Search Results

Search found 11380 results on 456 pages for 'cpu speed'.

Page 139/456 | < Previous Page | 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146  | Next Page >

  • Firefox "auto-complete" is very slow

    - by netvope
    Firefox version: 3.6 My places.sqlite is rather big (114MB, after being optimized by SpeedyFox.) If I turn on auto-complete, it may take 1 or 2 seconds for Firefox to accept a newly typed URL. To reproduce the issue: Type a URL into the URL bar, press enter. Nothing happens, and Firefox consumes 100% CPU (actually 50% of 2 cores) for 1 to 2 seconds Then Firefox start the network connection and load the webpage. Since it consumes 100% CPU, I don't think the bottleneck is the disk. I have some experience with SQLite and I know a 100MB DB is very small. To achieve the delay Firefox must be doing some expensive processing or inefficient queries. The issue does not appear if: auto-complete is turned off, or the URL is frequently used, or a new profile with no history is used Does anyone have any idea how to solve the problem? Should I file this as a bug? I don't want to give up my 100MB history, but I don't want to give up auto-complete either :)

    Read the article

  • Raid0 performance degradation?

    - by davy8
    Not sure if this belongs here or on SuperUser, feel free to move as appropriate. I've noticed the performance on my RAID0 setup seems to have degraded over the past months. The throughput is fine, but I think the random access time has increased or something. In use I generally see about 1-5mb/sec when loading stuff in Visual Studio and other apps and it doesn't seem like the CPU is bottlenecking as the CPU utilization is pretty low. I don't recall what Access Time used to be, but HD Tune is reporting 12.6ms Read throughput is showing as averaging about 125MB/sec so it should be great for sequential reads. Defrag daily and it shows fragmentation levels low, so that shouldn't be an issue. Additional info, Windows 7 x64, Intel raid controller on mobo, WD Black 500GB (I think 32mb cache) x2.

    Read the article

  • Raid0 performance degradation?

    - by davy8
    Not sure if this belongs here or on SuperUser, feel free to move as appropriate. I've noticed the performance on my RAID0 setup seems to have degraded over the past months. The throughput is fine, but I think the random access time has increased or something. In use I generally see about 1-5mb/sec when loading stuff in Visual Studio and other apps and it doesn't seem like the CPU is bottlenecking as the CPU utilization is pretty low. I don't recall what Access Time used to be, but HD Tune is reporting 12.6ms Read throughput is showing as averaging about 125MB/sec so it should be great for sequential reads. Defrag daily and it shows fragmentation levels low, so that shouldn't be an issue. Additional info, Windows 7 x64, Intel raid controller on mobo, WD Black 500GB (I think 32mb cache) x2.

    Read the article

  • afp/smb transfers caps at 2 megabytes/sec, wireless N

    - by CQM
    I wanted to transfer files between two mac computers. The network is wireless-N and both computers have wireless-N modules in them. The problem is that when I transfer files between them, via file sharing (afp) the network speed caps at 2 megabytes/sec. Just downloading files from the internet I can get faster speeds, so this isn't a constriction of my wifi bandwidth, it appears to be a constriction of the protocol being used. My wifi-n is set to 130mbits, so I should see real world transfer speeds around 12-16 megabytes/sec I did this command on both computers sudo sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0 which is supposed to lower tcp overhead, but this did not affect it. How can I get the speed I am expecting?

    Read the article

  • GIMP Slow Startup

    - by muntoo
    Is there any way to speed up GIMP's startup time on Windows Vista Home Premium 32-Bit 1.6 [Dual] Intel Processors? On XP [different computer], it loads in less than 3 seconds. On Vista, it takes 20 seconds: 2 Seconds (other - fonts, brushes, etc) 18 Seconds (extension-script-fu) It just freezes at extension-script-fu. Looking at ProcessExplorer (or Task Manager, whatever), I see that it's not taking any CPU. EDIT: it does seem to be taking 50% of the CPU. It gets stuck for about 18 seconds, then starts working again, and the actual GIMP program pops up [...finally]. I have the latest stable version running (I think). I tried it with XP SP2 Compatibiliy mode and/or Run As Administrator, but that didn't help. EDIT: One way would be to disable script-fu. Does anyone know how to disable it at startup? (NOTE: Just wanted to point out that the title and the tags are the same. :D )

