Performance of GST with vMMU (IVR)

Similar Questions

• Process * \MCSHIELD. EXE the nest (428) contained code signed or corrupted and could not perform an operation with a McAfee driver.

  XP SP3 system

  I get warnings like this when Mcafee updates.

  Process * \MCSHIELD. EXE the nest (428) contained code signed or corrupted and could not perform an operation with a McAfee driver.

  Process * \SVCHOST. EXE the nest (1632) contained code signed or corrupted and could not perform an operation with a McAfee driver.

  Is this a problem Microsoft or Mcafee?

  Do I need to fix?

  In the McAfee forums, there are several similar positions such as:

  https://community.McAfee.com/message/241542

  I'll sue your question on in their community, as they already seem to know about it.

  I would also say that, unless you are very fond of McAfee or you are forced to use it, you plan to replace it with something that has a smaller footprint, uses less resources and doesn't have these problems - something like Microsoft Security Essentials, you can get here:

  http://Windows.Microsoft.com/en-us/Windows/Security-Essentials-download

  MSE completed with the free version of MBAM and SAS should permanently keep your clean enough unless you're a daredevil like me:

  Download, install, update and do a quick scan with these free malware detection programs (not at the same time) and remove all threats:

  Malwarebytes (MMFA): http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/malwarebytes_free
  SUPERAntiSpyware: (SAS): http://www.superantispyware.com/

  SAS will probably report a lot of tracking cookies and you can just let him delete them.

  Even if you keep McAfee, I always supplement it with MBAM and SAS since no single AV program does seem to know everything.  If your McAfee of your system is clean, I would interpret that means - McAfee found nothing, says he knows.  It is prudent to use more than a reputable scanner to get more coverage.

  If you choose to spend (and you can't have both at the same time), you must be sure to use the uninstaller that you can get from here:

  http://service.McAfee.com/FAQDocument.aspx?LC=1033&ID=TS101331

  Your system will give you better performance.

• How can I get information from performance on disc with vFoglight 6.5 latency?

  Can someone tell me where I can get info from performance on disc with vFoglight 6.5 latency?

  There are also alarms that deal with the latency of disk. You are looking for a report or dashboard? Check the alarm Viewer and define a filter on the "latency". This will show you all the current latency time, then you can explore the host or logical unit number that is having the problem.

• Is there a performance issue associated with SPARQL property path?

  Is there a performance issue associated with SPARQL property path?

  When we use paths property is our SPARQL queries, the queries never ends. I have a general problem, or do you have a problem with Jena and jena adapter version?

  We run Oracle 12 c. The Jena adapter has version 12.1.0.1.

  Thank you

  By Oyvind

  None of these requests ends. We have 300000 tuples in the model.

  SELECT subclass, superClass

  TABLE (SEM_MATCH)

  "SELECT? subclass? superclass WHERE {? rdfs:subClassOf + subclass? superclass} LIMIT 10'.

  SEM_Models ('isall1_x'),

  NULL, null, null, null,

  (= T, timeout = 100, qid = 123, STRICT_DEFAULT = F'));

  SELECT subclass, superClass

  TABLE (SEM_MATCH)

  "SELECT? subclass? superclass WHERE {graph? g {? subclass rdfs:subClassOf +? superclass}} LIMIT 10'.

  SEM_Models ('isall1_x'),

  NULL, null, null, null,

  (= T, timeout = 100, qid = 123, STRICT_DEFAULT = F'));

• Performance of mercury with GTX470 (fermi)

  Hi, Ive searched on sort of a universal benchmark to check the performance I get with my map of GTX470 (hack enabled in the text file cudasupported and watch project properties), but I've not found anything that's appropriate. My gpu usage percentage increases from 0 to 5 to 8% in the course of the work within the first - espcially when the foot through the images, which is for the most part smooth (720 p and about 4 layers of video). How to evaluate the performance and compare with what others become. Even if the system tells me that this hardware acceleration is turned on I think that take 5 to 8% of GPU is not enough. I would be grateful if someone could point me to a mercury/cuda and a database reference.

