New answers tagged cpu-usage
I can come up with two different interpretations of the numbers you posted. Which of the two applies depend on your point of view: This is a server which is way larger than it need to be in order to handle the load. This is a server ready to handle future usage growth. What you need to pay attention to are the things, you did not mention in your ...
It depends on the NATURE of the load. I.e. is it fixed demand driven, or is it generated by a process, which uses as much power as there is available to it (I think the former is the case, but I might be wrong here). OTOH 8 for 8 threads is not really a load on a server, so I'd start to worry if it exceeded 20.
I think your load average is OK. Take a look to this article to understand Load metric and how it's calculated: http://blog.scoutapp.com/articles/2009/07/31/understanding-load-averages
Numbers you have posted look just fine. But it is hard to tell what else is going under the hood. If the server is doing fine - meaning response times are in acceptable range, no spikes or so, everything is working as expected - then stick to the golden rule "if it's working, don't mess with it". But if you want to do some studying, there is a great ...
I have seen this when the MySQL server seems to be responding slowly, causing the process to lockup, which burns through the CPU while it waits, so worth taking a look at your SQL while its struggling to see if that's the real cause.
100% is totally fine. Wherever you read it damages the processor -those are idiots with no proper cooling. Whether 100% CPU utilization is acceptable depends - on the task. Yes, the computer will get sluggish. So what? If the job of the server is to finish calculating something then I rather have him use 100% of the CPU than take longer. Acceptable CPU ...
100% is considered "thrashing". Aim for 80%, to allow for addition processes if needed. Server CPUs cannot be damaged by the usage. The heat generated is a different story. Laptops should never got to 100 because the heat will slowly destroy the computer. Processes will not be damaged because most OSes will manage the priority and take cycles as it needs ...
You will not damage the processor. There is no advisable CPU usage. You use whatever you want. There is no source of that, i am telling you that from experience. The slowing of processes running is another thing. If it is a multi user server you have to reconfigure it.
> Users refuse to log off instead of disconnect You have a management/HR issue here rather than a technical one. If people staying logged on are affecting other people's work (by reducing performance unnecessarily) then there are only really two solutions: Make it a technical issue and arrange for an increase in resources (more RAM, SSD in place of ...
Depending on your cash, time, and the savviness of your users, another idea could be to stand up a second server. You'll still need to reboot occasionally, but you seem to be reaching the limits of a single server. You should be able to use the same client CAL's (licensing's not my strongest area), and depending on your virtualization solution an additional ...
I am familiar with the "user type" that refuses to logoff. However, they seemed to have no issue understanding that the Server would be rebooting nightly so any unsaved work would be lost. This is on Server 2008 R2 TS Supporting About 20 users on a single machine.
Generally, I'm opposed to the idea that a Windows server should be rebooted on a regular schedule EXCEPT in relation to TS/RDS servers. We reboot ours every day. It clears up old sessions, releases in use resources (CPU, RAM, file handles, etc.), so my opinion and suggestion would be that you do configure a daily scheduled reboot of your RDS servers. Note ...
Users refuse to log off instead of disconnect Setup the appropriate group policies to auto-logoff them. You can separately control an idle timeout and logoff. That should certainly minimize some of the issue during the day. I restart my 3 server TS farm daily at 3:00am. Because, yes crap can build up over time when you have lots of people using a ...
It looks to me that one of them is loaded more, maybe you distributed the number of requests equally, but "buggy" one gets more demanding requests, it has more running processes and more page faults. Take a vmstat and check what they actually was serving at this moment.
Joomla tends to be quite heavy on CPU. However, you can use the various cache modes to considerably improve that situation. Give a look here.
Put the mysql server on a separate ssd vps / dedicated server in the same data centre using a private ip / vlan - take the mysql load off your webserver and at the same time increase mysql throughput due to ssd Make sure your wp-super cache is saving the static html pages to a ram disk (/dev/shm/ on centos) - ram is always faster than disk If searching all ...
No, you're not wasting your money. Here's what you're getting with this setup - instant scalability, plus upgrade flexibility. Consider the small start-up that hosts everything on one box: as they ramp up, suddenly the need to offload one of the services, but now they've got a lot more historical data to migrate, and now they're busy, both in terms of ...
Top 50 recent answers are included