    Read the article

  • Monitoring outgoing bandwidth of application

    - by jnolte
    I currently have a VPS that is consuming a ton of outgoing bandwidth and I am trying to drill down to where this may be coming from. Does anyone know of a logical way to go about finding out which pages on the site are consuming the most outgoing data. We have done a ton of front-end optimizations to the site and our google page speed rankings ar 85% so I feel we have done a pretty great job at optimizing the site for speed. Can someone lend some insight on how they have made similar optimizations? Application / Server Stack LEMP Running Varnish Cache / PHP5-FPM WordPress running w3 Total Cache Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

    Read the article

  • Slow Memcached: Average 10ms memcached `get`

    - by Chris W.
    We're using Newrelic to measure our Python/Django application performance. Newrelic is reporting that across our system "Memcached" is taking an average of 12ms to respond to commands. Drilling down into the top dozen or so web views (by # of requests) I can see that some Memcache get take up to 30ms; I can't find a single use of Memcache get that returns in less than 10ms. More details on the system architecture: Currently we have four application servers each of which has a memcached member. All four memcached members participate in a memcache cluster. We're running on a cloud hosting provider and all traffic is running across the "internal" network (via "internal" IPs) When I ping from one application server to another the responses are in ~0.5ms Isn't 10ms a slow response time for Memcached? As far as I understand if you think "Memcache is too slow" then "you're doing it wrong". So am I doing it wrong? Here's the output of the memcache-top command: memcache-top v0.7 (default port: 11211, color: on, refresh: 3 seconds) INSTANCE USAGE HIT % CONN TIME EVICT/s GETS/s SETS/s READ/s WRITE/s cache1:11211 37.1% 62.7% 10 5.3ms 0.0 73 9 3958 84.6K cache2:11211 42.4% 60.8% 11 4.4ms 0.0 46 12 3848 62.2K cache3:11211 37.5% 66.5% 12 4.2ms 0.0 75 17 6056 170.4K AVERAGE: 39.0% 63.3% 11 4.6ms 0.0 64 13 4620 105.7K TOTAL: 0.1GB/ 0.4GB 33 13.9ms 0.0 193 38 13.5K 317.2K (ctrl-c to quit.) ** Here is the output of the top command on one machine: ** (Roughly the same on all cluster machines. As you can see there is very low CPU utilization, because these machines only run memcache.) top - 21:48:56 up 1 day, 4:56, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.05 Tasks: 70 total, 1 running, 69 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.3%st Mem: 501392k total, 424940k used, 76452k free, 66416k buffers Swap: 499996k total, 13064k used, 486932k free, 181168k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 6519 nobody 20 0 384m 74m 880 S 1.0 15.3 18:22.97 memcached 3 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.3 0.0 0:38.03 ksoftirqd/0 1 root 20 0 24332 1552 776 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.56 init 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd 4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kworker/0:0 5 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.02 kworker/u:0 6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/0 7 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.62 watchdog/0 8 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 cpuset 9 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper ...output truncated...

    Read the article

  • Install windows XP alongside Windows 8

    - by user01
    I have a 64 bit (AMD)CPU but it has 32 bit Windows 8 installed. Could I somehow trickily install another Windows XP 64 bit alongside to that ? I want to do this because I almost never use the Windows 8 apps & majorly use this machine for java development. So I would like to run a lightweight OS implementation. Additionally, With 64 bit version of Windows XP, I would be able to take advantage of my 64 bit CPU. So, how do I do it? (I hope there's some way to do this:)

