Search Results

Search found 4580 results on 184 pages for 'faster'.

Page 135/184 | < Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >

• Best CPUs for speeding up compiling times of C++ w/ DistGCC

  - by Jay

  I'm putting together a distributed build farm with DistGCC to speed up our teams compile times and just looking for thoughts on which processors to use in the hosts. Are we going to get a noticeable decrease in time using 8 cores vs. 4-hyperthreaded cores? Big difference in time between i7 and Xeon? etc, etc. Just need advice from people who've put together kick-a build clusters. We've got a majority of the normal things to speed up builds in place (pre-compiled headers, ccache, local gigabit connections between them, tons of ram, etc) so please just give advice on the best processor to use. And money is a factor, but anythings doable if the performance increase is noticeable. Thanks. Jay EDIT: Although any advice IS welcome, please refrain from "Do this first" posts as we're not planning on skimping on things like SSD, maxed out RAM, etc. My personal system is a iMac Quad-core i5 with 8GB of RAM. When I build our project locally, my processor floats around 99-100% a majority of the time, which makes me assume it is a bottleneck, even if you made everything else faster. My ram on the other hand doesn't even get close to maxing out. It's also worth noting that I did research this, however every discussion I could find was primarily for gaming machines, which is obviously a different beast in usage. These machines won't even have monitors or anything but integrated graphics since they have one purpose: Build freakin fast. (hopefully)

  Read the article

• Migrating mysql 4 to mysql 5

  - by Lennart Regebro

  This seems to me to be a common use case, so I'm surprised so little information is about it, so sorry if it's a duplicate, but I have searched. :) I'm migrating a clients website from one CMS to another, and of moving to newer faster machines all at the same time. As a part of this I'm moving a MySQL database from the old server to the new ones. The problem is that the old server runs MySQL 4 and the new MySQL 5. So when i do a mysqldump at the old site and then try to run it on the new site I get syntax errors. ERROR 1064 (42000) at line 178: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'BTREE (`id`), KEY `f_ChangedOnWeb` (`f_ChangedOnWeb`), KEY `f_AddressUpdate`' at line 56 I also tried to use an even older syntax by dumping with --compatible mysql323, but that just resulted in ERROR 1062 (23000) at line 2283: Duplicate entry '??????????' for key 2`... It seems to me this must be a reasonably common use case, yet I can't find any sort of help on this. Possibly all my Google searches just drown in irrelevant answers. Most seem to agree that mysqldump is the right answer, but noone mentions that you can get syntax errors...

  Read the article

• Limiting bandwith on an Windows 7 machine

  - by Mihai Damian

  I need to limit the bandwidth on my Windows 7 x64 machine. In the past (on XP) I've been able to use NetLimiter for similar tasks. However for some reason I can't get it to work anymore. For lower limits the bandwidth tests are able to exceed the limit by 10-50%; higher limits seem to be ignored completely and the bandwidth tests report download speeds of over 10 times the speed I set. I'm using speedtest.net and some similar service from my ISP for these tests. Anyway, I don't necessarily need a program as complex as NetLimiter since I only need to throttle my machine's bandwidth, not a specific program's. In case you are wondering why in the world I'd want to cripple my Internet speed, there is a funny story behind this. Long story short, my modem gets random disconnects. Tech support comes in, says my Internet speed is abnormally high and I must be using some tools to somehow make it go faster than it's supposed to and this messes up my modem. I check the connection with another computer and it seems that my PC is the only one in my network that gets abnormal speeds. I reinstall my OS, speed looks normal at first, after I install the batch of 50 or so updates, it goes back to abnormally high speeds and the disconnect problems are not solved. Now I don't have a clue if the explanation the tech team gave me was just a strategy to lay the blame on someone else, but I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens if I really reduce my speed to their specification. Any help appreciated.

  Read the article

• 32 core (each physical core) 2.2 GhZ or 12 core (6 physical cores) 3.0GHZ?

