I am running Ubuntu server 20.04 LTS in a VM hosted on a NAS (Synology.) Primary purpose of this system is to ingest data for ELK. This is the master node. Configuration is:  Compute: Intel Celeron J3455 (4 cores allocated to the VM.) 1.5 (base) / 2.3 (burst) GHz Memory: 4 GB DDR3. Storage: 7200 RPM drive.  Virtualisation is propitiatory to Synology. Following is the systems usage:   I am planning to move this from the NAS to a workstation running:  VMWare ESXi (free) Compute: Intel Xeon W 1290 with 10 cores (20 threads) with 3.20 GHz base and 5.20 GHz Turbo frequency. Memory: 64 GB DDR4 RAM @ 2933 MHz Storage: 7200 RPM drive + PCIe M.2 SSD (Dell Class 40)  I am a self-funded student and I need to use this system as part of my final year perusing masters in software and systems security. I wanted assistance calculating systems requirements if the load on the system remains consistent. I am using Elasticsearch stack on this system. I am facing following issues:  System load is always over 4.0 is this due to IOPs issue? If so, will adding RAM during migration to another system help? Or does this require faster storage such as an SSD? Will providing following configuration help situation load and improve performance without over provisioning?  Compute: 3 processors x 2 cores per processor = 6 16 GB RAM Storage will be local (SATA, 7200 RPM  NAS grade drive.) What steps should I take to ensure I am not over provisioning and able to use the system for other projects too? Thank you.
272
This is a  about  Related:      I have a question regarding capacity planning. Can the Server Fault community please help with the following:   What kind of server do I need to handle some number of users? How many users can a server with some specifications handle? Will some server configuration be fast enough for my use case? I'm building a social networking site: what kind of hardware do I need? How much bandwidth do I need for some project? How much bandwidth will some number of users use in some application?
85554
I have a machine with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5520 visible as 16 logical cores (8 with HT). If I run something to eat CPU time (single threaded) top correctly reports 100% CPU usage for the process but only around 3-4% total usage.   Cpu(s):  3.6%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 96.4%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.1%st    PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND  1567 www       20   0 65632   84    4 R  100  0.0   0:05.96 burnMMX   Surely the reported usage should be ~6.25% (1 of 16 cores).   Is it incorrect because it's a virtual machine?  How could I calculate a correct value?
65460
I just bought my very first internal SSD and installed it into my desktop PC. I was running out of disk space and want to use it for data storage. The OS is installed on the first disk, which is a standard (spinning) HDD. This is what Samsung Magician is showing me:    So &quot;on paper&quot;, everything seems to look great. However, when I'm trying to move files from my HDD to the SSD, I'm only getting about 50-70 MB/s. I assumed that the bottleneck here is the speed limit of the HDD read access... What I don't understand is why this bogs down my whole system. I would expect Windows 7 to be smart enough not to allow itself freeze up during simple file transfer operations. Also, the PC has 32 GB RAM and a 3,4 GHz 12-core CPU, so it's not exactly slow. What might be the problem here? The system gets so slow that I cannot even open Firefox while moving files. Shouldn't the system somehow manage the amount of resources processes can take and put a cap on it in order to ensure stability? Is there some setting that I could change to address the issue? Unfortunately, I have little to no experience managing Windows systems. I know that in Linux one can impose custom limits on the resource usage of individual processes. However, file I/O seems something rather fundamental so I'd expect this to be efficiently managed by the OS. Please help, the setup is not usable in this state... PS.: I don't want to migrate the system to the SSD as I don't trust Windows with my data. The data should be stored on a separate drive, which is why I got the SSD in the first place. But this should not slow down my system on the HDD.
54050
We have a SQL server hosted on an Azure VM.  One of our applications is very read\write intensive on the database and we're seeing poor disk performance.  Disk queue lengths of 10 or greater.   I've been trying to find a way to increase disk performance.  I found a technet video  that mentions a disk quota and spanning 4 storage accounts increases disk i/o.  Can anyone confirm this disk limiter or recommend this spanning technique?
100487
Say I had a Core i7 Laptop with 16GB of RAM and a 750gb drive.  Is there a mechanism where I can partition the HD into a Linux, Windows, OS X, Shared Data, Hypervisor setup where I boot a small hypervisor. I can start/stop a linux, Windows and OS X virtual machine and interact with them all from the hypervisor?   Code, Test, etc?  is this a type 1 Hypervisor?  I suppose I could run a small linux install and VmWare but could VmWare read the virtual machines from a physical hard disk partition versus a file based setup (.vmdk files)?