    Read the article

  • Monitoring mongrel with monit

    - by matnagel
    I wrote a monit.d file for mongrels which works in this version: check process redmine with pidfile /home/redmine/service/redmine.pid group webservice start program = "/usr/bin/mongrel_rails start -p 41328 -e production -d --pid /home/redmine/service/redmine.pid --user redmine --group redmine -a 127.0.0.1 -c /home/redmine/app" stop program = "/usr/bin/mongrel_rails stop --pid /home/redmine/service/redmine.pid -c /home/redmine/app && rm /home/redmine/service/redmine.pid > /dev/null 2>&1 if cpu greater 50% for 2 cycles then alert if cpu greater 80% for 3 cycles then restart if totalmem greater 60.0 MB for 5 cycles then restart if loadavg (5min) greater 4 for 8 cycles then restart if 3 restarts within 5 cycles then timeout $ Checking monit control file syntax... $ Control file syntax OK I want to also monitor the http response, so I add this line at the end: if failed port 41328 protocol http with timeout 10 seconds then restart Now monit complains: $ Checking monit control file syntax... $ /etc/monit.d/redmine:16: Error: exceeded maximum number of program arguments 'http' $ ERROR: CHECK MONIT CONFIG FILE SYNTAX How do I correctly monitor the port?

    Read the article

  • Should I install Windows 7 on a 3 years old PC?

    - by Jitendra vyas
    This is my PC configuration, Should I upgrade my Windows XP to Windows 7. Currently I'm using Windows XP SP3 32 bit. Now will I get same performance or better performance or bad performance if I install Windows 7 on this system? Or would sticking with XP be better? Memory (RAM): 1472 MB DDR RAM (not DDR 2) CPU Info: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 2500+ CPU Speed: 1398.7 MHz Sound card: Vinyl AC'97 Audio (WAVE) Display Adapters: VIA/S3G UniChrome Pro IGP | NetMeeting driver | RDPDD Chained DD Network Adapters: Bluetooth Device (Personal Area Network) | WAN (PPP/SLIP) Interface Hard Disks: 300 GB SATA HDD Manufacturer: Phoenix Technologies, LTD Product Make: MS-7142 AC Power Status: OnLine BIOS Info: AT/AT COMPATIBLE | 01/18/06 | VIAK8M - 42302e31 Motherboard: MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD MS-7142 Modem: ZTE USB Modem FFFE CDMA :

    Read the article

  • Slow speeds on Samsung SSD PM800 256gb on a Lenovo W500

    - by cc0
    I recently bought a W500 with a 256gb samsung ssd drive. Now it seems ridiculously slow at writing. I am copying files at about 30mb/s, but I can read them at about 200mb/s. I tested it with the AS SSD Benchmark v1.4, and got a sequential writing speed of 34.64mb/s and reading speed of 196.95mb/s When I bought it the drive had only been in use for about 240 hours, and according to the CrystalDiskInfo app it had 98% health. Is there a bottleneck here somewhere? Or is the drive just plain bad. I'd really love it if someone could help me find some answers. The main relevant (I hope) w500 specs for this machine are; T9600 @ 2.8ghz 4gb ddr3

    Read the article

  • Idle hard disk makes noise.

    - by ULTRA_POROV
    Like a fan or something. I checked it. I stopped all fans (cpu, video, psu) and the noise was still there. I read online that it might be a motor or something. I have put a great deal of effort making my pc quiet. Installed a quiet psu and cpu fan, reduced the fan speed of my video card, bought a ssd... But my drive for data makes this noise. I would never have expected that. Do all hard disks make this kind of noise? I guess most people won't notice it because of the other fans they have in the system, I however can hear it quite clearly because all my other fans are almost silent. So should i get a new one or should i just live with it, considering that i might end up with a drive that also makes this noise.

    Read the article

  • Why does my Mac always crash when I enable `ask for password after screensaver ended`?