  - by Tejaswi Rana

  I am working on a multithreaded application (Forex trading app built on C#) and had the client upgrade from the 12 core 3.0GHZ machine (Intel) to a 32 core 2.2 Ghz machine (AMD). The PassMark benchmark results were significantly higher when using multicores doing Integer, Floating and other calculations while for a single core calculation it was a bit slower than the pack (others that were being compared to with similar config as the 12 core one). Oh it also comes with 64 GB RAM (4 times as the other one) and a much faster SSD. So after configuring and running the application on that machine, not only did it not perform as well, it was significantly slower. We're talking about 30seconds - 1 minute slower on an app that usually completes processing within 5-20 secs. The application uses MAX DEGREE of PARALLELISM (TPL) which I've tried setting to number of cores and also half of that. I've also tried running single threaded and without setting any limits in parallel threading. While it may be the hardware has some issues, I am wondering if the CPU processing speed is the issue. I can overclock to 3.0 GHZ. But is that even a good idea? Server Info - AMD http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?4013-AMD-Dual-6272-performance-is-60-lower-than-benchmarks Seems that benchmark was wrong to start with - officially. Intel i7 3930k OS (same in both) Windows 7 Professional 64-bit

  Read the article

• On Windows and Windows 7's Task Manager, why Memory is 1118MB Available but only 62MB Free? [closed]

  - by Jian Lin

  Possible Duplicate: Windows 7 memory usage What are the "Cached", "Available", and "Free" memory in the following picture (From Windows 7's Task Manager). If it is 1118MB Available, then why isn't it Free (to use)? As I understand it, if a bowl of noodle is available, that doesn't mean it is free... it may still cost $7. But what about in the Task Manager, when it is Available, it is also not Free? Does it cost $2 per MB? What about the "Cached"... What exactly is the Cached Memory? We may put some hard disk data in RAM and so we cache the data in RAM, for faster access (that's the operating system's job). So the Total Physical RAM is 6GB, what is the 1106 Cached? Cached in where? Caching physical RAM in ... some where? It is also strange that the Cached value is sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the Available value. Can somebody who is knowledgeable about this shred some light on these meanings?

  Read the article

• MySQL /G output

  - by conandor

  I ran mysql query as below on a non-partition table mysql> use test31 Reading table information for completion of table and column names You can turn off this feature to get a quicker startup with -A Database changed mysql> explain partitions SELECT * FROM my_friends WHERE (requestor = '1234567890' OR contact = '1234567890') AND status = 1 ORDER BY request_id DESC LIMIT 0,100\G *************************** 1. row *************************** id: 1 select_type: SIMPLE table: my_friends partitions: NULL type: index_merge possible_keys: friend_index,requestor,contact key: friend_index,contact key_len: 17,17 ref: NULL rows: 2 Extra: Using sort_union(friend_index,contact); Using where; Using filesort 1 row in set (0.00 sec) on a partition table mysql> explain partitions SELECT * FROM my_friends WHERE (requestor = '1234567890' OR contact = '1234567890') AND status = 1 ORDER BY request_id DESC LIMIT 0,100\G *************************** 1. row *************************** id: 1 select_type: SIMPLE table: my_friends partitions: p1_p1sp0,p1_p1sp1,p1_p1sp2,p1_p1sp3,p1_p1sp4,p1_p1sp5,p1_p1sp6,p1_p1sp7,p1_p1sp8,p1_p1sp9,p1_p1sp10,p1_p1sp11,p1_p1sp12,p1_p1sp13,p1_p1sp14,p1_p1sp15,p1_p1sp16,p1_p1sp17,p1_p1sp18,p1_p1sp19,p1_p1sp20,p1_p1sp21,p1_p1sp22,p1_p1sp23,p1_p1sp24,p1_p1sp25,p1_p1sp26,p1_p1sp27,p1_p1sp28,p1_p1sp29 type: index_merge possible_keys: friend_index,requestor,contact key: friend_index,contact key_len: 17,17 ref: NULL rows: 60 Extra: Using sort_union(friend_index,contact); Using where; Using filesort 1 row in set (0.01 sec) What does the "rows" mean? less rows is more faster query?