4397
I've been running several VM's with VirtualBox, and the memory usage reported from various perspectives, and I'm having trouble figuring how much memory my VMs actually use.  Here is an example:   I have a VM running Windows 7 (as the Guest OS) on my windows XP Host machine. The Host Machine Has 3 GB of RAM The Guest VM is setup to have a base memory of 1 GB If I run Task Manger on the Guest OS, I see memory usage of 430 MB If I run Task Manger on the host OS, I see 3 processes that seem to belong to VirtualBox:   VirtualBox.exe (1), using 60 MB of memory (This one seems to have the most CPU usage) VirtualBox.exe (2), using 20 MB of memory VBoxSvc.exe, using 11.5 MB of memory  While running the VM, the Host OS's memory usage is about 2 GB When I shut down the VM, the Host OS's it goes back to memory usage goes down to about 900 MB   So clearly, there are some huge differences here.  I really don't understand how the GuestOS can use 400+ MB, while the Host OS only shows about 75 MB allocated to the VM.  Are there other processes used by VirtualBox that aren't as obviously named?  Also, I'd like to know if I run a machine with 1 GB, is that going to take 1 GB away from my host OS, or only the amount of memory the Guest machine is currently using?  Update:  Someone expressed distrust over my memory usage numbers, and I'm not sure if that distrust was directed at me, or my Host OS's Task Manager's reporting (which is perhaps the culprit), but for any skeptics, here is a screenshot of those processes on the host machine:
59594
I'm planing an age replacement policy for our storage and servers. Most of them are for DBs and some for images (static content) so yes, they have an huge I/O everytime.  Also, we use Samsung 840 Pro SSDs for the RAID Controllers (PERC H700i) as CacheCade.  Are you guys managing the replacement of old hard drives and solid state drives?
62361
EHLO everyone! My first post on the StackOverflow network :)  We're running some ESXi 5.0/vCenter infrastructure to host mainly Debian 6/amd64 guest systems with ext3 partitions and open-vm-tools compiled from source per .  Got an issue that is seen being raised all around the internet, but without a conclusive answer given anywhere.  When trying to shrink a thin-provisioned disk in independent-persistent mode, with no snapshots, parents, clones whatsoever, I consistently get the following error:  root@linux64:~# vmware-toolbox-cmd disk list Shrink disk is disabled for this virtual machine.  Shrinking is disabled for linked clones, parents of linked clones, pre-allocated disks, snapshots, or due to other factors. See the User's manual for more information.   (By the way, what are the "other factors", and which of the ton of white papers and technical manuals is the User's manual?:)  I know that I can stuff the partitions with zeros (in fact, I do use shred -fuzn0 when deleting large files) then shut down the guest in question and use various methods like vmkfstools, cloning or vMotioning disks around in thin-provision mode, etc, but all of them either incur the downtime penalty for the guest being shirnked, or result in an unwarranted moving of data between datastores and/or hosts.    And the answer is: No shrinking under ESX/ESXi (as of version 5).   The  reads:  IMPORTANT Shrinking disks is not allowed under the following circumstances:   The virtual machine is hosted on an ESX/ESXi server. ESX/ESXi Server can shrink the size of a virtual disk only when a virtual machine is exported. The space occupied by the virtual disk on the ESX/ESXi server, however, does not change. The virtual machine has a Mac guest operating system. You preallocated all the disk space to the virtual disk when you created it. The virtual machine contains a snapshot. The virtual machine is a linked clone or the parent of a linked clone. The virtual disk is an independent disk in nonpersistent mode. The file system is a journaling file system, such as an ext4, xfs, or jfs file system.   No wonder there is an option to shrink in VMWare Workstation but not in vSphere client connected to an ESXi or vCenter instance.
31692
I'm running a Windows 10 64-bit host OS on a Dell XPS 9560 with 8GB of RAM.  I've installed Ubuntu 16.04 for programming purposes using VM Workstation, and currently allocated 1GB RAM for the Ubuntu 16.04 guest OS. From what I noticed now the VM's performance is a little slow from time to time, especially when starting an app (Like CLion IDE or Firefox for example).   I need a performance boost, so is there a way to increase the RAM size in the existing Ubuntu 16.04 guest OS, rather than having to install a whole new guest OS in VMware Workstation and allocate more RAM during the installation process?
71639
I am total noob in Linux. I wanna know what is the equivalent of "My Computer" in Ubuntu 11.04. I want to check my computer specs such as Processor Speed, Memory, and etc.  Whenever I check properties in Home Folder it only gives me the HD capacity. I also tried looking at System Settings but I can't find it there. Please help.
35444
I have the following pieces of hardware I would like to network mostly for file sharing (media primarily): 1 gaming laptop, 1 i7 (2.3Tb storage) desktop, 1 P4 desktop (500g storage), and 1 250gig PS3.  I am looking to setup a linux host (with a PS3 media server) with the i7 desktop but am concerned about leaving it on all the time. What stripped down, low energy usage distro can I couple with which windows &amp; PS3 friendly software?  Also, how should i reformat my i7 (in terms of partitions, RAID options, whatever)? It has 2 1Tb drives (likely adding a third), and 1 320 gig.
