after on how to backup via icloud and saw this line under the subtitle of how to restore from a backup, "For best battery performance, leave your device connected to a power source until the restore is complete." What does Apple mean by "for best battery performance"? Im just a bit worried of issues.
p.s. And yes I did have it connected to the power. And the ios is the default ios for new IPad Airs.

Welcome to the Apple Community.
It only means you should restore whilst it is connected to a power supply, so that your battery doesn't go flat during the process.

System Overload & How to get the best G4 Performance

Okay all you Logic and OSX Gurus. I need your help. I've finally made the LOGIC leap from OS9 and have hit the SYSTEM OVERLOAD wall like many of you before me.
I've been pouring over this, and many other Forums and Blogs, for about two weeks now, and have tried many of the fixes / solutions to no avail. I estimate I'm now getting about 25% of my OS9 Logic performance from Logic in OSX.
One specific case in point is this. A four minute song sketch. No tempo changes. Four midi tracks, 6 Audio instruments and 2 EFX (1 Guitar Amp Pro, 1 Space Designer that's no even being used).
I have unsuccessfully tried to Bounce this to disc for two weeks now. The AUDIO and DISK I/O Meters barely register until the GUITAR AMP PRO track brings the AUDIO METER up to about 1/3rd usage. At various points in the Bounce the G4 will completely FREEZE, and I will have manually restart.
THINGS I HAVE TRIED, and continue to try are:
- Repairing Permissions
- Trashing Preferences
- Updating MOTU Drivers
- Changing Processor performance setting - which I cannot do BTW, because my system does not seem to support this option.
- Closing all Widgets
- Freeing up more Space on my Mac OSx startup disk (I now have 78.41 Gig available on a 114.49 Gig drive)
- Run Cocktail to clean up System logs and temporary files
- FREEZING TRACKS as a temporary 'fix'. This did nothing BTW but add more strain to the CPU and I still had about 1/3rd the usage with my GUITAR AMP Plugin (and it still crashed).
- Increased AUDIO BUFFER to 1024
So, (and I guess this is really two sides of the same question)...
1) How do I FIX this SYSTEM OVERLOAD problem, and
2) How do I "optimize" my Dual 1.25 G4 in order to get the best performance possible out of LOGIC PRO?
OTHER QUESTIONS I HAVE ARE:
- Does the G4 have the processing power needed to run LOGIC PRO?
- I'm confident adding RAM will "help" (can't hurt), but am I really dealing with a RAM Problem here or, again, can these processors really handle it?
BTW - I'm not looking for an excuse to go shopping for a Quad G5 (I mean who needs an excuse... . But, I'm really trying to determine if at the end of the day I will spend money on RAM, Hard Drives, whatever..., and then still be frustrated and end up shopping.
- Are SCSI drives a problem with Tiger / Logic? These Cheetah drives are fast (10,000 RPM), reliable, and have been great drives to record on. I'm trying to do this simple bounce to one of the Cheetahs and as I said it's just not happening.
- Does the startup volume size effect performance?
- Does the amount of free space on the start up drive effect performance?
- Firewire 400 vs 800? My sample library is on the Firewire drive, and I'm thinking this does not pull a lot on the CPU as these get loaded into memory before playing? Am I right about that? It is Firewire 400.
A long letter and a lot of questions. I thank you all in advance for any answers, guidance or direction you can give. Please also let me know if there is something I HAVEN'T asked, looked at or should be doing.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin Saunders Hayes
SYSTEM SPECS
Machine Name: Power Mac G4
Machine Model: PowerMac3,6
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (3.3)
Number Of CPUs: 2
CPU Speed: 1.25 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
L3 Cache (per CPU): 2 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 167 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 4.4.8f2
Logic 7.1.1 (885)
Pro Application Support 3.1
MOTU 896 - Latest drivers
2 - Seagate Cheetah 9 gig SCSI drives
1 - Oxford Firewire (Up to 400 Mb/sec) with EXS Library
G4 Duel 1.25 Mac OS X (10.4.3)