  Read the article

• How quickly toggle smart quotes in Word 2010?

  - by KnowItAllWannabe

  I'm working on a long technical document that contains numerous displays of computer code. In running text, I want my quotation marks to be curly, which means that Word's "smart quotes" autoformatting-as-I-type feature is one I want on. But in code displays, curly quotes are incorrect, so in these cases, I want smart-quotes-as-I-type disabled. Is there a fast way to toggle this setting? Or is there a way I can tie it to the paragraph style I'm in? (I use a distinct style for code displays.) Currently, to toggle the setting, I have to click FileOptionsProofingAutoCorrect Options..."Straight quotes" with "smart quotes"OKOK, which is seven mouse clicks. Toggling it back is another seven mouse clicks. Isn't there a faster way? A keyhboard shortcut to do the toggling or a toolbar button that would toggle it with a single click would be great. Having the setting depend on the paragraph style I was in would be even better.

  Read the article

• Slow parity initialization of RAID-5 array on HP Smart Array 411 controller

  - by Rob Nicholson

  On 29th October 2011, I built a RAID-5 array using 4 x 146.8GB Seagate SAS ST3146855SS drives running at 15k connected to a PowerEdge R515 with HP Smart Array P411 controller running Windows 2008 (so nothing particularly unusual). I know that parity initialisation of a RAID-5 array can take some time but it's still running after 2.5 weeks which seems a little unusual. I'd previously built another array on the same controller using 4 x 2TB SATA-2 drives and that did take a while to complete but a) I'm sure it was less than 2.5 weeks, b) that array was ~12 times bigger and c) during initialization, the percentrage slowly increased each day. At the moment, the status display for this new 2nd array simply says "Parity Initialization Status: In Progress" and it's said that since the start. It's this lack of change on the status that worries me the most - feels like it's not actually doing anything. Do you think something has gone wrong or am I being unpatient and for some reason, the status not increasing is normal? I kind of expected a much smaller array on faster drives (15k SAS versus 7.5k SATA-2) to build in a few days. This is our primary SAN running StarWind so my "have a play" options are very limited. This 2nd array is currently in use for one small virtual disk so I could shut the target machine down, move the virtual disk to another drive and try rebuilding.

  Read the article

• Comparing Nginx+PHP-FPM to Apache-mod_php

  - by Rushi

  I'm running Drupal and trying to figure out the best stack to serve it. Apache + mod_php or Nginx + PHP-FPM I used ApacheBench (ab) and Siege to test both setups and I'm seeing Apache performing better. This surprises me a little bit since I've heard a lot of good things about Nginx + PHP-FPM. My current Nginx setup is something that is a bit out of the box, and the same goes for PHP-FPM What optimizations I can make to speed up the Nginx + PHP-FPM combo over Apache and mo_php ? In my tests using ab, Apache is outperforming Nginx significantly (higher requets/second and finishing tests much faster) I've googled around a bit, but since I've never using Nginx, PHP-FPM or FastCGI, I don't exactly know where to start PHP v5.2.13, Drupal v6, latest PHP-FPM and Nginx compiled from source. Apache v2.0.63 ApacheBench Nginx + PHP-FPM Server Software: nginx/0.7.67 Server Hostname: test2.com Server Port: 80 Concurrency Level: 25 ---> Time taken for tests: 158.510008 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 ---> Requests per second: 6.31 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 3962.750 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 158.510 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 181.38 [Kbytes/sec] received ApacheBench Apache using mod_php Server Software: Apache/2.0.63 Server Hostname: test1.com Server Port: 80 Concurrency Level: 25 --> Time taken for tests: 63.556663 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 --> Requests per second: 15.73 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1588.917 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 63.557 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 103.94 [Kbytes/sec] received

  Read the article

• Relax Linux - it's just me! (filesystem permissions)