70950
I was thinking of installing Ubuntu on a couple of VMs. Would it be better to store each VM on a 8GB thumbdrive or store all the VMs on a 320GB USB-powered external HDD?  Which one would be faster?
79475
I have a fairly busy database server running SQL Server 2008 R2 that has the following setup:   SATA RAID 1 (2 Drives)  - OS / Programs SAS  RAID 10 (4 Drives) - Sql Database Files (data and logs) SAS  RAID 1 (2 Drives)  - TempDB (data and logs)   Assuming I can't add additional drives into this server, have I made the best use of the configuration I have available? Or should I consider another scheme here where logs are isolated from the data files, for example?  Update:  For those that requested further hardware details:   The SATA drives (used for the OS / Program partition) are: WD 7200 RPM 3 Gb/s 3.5 Inch SATA The SAS drives used in the other arrays are: Seagate 15K RPM 6 Gb/s 3.5 inch SAS The RAID controller used is an: LSI 9260-8i SAS/SATA 6 Gb 8 port   Update 2:  Based upon the feedback I've received, it looks like I have the following viable options to choose from - I will award the bounty to someone that can tell me which is likely to be the best in the environment that I've outlined:   Leave everything as is - I probably won't do much better  Move my 2 SAS RAID 1 drives into my existing RAID 10 array to have it composed of 6 disks in total  Move my log files onto the SAS RAID 1 and/or relocate TempDB (data or logs) back to the RAID 10
82485
We have a dedicated SQL Server Machine for a SAAS application with about 200+ databases, the server has E5-2620 with 64 GB RAM, Now we want to move all the databases to the Azure, so for looking into the options we can either go with a Virtual Machine like (DS13 v2) which can support all these DBs or can use the Azure SQL Elastic Pools like Standard with 400 eDTUs.  My Question is that in the Long Run and from management and scalability point of view which option is better, and also will the Standard Elastic Pool with 400 eDTU's can provide the same performance as the Virtual Machine?  One of the major concerns for us is the performance of the SQL DBs in Azure, as this is one of the reason to move the whole application to the Azure so that in the future as the no of users grow we can easily upgrade our instances to cater the increased load.
78777
I am looking for an Ubuntu version that consumes less Memory and CPU. I have read both Lubuntu and Xubuntu (The homepages, wikipedia, phoronix and other sites comparing both). But from experience, which one uses less memory and is less CPU intensive. I need to install them in very old hardware and want to persuade the owner of the hardware of the benefits of Ubuntu.  in this case I want to install 11.10 or 12.04 when it comes out. How are each behaving in those versions?  The 2 PCs I will be installing either Xubuntu or Lubuntu are:  Granpa PC:  CPU - Pentium 2 450Mhz RAM - 64MB DIMM Video - 16MB Used for - Documents and Internet. No listening to music, no looking at videos. Just using it for document writing.  The other old meat:  CPU - Pentium 3 550Mhz RAM - 128MB DIMM Video - 16MB Used for - Documents and Internet also but they want.. or maybe they are wishing for it to use it to see movies and listen to music. This one has internet. The other one does not.  UPDATE  Wanted to update this question with the test results for over 8 months worth of using Lubuntu and Xubuntu. When it comes to very old hardware, am talking about 64 MB, 128 MB or even 256 MB of RAM computers, Lubuntu is better than Xubuntu when comparing Memory usage. When it comes to CPU usage, both are the same.  This will not improve I/O Disk performance which will be the bottleneck for old computers. Also the difference in performance between Xubuntu and Lubuntu is about 10% to 20% percent in memory usage. Again, CPU usage is the same.  Now, when it comes to how responsive the Desktop is, LXDE (Lubuntu) has a much better response time than XFCE (Xubuntu). I would say about 50% or just simply noticeable to the eye. Lubuntu is similar to how Windows XP looks while Xubuntu is more like how Gnome 2 looked.  The computers (The old ones mentioned here) and 2 more are still working in excellent conditions thanks to the Ubuntu family. I also want to add I am using 13.10 for both distros.