    - by Koning Baard XIV
    I have enabled these two things: Placing the mouse-pointer in the bottom-left corner of any display makes the screensaver appear After the screensaver or stand-by has ended, ask for password However, this combination always leads to this (Black Screen of Death) after entering the screensaver with the bottom-left corner: Here are my system specs: Hardware Overview: Model Name: iMac Model Identifier: iMac9,1 Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor Speed: 2,66 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of Cores: 2 L2 Cache: 6 MB Memory: 2 GB Bus Speed: 1,07 GHz Boot ROM Version: IM91.008D.B08 SMC Version (system): 1.44f0 Serial Number (system): W89171JF0TF Hardware UUID: 323A90F0-8A2F-5057-B501-2087489E0DFF System Software Overview: System Version: Mac OS X 10.6.3 (10D573) Kernel Version: Darwin 10.3.0 Boot Volume: Macintosh HD Boot Mode: Normal Computer Name: YOU SHOULD NOT KNOW THIS User Name: YOU SHOULD NOT KNOW THIS Secure Virtual Memory: Not Enabled 64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No Time since boot: 11:46 Can anyone help me? Thanks

    Read the article

  • File downloaded from IIS6/Win2003 server to a Mac (and not PCs) is incredibly slow

    - by Simon Swords
    We have a test zip file on our customers server that we host for him that when downloading to a Mac is incredibly slow. On a Mac - trying the download via Safari 5.0.3 and Chrome 8.0.552.231 results in a quick burst of normal download speed then plummets to almost no speed at all after 1 or 2 meg (between 1 and 5 Kb/s - yes, KiloBITS per second! According to the network monitor). Downloading via Windows was fine and speedy. Tested via; IE7 7.0.5730.13 and Chrome Portable 8.0.552.224 On Windows XP Pro, and; IE8 8.0.7600.16385 in a Windows 7 virtual machine running via VirtualBox 4.0.0 r69151 on the same Mac mention above Google hasn't helped us out on this occasion, possibly because the search terms I'm having to use are quite generic. Has anybody ever experienced this and if so how do we fix it? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • dev_install failed on ARM chromebook

    - by user1027721
    I'm trying this guide for having access to emerge on chromeos. http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/how-tos-and-troubleshooting/install-software-on-base-images Unfortunately I always got the same error which is $ sudo dev_install Starting installation of developer packages. First, we download the necessary files. Downloading https://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromeos-dev-installer/board/daisy/full-3.168.0.0/packages/app-misc/mime-types-8.tbz2 % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 127 100 127 0 0 252 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 305 [: 184: -ne: unexpected operator Extracting /usr/local/portage/packages/app-misc/mime-types-8.tbz2 I think that it somehow returns a 404 everytime. Thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • Why does a website server recieve local files much slower than recieve files on other websites?

    - by T...
    The server at http://any2djvu.djvuzone.org receives same files from local computers much slower than from links on other websites (with the same files have been uploaded to the other websites, such as dropbox.com). The speed of uploading a file from local computers to other websites such as dropbox is also much faster than to any2djvu website. For example, a pdf file of 17MB needs more than 1 min to be uploaded to any2djvu server from a local computer with normal ISP such as Comcast High-speed internet, but takes less than 3 seconds from a dropbox link to any2djvu server, and takes around 10 seconds from the same local computer to dropbox. I wonder why there is such big differences for the speeds of different uploading ways to a web server? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Apache and MySQL taking all the memory? Maximum connections?