  Pheom ii x 6/GTX 470 (800 MHz base) / first Pro CS5

  Reference PPBM5

• Increase the performance of MAC with the SSD upgrade

  I have a 21.5-inch iMac model 14.1 (end 2013) with 8 GB of memory and a 1 TB drive. On this, I use some applications in memory such as Adobe CS 5.5 and VMWare Fusion 8.1.1. I have Applecare on the machine until September 2017. I often find myself running out of memory. My goto solution would be to increase the memory and replace the hard drive with an SSD. I fear, however, that this cancels my Applecare. My research indicates that while that frowned upon, I can upgrade my memory and keep my Applecare as long as it is done by an authorized by Apple, but if I do the SSD I'm out of luck for the installed components. My thought is that I can get an external SSD and move the ' WIndows 10' VM (s), as well as expand and move the swapfiles for the SSD system.»

  My questions are am I right about the Applecare and warranty and I plan to use an external SSD to accelerate performance and ease the work of memory constraints?

  I have f

  I have a Macbook Air in 2010 and also a 2008 iMac - both with only 4 GB of memory (you have twice as much), both running El Capitan and the two with SSD - and perform very well. The 2008 iMac used to have a rotating disc which has recently failed, with the replacement of SSD, it is a remarkable transformation with the new SSD, it seems very quickly for me. Both have Photoshop CS4, which is not used much more, but they run this software very well, as well as MS Office 2011 and other programs such as Mail, Safari, Firefox, etc. (Firefox + Photoshop together put a noticeable load on machines, in fact, but while I sometimes hear the fans come on the Macbook Air, it maintains not up very well) No slowdown) You'll be in great shape with a SSD for your newer computer. These old machines that I use have Core 2 Duo CPUs, chips relatively slow, but they seem very quickly with the SSD.

  You will need to check with Apple directly on your AppleCare and so that would be affected. I don't know that anyone is not Apple should trust this question.

• Reference Dell R520 slow performance hard drive with 6 x 600 GB SAS 15 K

  Hello

  We are verry bad writing performance on our R520 with 2012 R2.

  For example, install a VM of R2 2012 will be faster on my home computer on this server. As we wanted using this server primarily to see that this is starting to be a real problem.

  All hard drives are in a matrix single raid 5. There are a score of 200 GB for the OS (C:\). and a score of 2, 6 TB of data and the virtual machine (D:\).

  Installation program:
  POWEREDGE R520.
  H310 PERC RAID CONTROLLER
  PERFORMANCE BIOS SETTING
  2 x INTEL XEON E5 - 2430 V2 2.50 GHZ
  4 x 16GB RDIMMS, 1600 MHZ
  6 x 600GB, SAS 6GBPS, 3.5-INCH, 15K rpm

  
  

  Thanks in advance and I apologize for my bad English.

  Consider upgrading your controller RAID for a H710. The H310 is a low range controller and your bottleneck.

• Integration of GST with CUCM

  Hello

  I have deployed telepresence Server version 4.1 (2.33) using 8 cores Telepresence Server.

  I configured the SIP Trunk and routing model in call manager version 10.5 and screen and VM licensing activation to the TPS to loading. In addition, NTP is synchronized in GST and configuration in settings SIP in GST under the Configuration TAB.

  All the endpoints are able to call each other, but when I'm not model dial of routing.

  But I'm not able to make the solution work.

  Please advice if any configuration is more necessary.

  regds,

  Aman

  Hi Aman,

  You have deployed telepresence behind the driver Server? You must set the trunk in the AAU to point to the trunk of a conductor the vTPS cannot be used directly with the University Complutense of MADRID, because it only supports «managed remote» mode Fortunately, you can use a VM driver free to manage a single TPS.

  http://www.Cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/TD/docs/Telepresence/infrastructure/con...

  Kind regards

  James

• Cannot perform a backup with Backup and Restore (Windows 7) error 0 x 8100019

  I was able to run a backup on one of my other external hard drives-, but he did not have a sufficient space to manage the size of the backup that I specified. I recently bought a 3 TB hard drive to store a backup copy of my 1 TB hard drive Dell XPS 8300, and now I get error 0 x 8100019. I'm not the most technically inclined, reading in the nets of the past is like trying to read Sanskrit. I wonder if anyone has found a definitive solution to this problem, given that most of the answers seem to contradict one another?