And after months of using Express, and a week of
using Logic, I hadn't had a system overload until
today. Now I'm having them all the time. It wasn't a
set up change, it wasn't running on the battery, it
wasn't running software monitoring, it's set up with
512 i/o buffer, medium processor buffer. And it
wasn't brought on by number of tracks - that's for
sure. After it started happenind and I took a break &
came back, I was sitting on my couch, Powerbook in
my lap, tapping a beat in with the onscreen
keyboard.... a SINGLE instrument, mind you. NO plugs,
no other tracks of ANY kind. And it happened.
There's a lot of great, relevant and very helpful info on this forum and it all helps and it all counts. But..... so many people are suffering this when moving up to Pro 7 from either Pro 6 or Express. One expects a change in system load when a major update comes along but more and more people are reporting that simply recording 1 or 2 tracks of audio, pure, no plug-ins or EQ is causing an overload whereas in the previous version(s) this was easily accomodated. This, you may have guessed, has happened to me as well. Are we to accept in 1 version increment (albeit a major one) there is such a massive increase in demand from hardware that you cannot record a pure no-plug-in stereo track? When going back to 6.4.3 it will happily record 8 at once, let you EQ and reverb and then do another 8 AND then another. With no troble at all.
It is pointing more and more towards fundamental flaws in the programming. Did L7 come out too soon? Are we just beta testing what is pro software? We are only on 7.1.1 and 6 went to 6.4.3 but at no stage was it this bad at the fundamentals of what the App is for. I love Logic, I really do, but I think, even with all the great help we are fighting what Apple should be addressing. Not that you can find/contact/talk to or get any sort of response from them.
I have tried but have gone back to 6.4.3 until 7.1.2 or even 7.2 appears, but I'm not paying for 7.2. My £200 upgrade from 6.4.3 is now sitting on a shelf desperately wanting to use it.

Bad NTFS on ZFS performance

hi,
i am using solaris express 2010.11 as zfs/raidz based storage for a RHEL6 KVM virtualization host.
disk performance of the linux guests is ok (about 50MB/s), but for windows/NTFS guests, read AND right performance is extremely bad, about 5MB/s !!!!!
the disk performance is always bad, indepented of the access method (iSCSI RAW LUN, disk image on ext4 on ISCSI LUN, disk image on NFS export)...
NTFS block size is default (4k), ZFS blocksize/recordsize are also default (8k,128k)
i already tried changing the blocksize/recordsize of the ZFS volumes/filesystems, disabling caching on the kvm host, and enabled jumbo frames (9000)..... nothing helped...
any suggestions?
thanks for any help!!

I'm struggling with exactly the same problem, but on ESXi 4.1.
It seems that zfs inflate IO. When you check disk activity you can see that underline zfs trash the disks, while it results in a modest activity within ntfs.
I just cannot figure out how to cope with it.

Utilize memory for best apps performance

    Hi all,
I have a system with 32 gb ram, which has ebs 11.5.10.2. apps & db tier installed on the same machine
Currently I am on linux RHEL 4.2 OS (32 bit) so i am unable to allocate more tha 2gb of sga
SQL> show sga
Total System Global Area 2181038080 bytes
Fixed Size                  1262840 bytes
Variable Size             935463688 bytes
Database Buffers         1228800000 bytes
Redo Buffers               15511552 bytes
$
free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:         32497      25140       7356          0        252      23380
-/+ buffers/cache:       1507      30989
Swap:         8189          0       8189
I want to increase the overall performance by utilizing all the free memory available,
can any one please suggest how to utilize the free & cached memory to increase the performance.
Thanks

Hi,
there is a significant performance differnce in prod & dev envrionment. Please suggest
Did you try running "Gather Schema statistics" from sysadmin responsibility and see if it help you. Check for Database alert log file and confirm the DB is in healthy state.
But that being said, 32 bit OS installation with a 32 GB RAM availability is just a mere wastage of resource since you are not using the 28GB. I strongly recommend to move to 64 bit OS.
Thanks &
Best Regards,

Sun 74110 Unified Storage Share LUN settings for best database performance

We have been having performance issues with our Sun storage boxes using iscsi. I want to know what the best LUN settings should be for Database and Log LUNs for Write Syncronous Bias and Write Caching should be for each LUN.
Thanks,
J