    - by lpfavreau
    I've a had one of our servers going down (network wise) but keeping its uptime (so looks the server is not losing its power) recently. I've asked my hosting company to investigate and I've been told, after investigation, that Apache and MySQL were at all time using 80% of the memory and peaking at 95% and that I might be needing to add some more RAM to the server. One of their justifications to adding more RAM was that I was using the default max connections setting (125 for MySQL and 150 for Apache) and that for handling those 150 simultaneous connections, I would need at least 3Gb of memory instead of the 1Gb I have at the moment. Now, I understand that tweaking the max connections might be better than me leaving the default setting although I didn't feel it was a concern at the moment, having had servers with the same configuration handle more traffic than the current 1 or 2 visitors before the lunch, telling myself I'd tweak it depending on the visits pattern later. I've also always known Apache was more memory hungry under default settings than its competitor such as nginx and lighttpd. Nonetheless, looking at the stats of my machine, I'm trying to see how my hosting company got those numbers. I'm getting: # free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 1000 944 56 0 148 725 -/+ buffers/cache: 71 929 Swap: 1953 0 1953 Which I guess means that yes, the server is reserving around 95% of its memory at the moment but I also thought it meant that only 71 out of the 1000 total were really used by the applications at the moment looking a the buffers/cache row. Also I don't see any swapping: # vmstat 60 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 0 0 57612 151704 742596 0 0 1 1 3 11 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 57604 151704 742596 0 0 0 1 1 24 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 57604 151704 742596 0 0 0 2 1 18 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 57604 151704 742596 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 100 0 And finally, while requesting a page: top - 08:33:19 up 3 days, 13:11, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00 Tasks: 81 total, 1 running, 80 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 1.3%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 98.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 1024616k total, 976744k used, 47872k free, 151716k buffers Swap: 2000052k total, 0k used, 2000052k free, 742596k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 24914 www-data 20 0 26296 8640 3724 S 2 0.8 0:00.06 apache2 23785 mysql 20 0 125m 18m 5268 S 1 1.9 0:04.54 mysqld 24491 www-data 20 0 25828 7488 3180 S 1 0.7 0:00.02 apache2 1 root 20 0 2844 1688 544 S 0 0.2 0:01.30 init ... So, I'd like to know, experts of serverfault: Do I really need more RAM at the moment? How do they calculate that for 150 simultaneous connections I'd need 3Gb? Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Options for installing software on Amazon EC2 Windows instances

    - by gareth_bowles
    I've been running Linux servers on Amazon EC2 for a while now; the experience has been great. I've recently needed to bring up a Windows server to run some Windows-only software that our product needs to use, and am running into a problem figuring out how to install the software, which is only available on DVD. With Linux I can just install packages from a Web-based repository and take advantage of EC2's fast network throughput, but so far on the Windows instance I've had to upload my ISO images to EC2 and mount them from the Windows EC2 instance. For some reason I'm getting really slow upload speeds to EC2, even though the regular upload speed from our office is pretty good (around 7Mbps). I've also tried mounting the DVD drive on my machine as a local drive on the EC2 instance via Remote Desktop, and then running the software install from the local drive, but I run into the same slow upload speed issue. Does anyone have a better way to install software from physical media onto an EC2 instance ?

    Read the article

  • NTFS disk mounted as fuseblk in ubuntu 12.10 is very slow and a lot of errors when rsync. Is that not a rare thing?

    - by Pablo Marin-Garcia
    I am having problems with a NTFS disk mounted as a fuseblk in my ubuntu 12.10 through external usb3. When I did a 1.1TB backup with rsync the speed was 1-2MB/s (wiht a ext4 disk speed was 70 MB/s before and after trying the NTFS disk). Also after one hour errors started to appear: rsync: write failed on "xxx": No such file or directory recv_files: "yyy" is a directory #but this file is a FILE not a dir ??!! .... As this is the first time I have mounted the NTFS in linux for heavy usage (the data would be used in windows afterwards), I would like to know if this kind of thinks are common o was only that something became unstable in my system and a simply restart would probably have solved it. This leads me to the these questions: Can I trust fuse for manage NTFS disks? Or is a problem of the NTFS tools in linux not yet totally stables for writing? Do people is still suffering from low performance with fuse-NTFS vs ext4 (in the past I have read about people complaining about this)?

    Read the article

  • serving static assets via http is really slow compared to sshfs (apache2/nginx)

    - by s1lv3r
    After migrating to a new VPS I had some users complaining about slow loading images on their sites. After creating some test files with dd I realized that I can download all files via sshfs with full speed while downloads via web are painfully slow. The larger the file is and the longer the transfer takes, the slower the transfer speed gets. I thought I had some problems with Apache and just spend the whole evening with replacing Apache2 against nginx for static file serving - with no effect at all. No I/O wait states in top. Tons of RAM free, no high CPU utilization and hdparm shows a decent I/O performance at all times. I just have no idea anymore, what's happening on this server. This is a link to a demo file: http://master.dealux.de/file.tgz Anybody an idea what I can check out?