  - by Xeoncross

  One of my favorite things about Linux is also the most annoying - file system permissions. In production machines and web servers I love how everything is so secure and locked down - but on development machines it really slows me down. I'll give one example out of the many that I discover weekly. Like most people, I dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows so I can continue using the Adobe CS4 suite. I often design web themes and other things while I'm still using windows. Later I'll boot into Ubuntu to take the themes and write the backend PHP for them. After mounting the windows C: drive partition I can copy the template files over so I can begin editing them. However, thanks to Linux desire to protect me I find that after coping the files I end up with a totally locked set of files where even I don't have read-write permissions. So after carful consideration about the tremendous risks that the HTML files pose to me - I chmod them so that I and apache can begin using them. Now given, the chmod process isn't that hard - but after you chmod enough files per day you get sick of doing it. I'm constantly creating, fetch, editing, and removing files from my user, git repos, php, or other random processes. This is a personal development machine after all. Everything changes on a day by day basis. So my question is, how can I get linux to relax about what I'm doing with my HTML/JS/PHP/TXT/SQL/etc. files so that I can work faster without constantly stopping to chmod things? I pinky-promise I won't hack into my account with an HTML file. ;)

  Read the article

• Improving IO with FlashCache

  - by Devator

  I have a server with 2 HDD's (2x 1 TB), running in RAID 1 (SW-RAID). I want to improve IO performance by using flashcache. There are running KVM virtual machines on it, using LVM. Regarding this, I have the following questions: Will this even work? flashcache works for block devices, however these are all virtual machines with their own setup. How much would I expect to increase performance? Most virtual machines run websites and some host games. How big does the SSD needs to be? Would having a bigger SSD increase performance since it's able to cache more files? What happens if the SSD dies? Would flashcache retrieve files from the traditional HDD and I could simply replace the SSD? How much faster would writeback be in comparison with writethrough and writearound? I have no access to a test system unfortunately, so could I install flashcache on a live server without unmounting the the disks? I found a great tutorial here which I would be using.

  Read the article

• MySQL Server Is Slow

  - by user2853965746

  I have two MySQL servers and one was just recently setup. The one I just recently setup is a bit slower than my older one, which kind of bothers me because I don't want my clients to be upset with the speed difference when I launch the new one. The older server runs on Ubuntu (~13.04 I believe) and the new one is on Debian 6. Both servers are 2GB ram, but my newer server is has an SSD, so I thought it might be the same speed if not faster. Anyway, the speed difference isn't too much (both are still under a second, but still noticeable). Whenever I select 50 rows from the user table on my older server (SELECT * FROM users LIMIT 50), I get the results in 0.003 s. There is 100,000+ accounts in that table. Whenever running the same command on the same table with only six dev accounts, it takes 0.069 s. It may not seem like a lot, but it's noticeable when you're used to a fast response. I added skip-name-resolve to the config and it didn't seem to help. Basically I'm asking if anyone knows what can cause a MySQL server to be slow in Debian 6? Should I just drop it and switch to Ubuntu like the older server (I don't think the OS is the problem, but you never know)? The older server is under a lot of use too, it's used a lot for web api's on my website. A lot of connections and stuff, and it still remains fast.

  Read the article

• What speed are Wi-Fi management and control frames sent at?

