win1 periodically slow

[riley]

Yash,
I check my sites regularly throughout the day and they usually seem fine. However, as I was reviewing my log files tonight, I noticed that sometimes the server is slow (15 seconds or more). For the most part, things are good, but once in a while I see these slow-downs in the log files. There doesn't seem to be any emergency here. In fact I haven't experienced any problem myself; I've just seen it in the log files. But the last time things slowed down, you said I should report it right away -- so there ya go. By the way, my sites are not using MS-SQL, so this is not lag to the sql server.

riley

 

[Yash]

Could you tell me around what times this happened?

Also, we plan to upgade Win1, Win2 and win4 to dual processor, dual SCSI machines within the next week. We are working on our upgrade plans so that would put a permanent end to the periodical slowness customers may be experiencing on these servers

Win5 and Win6 are our new servers (where new customers are being signed onto) and they are handling great. They are dual processor, dual SCSIs. If you want to be shifted to Win5 or Win6 immediately, open a ticket. if you'd prefer to wait, no problem

 

[riley]

Could you tell me around what times this happened?

Here are a few samples from today's log files (note, I have removed a bunch of fields and just included a description of the resource being served):

date time-GMT (resource) sc-bytes cs-bytes time-taken
2004-03-31 03:56:58 (13k gif) 13565 377 12625
2004-03-31 03:57:31 (36k jpg) 36506 379 26093
2004-03-31 03:56:45 (6k .css) 6196 376 3375
2004-03-31 20:32:56 (14k aspx) 14408 369 3031
2004-03-31 20:33:45 (2k .css) 2048 364 49843
2004-03-31 20:34:15 (2k .gif) 2048 365 79265

Please note that the vast majority of times in my logs are less than 1 second and performance is fine. As I stated, this only happens once in a while.

Also, we plan to upgade Win1, Win2 and win4 to dual processor, dual SCSI machines within the next week. We are working on our upgrade plans so that would put a permanent end to the periodical slowness customers may be experiencing on these servers

This sounds great. Are you planning to downgrade these servers to 2000, or will you keep them on 2003?

Win5 and Win6 are our new servers (where new customers are being signed onto) and they are handling great. They are dual processor, dual SCSIs. If you want to be shifted to Win5 or Win6 immediately, open a ticket. if you'd prefer to wait, no problem

Based on what you have planned for win1, I think I'd rather wait. In fact, what effect, if any, does the upgrade to Win1, Win2 and win4 have on the plans to migrate all sites to win5 and win6?

riley

 

[Yash]

With the hardware upgrade, we will also be downgrading to win2000 because its been much more stable and reliable for us

You won't lose any features.

 

[riley]

With the hardware upgrade, we will also be downgrading to win2000 because its been much more stable and reliable for us

You won't lose any features.

I wasn't worried. Win2000 worked fine for me before and Win2003 seems to be working fine for me now. I'm not really concerned; I was just curious.

riley

 

[Yash]

ASP sessions are still expiring prematurely on the Win2003 machines
Also, there are stability issues with ODBC/JET/Win20003 which Microsoft has no answers for yet

 

[riley]

ASP sessions are still expiring prematurely on the Win2003 machines
Also, there are stability issues with ODBC/JET/Win20003 which Microsoft has no answers for yet

I use session variables in limited areas of my sites, but have not encountered any problems. Perhaps I've been lucky.

I am still wondering about my last question though: does the fact that you are upgrading the hardware and downgrading the software on win1, win2 and win4 mean that you are not going to migrate all sites to win5 and win6? If that's the case, I don't have a problem with that, as all the servers would be pretty much the same (aside from the connection to the sql server).

riley

 

[riley]

Win1 is doing it again (sometimes). This is from the logfile:

Date Time(GMT) cs-uri-stem sc-bytes cs-bytes time-taken
2004-04-01 18:57:12 /index.aspx 7554 363 22062

This was about a half hour ago. It seems fine now, but the transaction in question is a simple aspx page that does not access any database, does very little processing, and took over 22 seconds.

Thanks,
riley

 

[Yash]

ok, we are monitoring this server..

 

[Logan]

Date Time(GMT) cs-uri-stem sc-bytes cs-bytes time-taken
2004-04-01 18:57:12 /index.aspx 7554 363 22062

...and took over 22 seconds.

So "22062" from the log file is 22 seconds?

 

[riley]

So "22062" from the log file is 22 seconds?

22062 milliseconds, or 22 seconds and 62 milliseconds. Most of my log entries are in the 062 range, which is 62 milliseconds (sub second).

riley

 

[Logan]

22062 milliseconds, or 22 seconds and 62 milliseconds. Most of my log entries are in the 062 range, which is 62 milliseconds (sub second).

Thanks. I never checked my log files for this. I'll have to check this out.

 

[riley]

Yash,
After checking my sites periodically throughout the day and examining the log files tonight, I found that there were no slowdowns and performance was excellent .

I don't know what you guys did, but Win1 was running great today (Friday).

riley

 

[yorri]

I was noticing this yesterday but it was temporary. I didn't bother mentioning it because it fixed itself after a while. I wasn't happy but it didn't last long so it was acceptible (knowing that we will be migrating back to 2000 where I never had these sorts of problems).

 

[riley]

I was noticing this yesterday but it was temporary. I didn't bother mentioning it because it fixed itself after a while. I wasn't happy but it didn't last long so it was acceptible (knowing that we will be migrating back to 2000 where I never had these sorts of problems).

You're right yorri. I noticed some rather long times in my logs from yesterday, but it was temporary and I decided to let it go.

riley