Search Results

Search found 6361 results on 255 pages for 'speed up'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 14/255 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • slow web loading speed / site calling bad links [on hold]

    - by wantedt
    my wordpress site loads very slow and i actually know why it does that, while loading it calls some files which is linked to another server/domain which does't exist anymore the problem is i cant find a place where its calling from in order to remove those links. can anyone advice me where to look and remove them? i tested it with http://www.webpagetest.org/ and website im trying to fix is: www.ancientmarinerexteriorsglobal.com

    Read the article

  • how to speed up this code? [migrated]

    - by dot
    I have some code that's taking over 3 seconds to complete. I'm just wondering if there's a faster way to do this. I have a string with anywhere from 10 to 70 rows of data. I break it up into an array and then loop through the array to find specific patterns. $this->_data = str_replace(chr(27)," ",$this->_data,$count);//strip out esc character $this->_data = explode("\r\n", $this->_data); $detailsArray = array(); foreach ($this->_data as $details) { $pattern = '/(\s+)([0-9a-z]*)(\s+)(100\/1000T|10|1000SX|\s+)(\s*)(\|)(\s+)(\w+)(\s+)(\w+)(\s+)(\w+)(\s+)(1000FDx|10HDx|100HDx|10FDx|100FDx|\s+)(\s*)(\w+)(\s*)(\w+|\s+)(\s*)(0)/i'; if (preg_match($pattern, $details, $matches)) { array_push($detailsArray, array( 'Port' => $matches[2], 'Type' => $matches[4], 'Alert' => $matches[8], 'Enabled' => $matches[10], 'Status' => $matches[12], 'Mode' => $matches[14], 'MDIMode' => $matches[16], 'FlowCtrl' => $matches[18], 'BcastLimit' => $matches[20])); }//end if }//end for $this->_data = $detailsArray; Just wondering if you think there's a way to make it more efficient. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is recommended minimum object size for gzip performance benefits?

    - by utt73
    I'm working on improving page speed display times, and one of the methods is to gzip content from the webserver. Google recommends: Note that gzipping is only beneficial for larger resources. Due to the overhead and latency of compression and decompression, you should only gzip files above a certain size threshold; we recommend a minimum range between 150 and 1000 bytes. Gzipping files below 150 bytes can actually make them larger. We serve our content through Akamai, using their network for a proxy and CDN. What they've told me: Following up on your question regarding what is the minimum size Akamai will compress the requested object when sending it to the end user: The minimum size is 860 bytes. My reply: What is the reason(s) for why Akamai's minimum size is 860 bytes? And why, for example, is this not the case for files Akamai serves for facebook? (see below) Google recommends to gzip more agressively. And that seems appropriate on our site where the most frequent hits, by far, are AJAX calls that are <860 bytes. Akamai's response: The reasons 860 bytes is the minimum size for compression is twofold: (1) The overhead of compressing an object under 860 bytes outweighs performance gain. (2) Objects under 860 bytes can be transmitted via a single packet anyway, so there isn't a compelling reason to compress them. So I'm here for some fact checking. Is the 860 byte limit due to packet size the end of this reasoning? Why would high traffic sites push this down to the 150 byte limit... just to save on bandwidth costs (since CDNs base their charges on bandwith offloaded from origin), or is there a performance gain in doing so?

    Read the article

  • Lightning fast forum based around metadata / tags? [closed]

    - by Dan W
    Possible Duplicate: What Forum Software should I use? I wonder if anything like this exists. I'd like to add a forum to my site, but instead of the usual forum/subforum/sub-subforum structure, I'd like to use a metadata/tag approach where everything exists as a single directory, and where there's a search field at the top which instantly (<0.5 sec) filters the threads to a particular keyword or keywords. Also, as the admin, I would be able to add highly visible buttons at the top, which can be clicked on for the main categories I choose for the forum (nevertheless, users can also add tags to their own threads outside of these default main tags I supply if they wish). This approach, if done properly, is more powerful, efficient, maintenance free, scalable and friendly than a standard forum, so I was hoping someone had the same idea and made something out of it. It couldn't be that hard. I'd want the speed to be up to (or near) the standard of this: http://forum.dlang.org/ Other forums (e.g.: phpBB) are orders of magnitude worse than that in terms of latency (posting or browsing), and I think that is wrong, even in principle ;)

    Read the article

  • What is recommended minimum object size for gzip benefits?

