The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Sorry to put this in the lounge. Couldn't find a better forum. (I didn't believe the beta testing forum counts for what I want to know )
I did some load testing with VS2010 Ultimate. During the tests it gave some warning treshholds and some critical treshholds for some counters, but when I read up on those counters I'm still not sure what it might mean.
From MSDN: % Time in Jit
Displays the percentage of elapsed time spent in JIT compilation since the last JIT compilation phase. This counter is updated at the end of every JIT compilation phase. A JIT compilation phase occurs when a method and its dependencies are compiled.
% Time in RT checks
Displays the percentage of elapsed time spent performing runtime code access security checks since the last sample. This counter is updated at the end of a .NET Framework security check. It is not an average; it represents the last observed value.
based on the description I would say that the framework is taking too long to translate the IL to machine code, but what could be the reason? Bad code, bad .Net installation? It is a sharepoint and it seems to use partially .Net 2.0 (in 3.5 installation) and .Net 3.5 could that be an issue? The web serves was a Virtual Machine ?
Also the avg page time in seconds indicates very high levels, like 180 seconds in some cases in high load (250 users), but even at low levels I still have values up to 68 seconds. This does mean that that page took 68 seconds to load? That seems very high for a load of 50 users.
If you can explain some of these things or have some good links, that would be of great help.
Thanks, Chris! I've lived in terror all the while the link was so close to the log out link. Once upon a time, many moons and beers ago, I recall a message that said, in effect, "click Logout to delete your account." I may have misunderstood the message, or that may be the way you really implemented the site at the time - I don't know. But I haven't logged out of this site in 11 years because of it. Thanks for reducing my paranoia, at last...
Thankfully on all the machines I use I have a link direct to the Lounge from the navigation bar, I have to go bat Bob to get to the from page!
I love how CP has these constant subtle changes (it only moved over a little to accommodate the search) that seem reasonable. Not like some STUPID, FRIGGIN, PEA BRAINED, IDIOT who moved the show desktop over to the right on the task bar.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
Then, you can add it to your task bar in a custom toolbar.
It doesn't remove the other button, but it gives you another option. You are also able to disable the 'Peek' function of the button (where you hover over it to see your desktop) in the Start Menu options properties panel. Edit: Bottom of the panel, called Aero Peek
I wouldn't be surprised. Though some might have it that the first words on the Internet were, " Mr. Watson--come here--I want to see you."
As a footnote, the first email was sent in 1971 from Ray Tomlinson from himself to himself, from one computer to another sitting next to it in the same room. By the time I entered the workforce in 1975, we were having "terminal wars" in the office on a minicomputer, sending messages between dumb terminals to lock the keyboards of coworkers using too much processor time. There was still no email as we know it, but the technology was there to implement it, if any of us had thought it useful.
Networking was still a pipedream, as there were no routers or switches, nor even hubs. Every connection required a custom connection - physical and virtual - and connecting computers of different product lines from the same manufacturer was considered impossible. I spent a lot of time on the phone with a smart kid named Peter Norton in Loveland, CO working to connect a HP 9825 desktop computer to a MX2100 minicomputer, as the division that made the minicomputers wouldn't talk to me, said it was impossible. We got it working, and it saved us a bundle! Interesting times...