  - by Bryce Thomas

  There are a bunch of different 802.11 Wi-Fi standards, e.g. 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n etc. that all support different speeds. Wi-Fi frames are generally categorised as one of the following: Data frames - carry the actual application data Control frames - coordinate when its safe to send/reduce collisions Management frames - handle connection discovery/setup/tear down (e.g. AP discovery, association, disassociation) My question is about whether all these frames, and specifically management frames, are transmitted at the fastest supported speed available, or whether certain classes of frames are transmitted at some lowest common denominator speed. I have noticed that when I put an 802.11b/g only device into monitor mode and capture traffic over the air, I still see management frames (e.g. association/disassociation) being transmitted between my phone and AP which are both 802.11n, even though 802.11n has a higher transfer rate. So I am imagining one of two possibilities: My 802.11n phone/AP had to negotiate a slower speed for some reason and that's why I can see their frames on my 802.11b/g monitoring device. Management frames (and perhaps control frames also?) are sent at a lower speed, and it's only data frames that are transmitted faster with newer 802.11 standards. The reason I would like to know which one of these two possibilities (or perhaps a third possibility) is the case is that I want to capture management frames, and need to know whether using an 802.11b/g card is going to lead to me missing some frames sent at higher speeds than the monitoring card can observe. If management frames are indeed sent at a slower rate, then it's all good. If I just happen to be seeing the management frames because my phone/AP have negotiated a slower rate though, then I need to reconsider what card I use for packet capture.

  Read the article

• What does a DHCP-client consider to be the "best" answer?

  - by Nils

  We have training rooms where normally Windows XP is installed (via PXE). The "normal" DNS/DHCP infrastructure are Windows-Servers. The training room has its own VLAN (different from the Windows servers), so there is most propably an IP helper for DHCP requests active on the Cisco router where all PCs from that room are connected to. Now we wanted to convert some of the PCs to Linux instead. The idea was: Put our own Laptop with a DHCP server into the VLAN of the room and override the "normal" DHCP response. The idea was that this should work, since a directly attached DHCP server in that VLAN should have a faster response-time than the "normal" DHCP server located some hops away from that VLAN. It turned out that this did not work. We had to manually release the lease on the original DHCP server to get it working. On the Laptop we did see the client requesting the IP and "our" dhcp was sending NACKs to the Windows IP request, before that we did offer our own response. Old Question: Why did this not work out as expected? What is making the PC regain its old lease? Update 2012-08-08: The regain-issue has been explained in the DHCP-RFC. Now this explains why the PC regains its old lease. Now we do release the IP from the Windows-DHCP-server before giving it another try. Again - the Windows-DHCP-server wins. I suspect that there is some algorithm for the dhcp-client which determines the "best" dhcp-answer for the client. The new question is: How does the client choose the "best" answer?

  Read the article

• Hard Drive benchmark values show write very very slow

  - by John

  I recently started to have issues with my laptop being very slow. I ran a hard drive benchmarking tool (by ATTO) that showed that the write speed was very very slow on my boot drive. I ran the same benchmark on my usb drive and it was 650 times faster than my boot drive when it came to writing. Reading is very fast/normal on both. I swapped out an identical drive and ran the same benchmark. This time the drive showed proper write speed. Thinking that I had a hard drive going bad I cloned the old one onto the new one. I managed to clone the problem too. Anyone have any ideas on what in WinXP SP3 might be causing the write issues? I am on a corporate network and we have commercial anti-virus software installed. (AVG I think) I regularly run defraggler and have about 40 gig free on a 100 gig drive. The machine has 4 gigs of memory. Any ideas? TIA J

  Read the article

• Trying to understand Wireless N vs Wireless AC

  - by EGHDK

  Whenever a new wireless standard gets approved you expect faster speeds and longer range. From everything that I've read about it, it seems that AC will only transfer over the 5GHz band and up to 3Gbps. Studying the new AC routers on the market, it seems that they will transfer over 5GHz and 2.4GHz. And 5GHz will only transfer at 1.3Gbps. Which isn't what AC is supposed to be. I know there is a difference between what the standard actually says, and what products will actually do, but is there any reason for this? Is there any other main differences between AC and N? I've heard people discussing AC and saying that it's finally "fixing" what N was supposed to fix... what do they mean by that? Any security benefits? I have seen this image online: Will AC really do that? Will that require an AC network card in my laptop for that to actually happen? Lastly, will the router only be able to communicate with AC devices if I have beamforming technology on? I know it's a ton of questions, but most articles online seem to be outdated, and don't provide too much reliability.