  Hello IanGC,

  Look at the thread below to help with the backup error 0 x 8100019:
  http://answers.Microsoft.com/en-us/Windows/Forum/Windows_7-performance/error-code-0x81000019-when-trying-to-run-backup/f82e9738-21cb-4801-AB14-9df74a17ab29

  It is a solution that is useful. Please let us know if that helps in your situation.

  Thank you

  Marilyn

• Slow performance of Lightroom with the graphics acceleration enabled

  : Monitor 1440 p 21:9
  CPU: i7 - 5820 K 4.1 GHz
  GPU: GTX 980 Ti
  Memory: 16 GB DDR4 @ 2133 MHz

  When I activate the graphic acceleration in lightroom, things like spotting take literal seconds to respond to a click, but when I turn it off, it's faster than ever. Someone at - it experience of another problem with the installation of similar pc? I know that with screens at low resolution and low pc specifications, this graphic acceleration can hinder performance, but I suffer from these issues at all!

  I suspect that there are some problems with 6.6 and the line GTXxxx.

  Lightroom CC: GPU acceleration cannot be enabled.

  https://forums.Adobe.com/search.jspa?q=GPU+GTX&place=%2Fplaces%2F1383621&depth=all

• Performance is worse with the GPU acceleration that without

  I have a Windows 7 system fast, i7 980 X processor with a monitor @ 2560 x 1440 pixels. As a photographer, I'm processing of thousands of photos and my PC can not be fast enough, so I thought that I invest a little in a new graphics card. OK, I have not bought a Quadro, but with GTX 970 from Nvidia, I always feel a modern, fast, with a value of more than $ 400 map.

  My first experiences after the installation of the new graphics card are more then disappointing - a lot is worse, running without any GPU acceleration. Before, I could scroll an image to the image almost no imperceptible lag. With the GPU acceleration turned on, each image must be "rendered" first first you get a blurry picture of Pexelated / of complitely and flackers of color shortly, then after a while, it becomes more clear. So it seems that with GPU acceleration turned on, Lightroom 6 completely ignores the preview images pre-rendered - FACT IT MAKE any SENSE WHAT? Yes, all the sliders mode develop work faster, but the preview shown instantly image is a false low resolution and it always takes time for an image high resolution to display - as much time, as it should, making it with a CPU.

  For me, it would make sense that next image will be loaded into GPU memory by actually DURATION and rendering the previous image would be preserved in memory as well. Also miss me some detail for the GPU acceleration settings - if it remains at the current level, rudimentary, (for me) the best compromise would be to disable the GPU acceleration to scroll through the photos, but using just to develop sliders.

  I would want guus at Adobe to improve the product real, not just marketing slogans on the improvement of performance!

  kirillxxx wrote:

  . My suggestion is simple enough - if the guys at Adobe can not program properly, the easiest would be (to make an option) to disable the GPU acceleration for image swithiching and just take his profit for the developer sliders.

  You can not simply switch off to change the image. The image * should be loaded into the GPU, which is where the delay comes from. Even though you might think about what would happen: of course the image would change quickly, but then you would still wait before you can deal with.

  For now the acceleration GPU in LR is very it is childhood: things first generation, and we are all good enough beta testers.

  Some people are lucky: they love him and have no problem.

  Some people are out of luck: it causes nothing but problems.

  Some people like me are sitting on the fence: we have mixed experiences.

  I don't think you threw $400, at some point (I live in optimism) questions will be fixed and LR will work on your system. He just had to wait. Isn't is funny, but you only need to take a casual look at any photography forum to see that there are problems with GPU acceleration and now is not the time to buy the latest and greatest card.

  I've personally held off buying a new card to replace my aging one until I see that there is zero chance of all the problems of proof.

• View performance 5.1 with double screen problems.

  Hardware version 8 esxi 5.0.0 updated 1 and vmware agent and his client to version 5.1 with a monitor everything is fine, but with 2 keyboard lock sporadically and performance for video is incompatible with some severe lag spikes.   If we remove the second monitor, its all back to normal.      It's linked clones and win7 desktop computers.

  If you can, try with a v7 hw machine, saw some problems that could to point to beeing v8 hw problem reported.

  In any case, you should contact VMware support and report it to so we can fix it if it's a bug.

  Linjo

• Huge performance in managed with InitialLOBFetchSize-1 provider problem?