I do not have any 7000 series storage but have you seen this Blueprint?
[Configuring Sun Storage 7000 Unified Storage Systems for Oracle|http://wikis.sun.com/display/BluePrints/Configuring+Sun+Storage+7000+Unified+Storage+Systems+for+Oracle+Databases]
have a good weekend,
Glen

Poor ZFS Performance on StorEdge 1000

Hello !
I've got a little ( or bigger performance ) problem with one of my Solaris 10 (05/09) ZFS installations.
First of all i know that the hardware is old and probably not recommended but i excpected a little more of it.
HW: SUN Enterprise 420R 2GB RAM
2 x FUJITSU Product: MAG3182L SUN18G Revision: 1111 internal
SUN StoreEdge 1000 4x FUJITSU Product: MAN3184M SUN18G Revision: 1502 ext scsi connected
i made two zfs pools the root and the external like the following:
rootpool:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t1d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0
external pool:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
foo ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c2t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c2t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
I started to install application servers uploaded several files etc. I noticed that all the write operations which were done on the external
storage were extrem slow. Did several tests , researches on the net but havent found any satisfying answer yet. i did a test with
Ben Rockwoods dtrace script spa_sync.d. While running the d-script i did some file copy of 150MB file on the root and on the external pool
which gave me the following output / throuput performance:
rootpool:
root-->time cp test.dbf test2.dbf
real 0m13.382s
user 0m0.004s
sys 0m1.766s
2009 Aug 6 14:58:21t: 109 MB; 3842 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 114 KB; throughput 28 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:25t: 0 MB; 0 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 0 KB; throughput 0 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:25t: 2 MB; 853 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 16 KB; throughput 2 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:27t: 109 MB; 3700 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 115 KB; throughput 29 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:30t: 2 MB; 373 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 28 KB; throughput 7 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:31t: 0 MB; 0 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 0 KB; throughput 0 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:40t: 1 MB; 1197 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 8 KB; throughput 1 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:53t: 104 MB; 3642 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 112 KB; throughput 28 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:56t: 0 MB; 0 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 0 KB; throughput 0 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:56t: 2 MB; 611 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 17 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:58:59t: 108 MB; 3801 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 112 KB; throughput 28 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 14:59:03t: 4 MB; 579 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 30 KB; throughput 7 MB/sn
external pool:
test-->time cp test.dbf test2.dbf
real 2m0.267s
user 0m0.004s
sys 0m2.763s
2009 Aug 6 15:00:26t: 17 MB; 5612 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 74 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:00:33t: 1 MB; 394 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 14 KB; throughput 4 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:00:35t: 19 MB; 5782 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 75 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:00:41t: 19 MB; 6416 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 68 KB; throughput 2 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:00:47t: 16 MB; 5241 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 62 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:00:54t: 16 MB; 4525 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 69 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:00:59t: 13 MB; 4868 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 56 KB; throughput 2 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:04t: 15 MB; 4825 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 58 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:10t: 15 MB; 5038 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 66 KB; throughput 2 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:17t: 15 MB; 4841 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 60 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:22t: 17 MB; 4572 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 52 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:29t: 16 MB; 4809 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 49 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:35t: 16 MB; 5166 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 59 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:42t: 18 MB; 5189 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 66 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:48t: 14 MB; 4270 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 59 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:53t: 16 MB; 4536 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 70 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:01:58t: 17 MB; 4855 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 63 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:02:03t: 2 MB; 387 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 18 KB; throughput 5 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:02:05t: 19 MB; 5491 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 66 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:02:12t: 17 MB; 4787 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 65 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
2009 Aug 6 15:02:17t: 14 MB; 4168 ms of spa_sync; avg sz : 58 KB; throughput 3 MB/sn
Is this explainable / normal. Well im aware of the old config but the disks internal and external a quite the same so if both pool would
have the same performance i'd rather be convinced that the old HW is the source of low performance. But with the difference of about 1 1/2 minutes
i find this rather odd tbh. So anyone any clues / tips ?
bg martin

Hi Don,
thx for the reply and indeed i have several errors on 1-2 disk(s)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c1t8d0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c1t9d0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2 219 191 412 c2t0d0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 35 19 54 c2t1d0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0t0d0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0t1d0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 8 3 0 11 c0t6d0
so i'll replace those and make the performance tests again.
bg martin