  Read the article

• Chrome caching 302 redirects

  - by Thermionix

  I have a php script with is used to rotate banner images on a site. Under Firefox/IE page refreshes will make another request and a different image will be returned. Under Chrome, the request seems to be cached and only opening the page in a new tab will cause it to actually query the script. I believe this used to work in older versions of chrome, I've tried a few different types of redirect codes all with the same result. Any tips? <img class="banner" src="/inc/banner.php" alt=""> ~$ cat /var/www/inc/banner.php <?php header("HTTP/1.1 302 Redirect"); header("Cache-Control: max-age=0, no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate"); //header('HTTP/1.1 307 Temporary Redirect'); //header("expires: none"); //header("expires: max"); //header("Cache-Control: public"); $folder = '../img/banner/'; $exts = 'jpg jpeg png gif'; $files = array(); $i = -1; if ('' == $folder) $folder = './'; $handle = opendir($folder); $exts = explode(' ', $exts); while (false !== ($file = readdir($handle))) { foreach($exts as $ext) { // for each extension check the extension if (preg_match('/\.'.$ext.'$/i', $file, $test)) { // faster than ereg, case insensitive $files[] = $file; // it's good ++$i; } } } closedir($handle); // We're not using it anymore mt_srand((double)microtime()*1000000); // seed for PHP < 4.2 $rand = mt_rand(0, $i); // $i was incremented as we went along header('Location: '.$folder.$files[$rand]); flush(); ?> curl output; ~$ curl -I -k https://example.net/inc/banner.php HTTP/1.1 302 Redirect Server: nginx/1.1.14 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:23:46 GMT Content-Type: text/html Connection: keep-alive X-Powered-By: PHP/5.3.10-1ubuntu1 Cache-Control: max-age=0, no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate Location: ../img/banner/2.jpg

  Read the article

• How to backup a NAS drive to a USB drive?

  - by Tim Murphy

  How would you backup 600+ GB of data on a NAS (Network-Attached Storage) drive to a USB external drive? The NAS drive does not contain mission critical data nonetheless I wish to make weekly copies of it just in case. The NAS drive is almost exclusively used as an archive dump and is rarely updated. However the backup strategy used must have a simple restore procedure so I can confidently say the data now on the NAS drive is exactly how it was at the time of backup. I did try xcopy but seemed like it would take many-many hours and eventually crashed with insufficient memory. http://www.ctunion.com/node/114 suggests I would need to use xxcopy instead due to folder/file name lengths. My concern with xcopy/xxcopy is the length of time it takes. Hoping something else is faster. NAS drive is DLink DNS-313. 1TB drive installed. Connected to router via Ethernet cable. USB drive is Seagate 1TB. Can be connected to Windows Vista (preferred) or Windows 7 PCs. Both PCs are usually connected Wirelessly however ethernet cable can be used during backup to speed up the process.

  Read the article

• Enable CPU fan always on

  - by Gundars Meness

  I am using 3 years old overheating laptop and I want my CPU fan to be spinning 24/7 regardless of the consequences. How to make it spin? The problem is that CPU & GPU heats up to 68°C (154 F) right after boot and never goes down, because CPU fan is not spinning full throttle. It starts spinning faster when temperature goes over 70°C and stops when it reaches seventy again. When doing heavy work on databases, it gets from 70 to 90 in no-time and automatically powers off. Bios does not contain any "fan spin 100%" options, just "spin slowly all the time" and "auto" which is more useless than the first one since my fan doesn't have pwm wire. Currently I'm solving this with cooling stand (3x5V), but it isn't much of a help. I would rather use the CPU fan since it is the only fan directly responsible for cooling down CPU/GPU. But how to make it spin 100% all the time? Should I attach it's red power wire to motherboard to get constant 5V (is there such option?), or is there an option to control it via software? Laptop: Samsung R528 2.3 GHz Intel i3 with Nvidia GeForce 310M Bios: Phoenix 03KT.M003.20100622.KSJ (and that is latest update) OS: Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS with 3.2.0.51 kernel CPU fan: Image/Description Has 5V 0,4A and only 3 pins, no pwm. P.S. Yes, I did clean everything with alcohol, freed the air vents, changed thermal paste etc; that reduced temperature by 4 degrees.

