separated helpdesk from inventory, yet helpdesk is slower?

 hi there,

 i had spiceworks running on a cheap acer pc, dual core, 2gb ram. it ran ok, but we were still having to wait for it when using helpdesk, so i bought a new server, it's got a faster cpu (still dual core, but higher clock speed, i realize spiceworks only uses one core), same ram, faster disk etc...
 
 i left the inventorying part of spiceworks on the old server and installed a fresh copy of spiceworks on this new server, restored the database, and from day one, the helpdesk is actually slower then it was before, when i open a ticket it sits there with the "loading" text going round and round and eventually displaying the ticket.
 
 i know there are suggestions on speeding up spiceworks, clearing the logs etc.. but this is a fresh install, and is slower then it was before.

 does anyone have any ideas on what could be going on? i also noticed that spiceworks.exe uses 100% utilization of one of the cores quite often, occasionally dipping down, then right back up.
 
 thanks to any responses :)
http://community.spiceworks.com/help/how\_do\_i\_send\_spiceworks\_my\_log\_files%3f
hi, 
  
we did try following: 
  
1. update java to the latest version 
this didn't affect the cpu or ram consumption. 
  
2. assign more ram for java, we found on other forums that high pcu consumption was caused by lack of memory. 
this didn't affect the cpu consumption neither 
  
3. change the port for connector from 8443 to to save resources for port redirection. 
the cpu consumption for the redirection is so low that it didn't change either 
  
4. try to disable autodeploy and do it manually 
we couldn't do this as the concerned era is allready in production 
  
5. do you have issues with http traffic as well or just with https? 
as we are working on security, there is just no http at all ! (disabled in tomcat) 
  
  
but we found out that regarding the place from which we did connect (and the available bandwith) it did impact the behavior. 
whith a good bandwith: the page loads in something as 10 to 15 seconds and cpu load doesn't go at 100% or just for the few last seconds 
whith a bad bandwith: the page takes 1 to 3 minutes to load and cpu consumption goes to 100% (over several cores) after the 10 first seconds (just like a memory leak but with cpu). 
  
we don't get why but the longer it takes for the client's side (browser) to load the app, how more cpu is consumes on server... after updating to home assistant core 0.107.5 this issues seems to have resolved. it’s been working properly for a few days now. have added psu to above post. (i added specs because i knew someone would ask. however i think it's a software issue.)

unlikely that it's the psu.

the current psu is a hx750i, and the previous psu was a hx650i. swapped over a year ago at least. this is a recent issue.


good, a lot of times this is the psu. but with an excellent unit, that's far less likely.

were you monitoring temperatures at the time? was there something specific you were doing similar in both times? really intermittent things can be hard to nail down. hey [@fastwayjim](/forum/u/fastwayjim)

i could reproduce the behavior. of course this should not be the case. when you start a job first the data needed for the computation is processed before being transferred to a computation instance. if there is no instance available a new one has to be started and your job gets into… generally the performance of a new generation of "supporting" equipment does not have a huge affect on the true performance. gddr6 is better, but it is not the only reason the super varient is going to be faster. same with pcie generations, and regular ddr3/4 ram. pcie gen 3 is not saturated, so gen 4 should not be a deciding factor (yet). ddr3 is worse than ddr4, but the performance change is seen when comparing the cpus directly, not in the ram alone. for both gpu and cpu, the ram will affect the performance, but not on its own. the rest of the part needs to be able to take advantage of the upgraded ram.

you can just compare the raw performance numbers of those two gpus, like benchmark fps in games, and use that to decide if you want to spend the extra $130 for the better gpu. you do not have to particularly worry about the supporting specs, like gddr5/6, cuda core count, or even base clock speed, because these differences will be reflected in the performance changes as a whole, so you do not have to compare those specific differences. certain models of gpu might be clocked faster, and will perform better, but you compare those models to the same gpu in stock form. ie, not 1650 vs 1650 super at higher clock, you would compare the base speed 1650 super to an upgraded 1650 super, to see how the clock speed boost changes the performance of the card over its stock clocks.

tl: dr, dont bother with the details too much, just use benchmarks/average fps to decide if the extra performance is worth the extra money. thank you for taking interest in my post.

i have solved the problem.it was mistake from my own part.

i have disabled some of the hardware detection services before the update.

i have disabled the "device install service" on the windows service

[[asas]](https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/arduino/original/4x/5/0/9/509934b6660953c4e848dc95f40efd35d02bfe60.png "asas")

renabling it and rebooting it solved the … this is a terrific question and i am glad you asked it.  as i am only in the beginning stages of planning to implement this here (it has not been a requirement yet, but will be soon), i can only add some preliminary thoughts to yours:

microsoft should bold, underline, highlight, and add 50 exclamation points to that statement about keeping queues to a minimum.  the performance hit is staggering, if your system has a high number of concurrent users.  you probably won't notice it in your dev or test environments if there aren't many simultaneous testers, however.

so in the spirit of getting the most protection from the fewest number of queues, i am asking some of the following questions:
* is it sufficient to classify ticket data along the lines of "sensitive, private, privileged" or some other such division, so that i could only create queues based on the sensitivity level of information, and not have to split it further by department/team/function/etc.?  this is a business question that will vary for everyone, of course.
* if the above is possible, i can add a classification enum to the tickets and develop a procedure for which should be selected, and base the queue on its value.  if it is not, or if my ticket category or support team already tells me what i need to know, then this is not even necessary.
* if data sensitivity is not a viable way to divide queues, then do i have certain support groups that need a queue, and all others would not belong to a queue?

in any scenario i have described or implied, this means that (most) teams can see each others' tickets.  this is not a problem for me in this environment, but might be for others.  as long as i wrap a queue around the most sensitive tickets, i do not mind if the rest are out in the open.

again, i have not proven these thoughts in production yet, but hopefully it helps to some degree. ha, instead of updating it, i reinstalled the entire package and it’s all working fine now! sorry for the faff. sorry i took so long to respond on this post. i’ve had a busy week! so i found the issue. in my template for endpoints i realized i accidentally set them to provision using the external ip address of my pbx. changed it to internal and this fixed my issues :stuck\_out\_tongue: neither of them. much higher specs than you actually need. core i3 with 8 gb ddr ram and an ssd hd all for less than $500 should be more than enough for your uses.