359
I'm trying to come up with a sane way to understand if the max server memory (mb) setting is appropriate (either should be lower, or higher, or stay the way it is).  I am aware that max server memory (mb) should always be low enough to leave room for the operating system itself, etc.    The environment I'm looking at has several hundred servers; I need a reliable formula I can use to determine if the present size of the buffer pool is appropriate since RAM is costed per GB allocated to each server.  The entire environment is virtualized, and "physical" RAM allocated to a VM can easily be changed up or down.  I have a particular SQL Server Instance I'm looking at now with a PLE of 1,100,052 seconds, which equates to 12.7 days (the amount of time the server has been up).  The server has a max server memory setting of 2560MB (2.5GB), of which only 1380MB (1.3GB) is actually committed.    I've read several items including one by Jonathan Keheyias () and another by Paul Randal (), and several others.  Jonathan advocates monitoring for a PLE below 300 per 4GB of buffer pool as being too low.  For the SQL Server Instance above, 300 * (2.5 / 4) = 187 results in a really really low target PLE below 300.  This instance has 290GB of SQL Server data (not including log files), and is only used for integration testing.  Assuming the last 12 days is representative of typical usage for this server, I'd say the max server memory (mb) setting could be lowered.  At the other end of the scale, I have another integration-test server with a PLE of 294, that has a max server memory (mb) setting of only 1GB.  This server has only 224MB of SQL Server data not including logs, and is running some BizFlow databases.  This server might benefit from a higher max server memory (mb) setting.  I'm thinking a good starting place for targets that might be assigned too much memory could include looking at:  SELECT      RamMB = physical_memory_in_bytes / 1048576     , BufferPoolCommittedMB = bpool_committed * 8192E0 / 1048576     , BufferPoolCommitTargetMB = bpool_commit_target * 8192E0 / 1048576     , PercentOfDesiredSizeMB = CONVERT(INT,(CONVERT(DECIMAL(18,2),bpool_committed)                              / bpool_commit_target) * 100) FROM sys.dm_os_sys_info;   If BufferPoolCommitTargetMB / BufferPoolCommittedMB is greater than 1, the server is not using the entire buffer pool.  If the machine in question also has a PLE of greater than "x" then it might be a good candidate for a decrease in max server memory (mb).  Since the Buffer Manager:Lazy writes/sec performance counter tracks the number of times SQLOS has written pages out to disk between checkpoints due to memory pressure, this might be another good thing to look at.  DECLARE @WaitTime DATETIME; SET @WaitTime = '00:00:15'; DECLARE @NumSeconds INT; SET @NumSeconds = DATEDIFF(SECOND, 0, @WaitTime); DECLARE @LazyWrites1 BIGINT; DECLARE @LazyWrites2 BIGINT;  SELECT @LazyWrites1 = cntr_value  FROM sys.dm_os_performance_counters dopc WHERE (         dopc.counter_name LIKE 'Lazy writes/sec%' COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS     )     AND dopc.object_name = 'MSSQL$' + CONVERT(VARCHAR(255),                SERVERPROPERTY('InstanceName')) + ':Buffer Manager';  WAITFOR DELAY @WaitTime;  SELECT @LazyWrites2 = cntr_value  FROM sys.dm_os_performance_counters dopc WHERE (         dopc.counter_name LIKE 'Lazy writes/sec%' COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS     )     AND dopc.object_name = 'MSSQL$' + CONVERT(VARCHAR(255),                SERVERPROPERTY('InstanceName')) + ':Buffer Manager';  SELECT LazyWritesPerSecond = (@LazyWrites2 - @LazyWrites1) / @NumSeconds;   The above code assumes the server is under load during the 15 seconds it takes to run, otherwise it will report 0; which might be a misleading false-negative.  Should I also look at PAGELATCHIO_* wait stats or some other wait type as an indicator of memory pressure, or lack thereof?   My question is, how can I reliably determine a "good" target value for PLE and max server memory (mb)?
13526
I would like to set-up a PC to run ubuntu most of the time, but also need to run XP for specific applications and testing. In the past I would have simply set up a dual boot machine and then restart and boot into windows XP as needed.    However since the machine has multiple cores and significant memory, I think I can use Virtual Box, Xen, or VMWare hypervisors. I am thinking of making Ubuntu the "host" VM and having XP as a guest VM. This would be especially nice for testing/debug/development since it is possible to run applications in both OS's simultaneously. I've never setup a virtual machine before and think that by asking the questions below I can avoid some trial-and-error.  Basically, I need to decide if a dual boot or VM setup is more appropriate for what I want to do.  Here's my questions:   I do not always need to have XP running. Do the hypervisors allow me to shut the guest VM down so that the host VM can then immediately use all memory and processor resources? When I then bring up the guest VM, is it easy to provision how much memory and other resources are used by it? Ideally, I'd like to pre-configure this in advance and then toggle the guest VM off/on without thinking about it. Is it possible or advisable to have the host OS be 64bit and the guest OS be 32bit? Alternatively, if both VM's are 32 bit and I have 8G of RAM, can the hypervisor provision each VM with 4G of RAM when they are running simultaneously? Which hypervisors are best for set-ups such as I described?