  Read the article

• Why do I often have to refresh pages I navigate to once for them (or content in them) to load?

  - by GetOutOfBox

  I have noticed a bizarre pattern when using my PC, that when I open a link to a website, it often will often take a very long time to load, or time out. Sometimes content on the website will be drawn, but again, it seems to get "stuck" for an unusual amount of time before finishing. Most affected is Youtube; almost every time I navigate to a youtube video from another website such as Google, the video will not begin playing, but will instead just display the player controls with a black screen where the video should be and the buffering symbol, usually before displaying an error such as "The video failed to load". The unusual part of this problem is that whenever this happens, refreshing the page always causes it to load almost immediately the second time around, without any problems. Note that I'm not talking about how some browsers will dump whatever has been cached to the "pallet" briefly when the page is refreshed or loading stopped; but that the second time loading the website being faster. I have done my best to rule out some of the obvious causes: My Windows 7 desktop computer is the only device that seems to be affected. I use Firefox on it (latest version, flash updated, etc). My connection has more than enough bandwidth (30 megabits down, 4 up), and I've even tried QoSing all other devices to make sure this isn't happening due to usage spikes. Wireshark is not showing any clearly unusual network activity (i.e frequently dropped packets).

  Read the article

• Is there an IE8 setting or policy to make it work like IE7 with respect to persistent connections?

  - by Stephen Pace

  I am working with a commercial application running on XP using IIS 5.1. Periodically the application is returning an IIS error "There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time." This is caused by Microsoft artificially limiting the number of connections (10) under IIS 5.1 under Windows XP, but in this case, there is really only one user (albeit a few tabs open at a time). Microsoft suggests you can reduce the problem by turning off HTTP Keep-Alives for that particular web site: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/262635 If you use IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 Professional or IIS 5.1 on Microsoft Windows XP Professional, disable HTTP keep-alives in the properties of the Web site. When you do this, a limit of 10 concurrent connections still exists, but IIS does not maintain connections for inactive users. I may do that; however, I'm worried about performance degradation. However, I also notice that IE8 appears to handle this differently than IE7. By default, IE6 and IE7 use 2 persistent connections while IE8 uses 6. Perhaps in this case IE8 itself is generating multiple connections in an attempt to be faster, but those additional connections are overwhelming the artificially limited IIS 5.1 on XP? Assuming that is the case, is there an Internet Explorer option, registry setting, or policy I can set to force IE8 to behave like IE7 with respect to persistent connections? I would not set this for all users, but for the small number of users that used this application, it might solve their intermittent problem until the application can be rehosted on Windows Server 2008. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Mac OS X - configuring ntpd server with on LAN with D-Link DIR-655

  - by Mark C

  Hey all, This question is pretty specific, but I hope someone will have seen this error elsewhere. I a configuring a machine running OS X 10.5.8 to be an NTP server for machines connected to a LAN that is not connected to the Internet. I am not too worried about knowing the "right" time on all the machines, but rather worried about making sure everyone has the same notion of time. I configured the NTP daemon on Mac by turning on the Set date and time automatically in System Preferences, using the server's clock, 127.127.1.0 as the reference clock. I figured I should see if the server can NTP query itself before proceeding to the clients. The weird part is when I run the ntpq -p command in a command-prompt when connected to my D-Link DIR-655 (firmware: 1.33), it hangs for about a minute or so each time before finally giving me some output. I thought the problem might have to do with Port Forwarding, so I configured the router to forward port 123 for the IP of the server, but that did not improve the situation. When I run the ntpq -p command on my school's network, on a Linksys WRT54G router, or with the wireless Airport card turned off - I have absolutely no problems - the command returns a response instantly. Is this normal? I can see why a query might take a minute or so, but I don't understand why one router does it faster than the other. I tried messing around with the ntp.conf file adding the burst, minpoll, and maxpoll options: server 127.127.1.0 burst minpoll 4 maxpoll 5 Figuring that perhaps I am polling too often and the configuration file is slowing me down, but even with this, the ntpq still hangs on the D-Link DIR-655, but does just fine on the other routers. Any thoughts on where the lag is coming from or if the lag is even a problem?