  Hello

  I'm testing the fully managed ODP.NET and noticed a performance problem serious if I set the property OracleCommand.InitialLOBFetchSize - 1.

  Is the result of a small test program that runs just "select * from table where rownum < = 5000 ' on a table with 20 columns where 7 of these columns are CLOB with different values for InitialLOBFetchSize:

  Native with 0: 11.277 s

  Managed with 0: 10.357 s

  Native with 5120: 5.182 s (1.235 s if the OracleCommand.FetchSize is increased to 1 MB)
  

  Managed with 5120: 0.568 s

  Native with - 1: 0.156 s

  Managed with-1: 122.416 s

  (Note: with "natives", I mean the only partly managed ODP.NET.)

  These results are completely reproducible with only minor differences. The OracleCommand.FetchSize property seems only to have a significant effect on the native provider and again only for positive values of InitialLOBFetchSize.

  It's very nice that the managed provider is faster with an initial size of extraction 5KO LOB, but what is the problem with-1? Can someone explain this? Maybe a bug?

  With the help of a performance profiler I see that all this time is used in OracleDataReader.Read () waiting for a network operation to complete (no CPU usage): screenshot

  Server: Oracle Database 11 g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.3.0 - 64 bit Production

  Native client: 11.2.0.3 32-bit Patch 22

  Managed client: 4.121.1.0 nuget (I know that this is not an official source, but I don't want to download the full client just for Assembly of 6 MB)

  Application console .NET 4.0 x 86

  Yes, the solution is in ODAC 12 c R2. Field "Corrected Version" of bugs contains the next major version or the Group of hotfixes in that the fix will appear.

  It's possible corrections appear earlier, as in the next ODAC, Oracle patch or one-time fix. Usually, this is followed in the field of related bugs. In bug 17263955, you'll see a related bug 17709236 indicated. Bug 17709236 indicates a backport has been done for the ODAC next release.

• Performance of BI with warehouse data or data warehouse.

  Hi gurus,
  
  Anyone here have a document or presentation to compare a BI performance which is implemented with the warehouse database or data warehouse?
  
  Appreciate your help :)

  You need to come to a conclusion of performance tests.

  The query can also have different points of view;

  1 compare the performance on obtaining data directly from the source systems against obtaining data accumulated in a single database.
  2. by comparing the performance on obtaining data from a standard model against data from a dimensional model.

  In most cases; getting data from data warehouses should give better performance since then.
  Data warehouses allocate more resources toward BI systems.
  Source systems serve much purpose other than BI systems; If resources are shared.
  In a data warehouse for data sets are already in the same place, reducing the latency of the network.
  Data warehouse stores summary information.
  Data warehouses are implemented with three-dimensional models which serves best for the BI queries.

• Bad Performance of host with workstation 6.5 OS

  We evaluate the virtual machine software and that you have installed VMware Workstation on our computer to test against Parallels and Virtual PC.  We already have Virtual PC on a computer that is different, but the same with good results with the exception of access to video drivers and other issues.

  We installed Vmware, installed XP32 as the guest operating system and a severe slowdown on the host operating system.  It is at the point of use.  However, we do not see that all resources are used, there is time to RAM and processor available and disk access seems fine.  Someone give me a clue as why performance is so bad.  Computer form below

  Dell Latitude D820

  2.0 Intel CD

  4 GB of RAM

  HARD 250 GB sata 7200 RPM drive

  Broadcom NetExtreme 57xx Gigabit controller

  I put the OS to use 2 processors, 2 GB of RAM and HDD to 25 invited GB and bridged networking.

  When I start the VM it disconnects me from the network on the host.  Should I switch to NAT?

  Thank you

  with the appropriate settings and a guest with 1 600 MB of vRAM less this 1600 MB can be located entirely in real RAM memory

  a virtual machine with nominal 2400 MB of vRAM may however use real RAM 300 Mo while the rest 2100 MB are toggled to a memory file.

  Guess what is faster...

  This limitation has nothing to do with these limitations, you mentioned. It is a remnant of older versions of workstation where the max RAM amount for a guest was 1600 MB.

  Earlier versions always fully allocated real vRAM in RAM

  ___________________________________

  VMX-settings- VMware-liveCD - VM-infirmary