    - by utt73
    I'm working on improving page speed display times, and one of the methods is to gzip content from the webserver. Google recommends: Note that gzipping is only beneficial for larger resources. Due to the overhead and latency of compression and decompression, you should only gzip files above a certain size threshold; we recommend a minimum range between 150 and 1000 bytes. Gzipping files below 150 bytes can actually make them larger. We serve our content through Akamai, using their network for a proxy and CDN. What they've told me: Following up on your question regarding what is the minimum size Akamai will compress the requested object when sending it to the end user: The minimum size is 860 bytes. My reply: What is the reason(s) for why Akamai's minimum size is 860 bytes? And why, for example, is this not the case for files Akamai serves for facebook? (see below) Google recommends to gzip more agressively. And that seems appropriate on our site where the most frequent hits, by far, are AJAX calls that are <860 bytes. Akamai's response: The reasons 860 bytes is the minimum size for compression is twofold: (1) The overhead of compressing an object under 860 bytes outweighs performance gain. (2) Objects under 860 bytes can be transmitted via a single packet anyway, so there isn't a compelling reason to compress them. So I'm here for some fact checking. Is the 860 byte limit due to packet size the end of this reasoning? Why would high traffic sites push this lower/closer to the 150 byte limit... just to save on bandwidth costs, or is there a performance gain in doing so?

    Read the article

  • Multicast image restoration with adaptive speed

    - by Clinton Blackmore
    I'm curious to know if there are any tools for restoring disk images (or even transferring files) via multicast -- for any platform, especially if the project has source available -- where the multicast rate adjusts itself on the fly. On the Mac, all multicast solutions I am aware of (such as Deploy Studio, and NetRestore before it) make use of multicast ASR (apple software restore), which has one glaring deficiency -- you have to set the multicast speed before you start sending a disk image over the network, and that speed is locked in. Either your clients can keep up and restore, or they can't*. It seems to me that it must be possible for the multicast server to adjust the data rate, so you basically say "start sending this image", clients connect, and, if they can't keep up, they tell the server so it slows down. (Likewise, I'd expect the server to try speeding up if no client is having difficulties keeping up, and I'd expect to be able to cap that maximum throughput so that other network activities can go on without being resource starved.) So, what sort of tools are out there? For Linux? Windows? Is there something for the Mac I've overlooked. [It just kills me that it is true that, by the time you get multicast up and going at a good speed to restore a lab, you could've unicasted the data to all the computers and be done.] * There is a little leeway involved. I think individual clients can say, "I missed a little bit of data" and get it, and they can opt to listen in the next time the image is sent over the network, but on the whole, if they missed it the first go round, you have to image the machine again, and there is no time savings.

    Read the article

  • High fan speed with no reason

    - by Klaus
    For a few weeks, the fans of my Lenovo B590 laptop, running on Xubuntu 14, turn to high speed a few minutes after it is turned on. The fans won't speed down until I turn the computer off. This is quite strange, since This didn't happen before The temperatures are quite low (are they ?) $sensors Adapter: Virtual device temp1: +36.0°C (crit = +88.0°C) temp2: +30.0°C (crit = +126.0°C) coretemp-isa-0000 Adapter: ISA adapter Physical id 0: +37.0°C (high = +72.0°C, crit = +90.0°C) Core 0: +34.0°C (high = +72.0°C, crit = +90.0°C) Core 1: +31.0°C (high = +72.0°C, crit = +90.0°C) thinkpad-isa-0000 Adapter: ISA adapter fan1: 0 RPM pkg-temp-0-virtual-0 Adapter: Virtual device temp1: +37.0°C $sudo hddtemp /dev/sda /dev/sda: ST500LT012-9WS142: 33°C The computer is under low load: top - 08:30:15 up 16 min, 2 users, load average: 0.28, 0.23, 0.23 Tasks: 197 total, 1 running, 196 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie %Cpu(s): 0.8 us, 0.5 sy, 0.0 ni, 98.7 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st KiB Mem: 3607944 total, 1973956 used, 1633988 free, 99660 buffers KiB Swap: 3744764 total, 0 used, 3744764 free. 789936 cached Mem The BIOS is up to date (and there are no fan settings in it) The fan is clean and dust-free Why would the BIOS turn the fans to high speed where there seem to be no reason for that ? It seems that we cannot control the fan manually with this model, so I guess the only solution is to understand why this happens.

    Read the article

  • Internet compression proxy for low speed broadband?

    - by user23150
    I live in a rural location, using high-latency wireless off a local ISP's tower. My speed tests vary day to day, but I can get around 1Mb up/down. The problem is, I work with large files, uploading and downloading (HD videos, development software, etc.). It can be painful to wait sometimes. Plus I do some side contract game development, and it can be very difficult to playtest with other developers (200ms ping is a good day for me). Now, obviously it's not going to be easy to solve the latency problem without different wireless hardware. But speedwise, I am wondering if I can use some kind of compression technology on a proxy. For instance, my work computer has full access to a 26Mb down, 10Mb up connection, that is totally unused at night and the weekends. If I could run some kind of compression technology on our server, and use it as a proxy to route to my home computer, I could stand to gain some major speed. I realize that by bogging down a system with compression, I could potentially lose whatever speed gain I had. But the proxy server is a quad core xeon, and the receiving computer is a pretty decent i7 computer, so that shouldn't be a concern. I found http://toonel.net/ but it seems more geared toward very slow narrowband users, like dial-up. Plus, I would prefer to just be able to point my browser to a proxy server, rather then install software on my client machine. EDIT I thought about my question a little more, and realize I am going to need to install software on my client in order to decompress, and possible compress (for uploading). That's not a huge deal.