  Read the article

• Prevent Win7 from resuming from hibernation

  - by Tigraine

  Hi Guys, I am running Win7 x64 on my machine and everything is perfect. I actually never turn off my PC completely but rather I always put it into hibernation mode for fast resume once I get back. Hibernation works like a charm, but once every 50 or 100 hibernations something goes wrong and the machine reboots. After that I usually have to reset the system clock in BIOS and Windows is starting up from the hibernation image that somehow got saved to disk (that's really cool). But: This hibernation image recovery is awfully slow, once the machine is up again it takes almost 2 minutes for it to not feel sluggish any more (I suspect this is due to pagefaults on all memory access). I'm looking for a way to tell Windows to NOT recover from the crash but rather just boot fresh, discarding the hibernation since it's faster to just reboot rather than wait for 3+ minutes for the machine to get it's act together. I do see the normal bios startup and also the windows boot afterwards, but hitting F8 like crazy doesn't do anything. In Win2000 and XP a Menu would come up asking me how I do want to boot, but I can't find it on Win7. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• computer build for extreme tabbed browsing

  - by David Berger

  I'm interested in building or buying a task-specific computer for my brother. His requirements are ridiculously simple: the machine has to be able to wait in hundreds of web-based virtual waiting rooms at once and not crash. To be competitive, he needs to be able to enter the waiting rooms an dauto-refresh them faster. My question is, what priority do I give the different specs? My initial surmise is this: Connection speed (nothing to do with my build, but I kind of think this will be more beneficial than anything I build for him) Memory size -- I don't usually see firefox taking up more than a gig, even when heavily tabbed, but I think one gig for the operating system and two gigs for the browser are necessary. Processor speed -- I think the processor will affect performance, but even something out of date will do what he needs Memory speed/RAM bus -- I doubt this will matter much, but it seems just on this side of irrelevant. Everything else is a non-issue for him. Does this seem to stack up correctly? Also, since he's looking to stay on the cheaper side, and I might end up recommending a refurb to him, is there anything particularly egregious that Vista would do if it came pre-installed? If I build it myself, I'll give him linux, but if I have it shipped to him, I'm not sure I could walk him through the install process for linux, but I probably could walk him through the process to upgrade to Windows 7, if it were somehow worth it.

  Read the article

• CPU-adaptive compression

  - by liori

  Hello, Let assume I need to send some data from one computer to another, over a pretty fast network... for example standard 100Mbit connection (~10MB/s). My disk drives are standard HDD, so their speed is somewhere between 30MB/s and 100MB/s. So I guess that compressing the data on the fly could help. But... I don't want to be limited by CPU. If I choose an algorithm that is intensive on CPU, the transfer will actually go slower than without compression. This is difficult with compressors like GZIP and BZIP2 because you usually set the compression strength once for the whole transfer, and my data streams are sometimes easy, sometimes hard to compress--this makes the process suboptimal because sometimes I do not use full CPU, and sometimes the bandwidth is underutilized. Is there a compression program that would adapt to current CPU/bandwidth and hit the sweet spot so that the transfer will be optimal? Ideally for Linux, but I am still curious about all solutions. I'd love to see something compatible with GZIP/BZIP2 decompressors, but this is not necessary. So I'd like to optimize total transfer time, not simply amount of bytes to send. Also I don't need real time decompression... real time compression is enough. The destination host can process the data later in its spare time. I know this doesn't change much (compression is usually much more CPU-intensive than decompression), but if there's a solution that could use this fact, all the better. Each time I am transferring different data, and I really want to make these one-time transfers as quick as possible. So I won't benefit from getting multiple transfers faster due to stronger compression. Thanks,

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >