Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
there can be other things, not only the ram. it looks acceptable. you may also have a lot of [defunct] processes, network or hark disk problem. Maybe /tmp is almost full...
there can be other things, not only the ram. it looks acceptable. you may also have a lot of [defunct] processes, network or hark disk problem. Maybe /tmp is almost full...
That could be the reason, what should I do?
Code:
[root@mail tmp]# df -h /tmp
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00
901G 338G 517G 40% /
[root@mail tmp]# du -sh /tmp
124K /tmp
My server shows the following amount of RAM and is running really slow. Do you think I should add some RAM to it?
Based on the info you posted, it is very unlikely that adding ram would noticeably improve the performance of that system.
Finding out why a computer is slow can be very difficult. First you need a good understanding of what you mean by "running really slow". What did you measure or observe? What activity took longer than you think it should have?
Memory and swap look good. That's not the source of the problem.
What is the load average on your system? Post the output of the "uptime" command to display this. Obtain this load average data when your system is running slow, not when it's running OK. We also need to know how many CPU's/cores your system has, to interpret the load average numbers. Get the number of CPU's/cores like this: "cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep processor | wc -l"
It's also sometimes helpful to know how many processes are running on your system, to see if it's way out of the norm. Post the output of "ps -e | wc -l"
Memory and swap look good. That's not the source of the problem.
What is the load average on your system? Post the output of the "uptime" command to display this. Obtain this load average data when your system is running slow, not when it's running OK. We also need to know how many CPU's/cores your system has, to interpret the load average numbers. Get the number of CPU's/cores like this: "cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep processor | wc -l"
Load averages of 0.3 on a four core CPU are inconsequential. Your system is not even breathing hard. 194 processes is nothing either. All of this output you have posted so far looks good. Nothing I would be the slightest bit concerned about
but your system is still running slow. Can you describe what you mean by "slow"? For example, are characters not echoing back in a timely manner when you type on the command line? Is the system slow to boot? Can you give an example of a common process that is taking "too long", and how long that is taking?
Thanks, by slow I mean the Zimbra mail server responds very slowly to my users. It takes a long time for the user to be able to open, delete the email. I heard Zimbra might have a problem with JAVA.
Thus far, I don't see anything at the system level that would account for slow performance. One thing we haven't investigated yet is disk access performance. This could be an issue if Zimbra uses a relational database for storage (I don't know anything about Zimbra). But generically speaking, databases can put demands on disk access if they are heavily used. However, with the number of network connections you listed, I'm not sure you qualify as "heavily used". That "netstat -an | wc -l" returns an artificially high number... it includes UDP as well as TCP, ESTABLISHED connections, LISTEN'ers, TIME_WAIT connections, etc. So the returned number is much higher than the true network activity we need to be concerned with. I was just using it for an estimate, a ballpark figure that I could easily cut in half (or more).
I would start investigating the application itself. Maybe there is some config setting where you can specify the max number of simultaneous network connections allowed. If you have more users coming in simultaneously than Zimbra is configured to handle, large delays could be a result. That's just a guess on my part, because I have seen this type of problem with other applications that are configured with lower resources than they need to do their jobs. Since you mentioned Java, is there a setting where you can specify how much memory it is allowed to use? Could be that while your server has plenty of memory at the system level, there is not enough memory being allocated to some java process at the application level. Java is a giant pig when it comes to resource usage.
At this point, I think your issue is at the application level, not the server level. I hope some other folks will respond to this thread. Some who might be familiar with this Zimbra software you are using. I am only able to give you generic advice based on my experience, and I've pretty much exhausted that.
Distribution: Debian /Jessie/Stretch/Sid, Linux Mint DE
Posts: 5,195
Rep:
A sign of too slow disk access is a high percentage of %wa in top. (Third line from the top). If this percentage is is high then either the disk is slowing down response, or the network is. This percentage indicates "waiting for I/O"
What is high? I noticed that when it is more than 10% for 10-20 seconds the machine feels slow and there might be a disk problem. If someone has better figures, please post.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.