    Read the article

  • Tips on Managing Podcast Subscriptions

    - by Ben Griswold
    I listen to a silly number of technical podcasts. I listen to enough of them that it is literally impossible to keep up. I nearly gave up and started dropping feeds from my subscription list when I heard Craig Shoemaker talk about his Polymorphic Podcast fast feed. The idea is he provides the same content at a higher speed so you can listen to his complete show in 3/4th the time. I tried it out with his recent jQuery Secrets with Dave Ward interview and I was shocked with the feed quality. It was a super clear, understandable conversation which only took a fraction of the time commitment. I experimented a bit and played the normal recording at 2x speed on my iPhone and the quality was once again just fine. But now I'm saving half of the time. I'm curious as to how you might manage your podcast subscriptions. Can you offer any tips or advice on how to get the best bang for your buck when it comes to technical podcast listening?

    Read the article

  • Performance affects of compressing Program Files on Windows / NTFS

    - by SRobertJames
    What are the performance affects of compressing Program Files on Windows NTFS? On a fast, multicore machine, the overhead of decompression is minimal. Machines are generally disk bound, and if you can reduce the disk load by compression, you often speed things up. (Microsoft says that the built in compression of Windows Search indexes actually improves speed for this reason.) On the other hand, Windows' virtual memory is complicated. Perhaps if files are compressed, they can't be paged out simply. And there may be other issues. In short: On a fast, multicore machine with a relatively slow disk, what performance affects will compressing Program Files have?

    Read the article

  • How to diagnose repeated freezing of windows 7 (comes back alive in few seconds)

    - by Akash Kava
    I installed Windows 7 in a 3 year old machine, it installed successfully, took all drivers and running great, but what happens is every 5-6 minutes it freezes for few seconds... 30 seconds to 1 minute and then comes back alive. I checked Event Viewer, nothing matching the frozen timeline. I would appriciate any help on how to detect causing service/hardware. After it comes alive, everything runs normal, I did run task manager and checked cpu usage, at time it freezes just before and after that no task took more cpu or memory, it was like idle machine. No external usb drives or no devices, on board intel desktop board with SATA HDD, SATA hdd running in absolute good mode.

    Read the article

  • Link aggregation with freebsd8 and a cicso 3550, what am i doing wrong?

    - by Flamewires
    Hey, I am trying to setup Link Aggrigation with LACP (well, anything that provides increased bandwidth and failover using my setup will work). I'm running FreeBSD 8.0 on 3 machines. M1 is running 2 10/100 ethernetcards setup for link aggrigation using lagg. for reference: ifconfig em0 up ifconfig tx0 up ifconfig create lagg0 ifconfig lagg0 laggproto lacp laggport tx0 laggport em0 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.255.0 I plugged them into ports 1 and 2 of a Cicso 3550. then ran: configure terminal interface range Fa0/1 - 2 switchport mode access switchport access vlan 1 channel-group 1 mode active (everythings in vlan 1) Now Im able to connect the other computers to other ports on the switch and failover works great, i can unplug cables in the middle of a transfer and the traffic gets rerouted. However, im not noticing any speed increase. My test setup: load balancing: i tried dst and src on the switch, neither seemed to give me a speed increase. I am SCPing 2 500 meg files from the lagg computer to other computers (one each) which are also running 10/100 full duplex cards. I get transfer speeds of about 11.2-11.4 Mbps to a single host, and about half that (5.9-6.2) Mbps when transferring to both at the same time. From what I understood with destination load balancing the router was suppose to balance traffic headed for 1 computer over 1 port and traffic headed for another over a diff(in this case) the other port. With destination-MAC address forwarding, when packets are forwarded to an EtherChannel, the packets are distributed across the ports in the channel based on the destination host MAC address of the incoming packet. Therefore, packets to the same destination are forwarded over the same port, and packets to a different destination are sent on a different port in the channel. For the 3550 series switch, when source-MAC address forwarding is used, load distribution based on the source and destination IP address is also enabled for routed IP traffic. All routed IP traffic chooses a port based on the source and destination IP address. Packets between two IP hosts always use the same port in the channel, and traffic between any other pair of hosts can use a different port in the channel. (Link) What am i doing wrong/what would i need to do to see a speed increase beyond what i could do with just a single card?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146  | Next Page >