Get the best graphical performance

I've been developing an application where the graphical appearance is very important, so every panel has a 1280x1024 size with a 32-bit color depth picture control as large as the panel itself used as background; moreover there are a lot of other picture controls.
In this situation, loading and displaying panels is very slow, so I need to know form some CVI developers how I can improve these operations:
is the performance of LoadPanel() affected by the size of the whole uir file, or by the size of the panel to be loaded? Is it a good idea having more than a panel in a single uir, if the uir size is more or less 100MB? I think there should be no difference...
while updating tables, the performance increases if they're set as invisible before updating, and set as visible at the end. When a panel has been loaded, but not displayed yet, is the graphical performance affected by hiding or showing controls? I don't think so, because I think that if a panel is not displayed, all its controls are invisible, but I'm not sure...
Thanks
Vix
In claris non fit interpretatio
Using LV 2013 SP1 on Win 7 64bit
Using LV 8.2.1 on WinXP SP3
Using CVI 2012 SP1 on Win 7 64bit, WinXP and WinXP Embedded
Using CVI 6.0 on Win2k, WinXP and WinXP Embedded

After having reduced the images as possible, there are 2 or 3 uir files with a size of 20MB. All the uir files are then embedded into the executable files (that is more than 100MB large).
I've already considered other design schemes for loading images, but this one is the best for my application: the problem is that the graphical performance of CVI are quite bad (as already discussed in the past)
I've been trying to get the highest performance from CVI, but the improvements are not so easy.
I don't have any particular issue with tables: it was only an example where a quite simple workaround dramatically increases the graphical performance.
You could update all the values, then refresh the display rather than refreshing the display after each data update
How can I suspend the display refreshing in CVI? I know LabVIEW has a panel property, but I haven't found any CVI function to do the same. I call ProcessDrawEvents() to force the refresh, but how can I suspend it?
Vix
In claris non fit interpretatio
Using LV 2013 SP1 on Win 7 64bit
Using LV 8.2.1 on WinXP SP3
Using CVI 2012 SP1 on Win 7 64bit, WinXP and WinXP Embedded
Using CVI 6.0 on Win2k, WinXP and WinXP Embedded

Best System Performance

Hi Experts,
Please kindly tell me what is the best way to check SAP NW2004s under Windows 2003 Server... System Performance and DataBASE performance and system tuning
DB12 and ST02 but where should I check what level I check everyday!!! ?
If Table space is increase please how to resolved it...
I am creating one daily task to check system performance and report to managemnet please help me
Thank in Advanced
Angeline P

Hi TA,
System Performance is of many things put gethere and assess the system performance and workload distribution.
And as whole system maitenance can be treated with Dialy Tasks, Weekly Tasks and Monthly (ofcourse Yearly if anything).
Daily Tasks would be -
Check the Work Process Status
Check the SAP System Check: SM28
Check the Updates : SM13
Check the System Log: SM21
Check Locks: SM12
Check Dumps: ST22
Check the Spool : SP01 (Probably Consistence Check)
Check the Average CPU utilization: ST06 as well at OS level
Check the Memory Utilization: ST06
Check the Memory Swaps: ST06
Check the Batch Job: SM37 (for failed Jobs)
All the above areas are to be checked everyday and take necessory action based the errors/failure that you see in your system.
Okay, If you are looking for some standard format of weekly SAP Systems Performance report, then I would suggest to configure Early Watch Alert Report (EWA) which basically reads your system and gives you detailed report of your system behavior for last 7 days and that you can certainly share with your management. But you require Solution Manager Implemented in your environment. If Solution manager not implemented, then if you have OSS connection open with SAP Service Market Place then you ask for SAP to prepare a report for you ....SAP helps in preparing the report send you across.
If Tablespace is filling up, then you need to configure Backup properly. And if backups happenning properly then please increase your tablespace area to address the issue. Basically a good data maintenance avoids this problem.
I hope this helps you to address your concerns.
Regards
Sekhar

Is there a Mac OS X manual/best practice/performance enhancement guide?

Hi
I just got all Mac'ed up and am pretty new to it. I've been a PC looser for ages, but at least I knew what I was doing with it! Although my Mac is super fast and efficient now, I am paranoid that, like all the PC's I've ever owned, this "new car smell" state will not last for ever, unless some maintenance is kept up. Is there any kind of manual or maybe a website out there that can tell me about best practice with Macs. Stuff like keeping the registry clean (like on a PC), the best way to remove applications (entirely!), managing memory for best performance, etc. I'd also like to know about stuff like how using non-Apple made/brand applications effects the integrity of the system. Basically just find out how Mac software works and how best to use it.
Thanks in advance.

Start with these:
Switching from Windows to Mac OS X,
Basic Tutorials on using a Mac,
MacFixIt Tutorials,
MacTips, and
Switching to the Mac: The Missing Manual, Leopard Edition.
For maintenance, see these:
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
Mac OS X speed FAQ
Maintaining OS X
Additionally, *Texas Mac Man* recommends:
Quick Assist.
Welcome to the Switch To A Mac Guides, and
A guide for switching to a Mac.

Among the available file systems for formatting that can be found in Disc Utility, which gives the best transfer performance?

I have a HDD under MS-DOS, which claims transfer speeds above and beyond of 480MB/s, but the actual speeds I have been getting are closer to 300kB/s. Is there a way to improve this merely by reformatting volume to another file system?

If you don't need to use it with PCs, copy any data you want to keep off and reformat it as Mac OS Extended (Journaled). Also, since it seems to be connected through USB 2.0, unplug all unnecessary devices when transferring data to improve performance.
(62387)

How to get the best possible performance when accessing remote files

Hello,
I have recently set up a VPN to allow remote access to an MYOB data file hosted on my Mac Mini at home (MYOB is an accountancy software package for Mac and PC).
My Mac Mini is connected to the internet over a standard ADSL home broadband line, with a terrible upload speed. I think my ISP (BT) quotes 512k upload and up to 8 Meg download. Needless to say, access to the data file is sluggish at best.
Can anybody recommend a better way to host the data file?
I am aware of lots of 'free file hosting' services, a quick Google search brings up loads, but I need to actually open and run the file from its remote location. I cannot download and then upload again because we have multiple user access, and need to ensure the file on the server is not being edited by two people at once.
Thanks for your help...

Thanks for both of your answers.
*Amazon S3 Option*
I preferred the Amazon S-3 option for ease of use and setup, but this does not appear to work. The software accesses the file very quickly indeed, which is great, but I think due to the connection protocol the network volume reports 'zero' disk space remaining.
The MYOB application does not like this, so pops up an error message saying it needs at least '200kb of disk space to open'. This is because, upon opening, it writes a couple of 'lock' files to the disk where the data file is stored.
My previous solution with the Mac Mini used VPN to connect, thus allowing SMB shares for windows users and AFP shares for Mac, and when mounted these network volumes would report the remaining disk space of the Mac Mini itself. MYOB liked this.
Is there any way I can get the network share to report something other than zero disk space remaining?
*Dedicated Server Option*
Otherwise, the VPS option sounds very affordable. I am however unfamiliar with the world of dedicated servers and the Ubuntu OS, but surprised they are so affordable. I would rather go this route than change my home ISP.
Firstly I have never used Linux or typed anything into the command line. So, will I be able to use VNC to access the VPS?
Second, to access the data file, should I continue to use VPN? My current VPN server software supports Linux, so can I use this on Ubuntu?
Thanks again..

How to get best OC performance from Athlon 64 system

Another OC article, that covers differant ways of OC a Athlon 64 system and what gives best perormance boost.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/athlon64oc/index.html
PS Sorry did not see that Worf105 already posted same thing...

Thanks, I will check that out. I was looking up info on Tomato, but it seemed it was for the old WRT-54g / gs, etc...
I ran it at the stock clock (I think stock is 354 MHz) for awhile. I over clocked it only by 46 MHz maybe two weeks ago. They still freeze up at stock clock with default wireless power. The thing is, the broadcom CPU in this thing is the same part number used in other routers, and it's clocked at 400 MHz in some models, and 533 MHz in others. It's terribly underclocked in this router. I don't know if it's because they didn't want to spend money on better heatsinks or higher quality power supply circuitry and capacitors, or what.
That's another thing that could be bad. Inferior components, such as slightly out of tolerance capacitors, or cheap lead-free solder that wasn't melted to the right temperature in the board flow production process. Under heavy load it can crack and cause bad connections or cause heatsinks to come off the board (if any). It was a major problem with the Xbox 360, and it's a major problem in the HP 2015dn laser printer.
Who knows what the deal is. My 320n seems stable now. I was just hoping to get a little more routing speed out of it. I'll read up on Tomato and see if that's a feasible solution.

What to buy for best PC performance?

I am running the Creative Suite on a PC Windows XP Pro platform and it has been very, very slow. The specifications I purchased far exceed that Adobe says are the needed specs.
Can anyone give me guidance on what to run so as to not spend my time twiddling my thumbs while I create PDFs, package files and save them?
Thank you.

Danette,
I am squarely with ID. awe on additional physical HDDs. CS, and on, can take advatange of all the Scratch Disk space that you can offer it. With HDD costs being as low as they are, I'd fill your case (and your SATA controller) with all that it can handle.
Let's say that you go with a setup like my workstation. Your setup would then be your OS and programs ONLY on you C:\. D:\ would be your assets (your basic image files), E:\ would be Scratch Disk, F:\ would be Scratch Disk, G:\ would be Scratch Disk.
Now, this is in a perfect world. I've got 4.5TB internal, all as fast as I could get, with 30TB of FW-800 externals for archives and more assets.
You might wish to experiment with the Windows' Virtual Memory. I found that my fastes setting was to split this between the C:\ (where it really, really wanted to be) and D:\. I played with several settings, and found that manually allocating the Paged Memory (Virtual) to 2.5x the physical RAM (I'm running 4GB w/ the 3GB switch, on XP-Pro SP-2), gave me the most speed.
That system screams with PS, AI, InD, Premiere and Encore. I often have all of these open at the same time, and my processor is just a single Duo-Core 3.2GHz. It was not that long ago, that I handled triple-truck images at 300 dpi on my old workstation with dual Xenon 1GHz CPUs and 1.5GB RAM. However, I had 4 SCSI 160 72GB discs (gosh, they seemed so big back then... ) through an Adaptec controller. It still sees some use and is not slow, even with W2K SP-4 on it.
If you do go the new box route, think about your ultimate I/O system first, lots of RAM next, then a good, solid single (or dual) Core 2 Quad. First, you can never have enough RAM for really big images, so you WILL use your Scratch Discs. The RAM will help, in any case, so get all that your MoBo & OS can accommodate. Your CPU will come into play more for Filters, and some of the processes like Rotation, etc., plus will aid with the OS end of things. Your choice of video card will be predicated on two things: do you use 3-D? Will you likely move up to CS4, especially the Extended version?
Since I do a lot of video on the system, plus some 3-D, I went for overkill on the video card. One day, I hope to really put it through its paces.
Last, get a case with great cooling, and enough room to allow for expansion, then, add more fans. Liquid cooling has come a long way, and you might want to consider it. Get the biggest and best power supply available, with big honking fans in it/them. Since I do a lot of video rendering, the cooling is super critical to me. With PS, it's a bit less so, but still something that you want to "over-engineer" on.
Remember, you can never have too much HDD space, too much RAM, too cool a case, or too much wine in your cellar!
Still, your system should work far better, than you indicate that it does. Going back three workstations, speed was never a concern for me. Yeah, faster would be better, but I started PS back when a 1GB HDD was US$1000 and you could only run one! I had to Save to tape, because I did not have the space to Save to disc. Run Gaussian Blur, Save to tape, make a pot of coffee, drink the entire pot, then make sure PS was still up and running.
For some speed increase, you might want to look into running processes on your system. For video work, which is horribly system stressing, I use a freeware program, EndItAll2, to eliminate any unnecessary processes, before I crank up Premiere. If it's just at PS session, I don't usually bother. You might want to look into similar, to see if you can gain some of the speed back. Also, defrag every night.
Hunt

X4500 Best ZFS Performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for