    Read the article

  • How to avoid movement speed stacking when multiple keys are pressed?

    - by eren_tetik
    I've started a new game which requires no mouse, thus leaving the movement up to the keyboard. I have tried to incorporate 8 directions; up, left, right, up-right and so on. However when I press more than one arrow key, the movement speed stacks (http://gfycat.com/CircularBewitchedBarebirdbat). How could I counteract this? Here is relevant part of my code: var speed : int = 5; function Update () { if(Input.GetKey(KeyCode.UpArrow)){ transform.Translate(Vector3.forward * speed * Time.deltaTime); } else if(Input.GetKey(KeyCode.UpArrow) && Input.GetKey(KeyCode.RightArrow)){ transform.Translate(Vector3.forward * speed * Time.deltaTime); } else if(Input.GetKey(KeyCode.UpArrow) && Input.GetKey(KeyCode.LeftArrow)){ transform.rotation = Quaternion.AngleAxis(315, Vector3.up); } if(Input.GetKey(KeyCode.DownArrow)){ transform.Translate(Vector3.forward * speed * Time.deltaTime); } }

    Read the article

  • How do I prevent a tar pipe from causing swapping?

    - by Jeff Shattock
    I have a rather large filesystem that I need to transfer from one Linux server to another. I figured the best way to do this was via a tar/netcat pipe arrangment, something like tar c . | pv | nc blah blah blah And it works great, the network stays fairly saturated, life is good. Until the source machine starts swapping. The files are on a raid on the source system, so the read speed is much faster than the write speed on the other end. Since the dest machine hasnt picked up the data yet, the source machine needs to stick it somewhere, so into RAM it goes, until there is no more free RAM. It then starts swapping, which is horribly painful since that machine has its OS installed on a somewhat slow CF card. Both machines have 4GB of physical ram, 64 bit Ubuntu 9.04 server. GigE link between them. How do I prevent this swapping? Can I put a "speed-limit" on the tar or netcat process so that the transfer speed doesn't overwhelm the write throughput on the destination end? The man pages didn't list anything, but there might be something I'm overlooking.

    Read the article

  • Slow Browsing/Direct Download, but Fast Bittorrent Download

    - by Dr Haisook
    I'm using Windows XP SP2. I have a 1 MB connection via a SpeedTouch 585, and my internet speed registers at 0.3 MB, with a maximum download of 30kbps. Not to mention a terrible ping at 500-1500. On the other hand, I get full speed in uTorrent - a bittorrent program - reaching up to 100 kbps; the way it should be. I haven't made any changes to anything. And it has been functioning well until the last month. I waited in hope that it could be an ISP issue and that it would be resolved, but their support crew did not help me with this problem either. I've tried disabling all firewalls, and all wireless connections, using different browsers, and disabling QoS. But it did not work. Me thinks it's an ISP issue, but if so, how am I getting full speed in uTorrent? Could somebody help me out with this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • NFS and KVM. Slow Speed

    - by Javier Martinez
    I have a KVM virtualization in Debian with 2 guests (Debian and Windows 2008). I want to have a 'mount point' shared that can be accessed by the 3 system (host and 2 guests) at the same time. So the only thing that I found was a NFS/SMB network storage. I picked NFS Due to my Ethernet network (10/100), the speed average that I get between accessing/transfering files between the 3 system is always 8~10MB/s. The point is if is there any chance of get a boost system for sharing files between 3 system (at the same time) without wasting the speed of my SATA disks. I mean, without the Ethernet limitation of 10 MB/s

    Read the article

  • In search of a network file system with extended caching to speed up file access

    - by Brecht Machiels
    I'm running a small home server that stores my documents. The disks in this server are in a RAID 1 configuration (using Linux md) and it's also periodically being backup up to an external hard drive to make sure I don't lose them. However, I'm always accessing the files from other computers on the home network using an SMB share, and this results in a considerable speed penalty (especially when connected over WLAN). This is quite annoying when editing large files, such as digital camera RAWs, for example. I've been looking for a solution to this problem. It would have to offer some kind of local caching to speed up the file access. The client would preferably not keep a copy of all data on the server, as it consists of a very large collection of photographs, most of which I will not access frequently. Instead, it should only cache the accessed files and sync the changes back in the background. Ideally, it would also do some smart read-ahead (cache the files that are in the same directory as the currently opened file, for examples), but I suppose that's asking a bit much. Synchronization should be automatic (on file change). Conflicting file changes (at the same time on different clients) are unlikely to happen in my use case, but I would prefer if they are handled properly (notification to the user). I've come across the following options, so far: something similar to Dropbox. iFolder seems to be the only thing that comes close, but its reputation (stability) and requirements put me off. A distributed file system such as OpenAFS. I'm not sure this will speed up file access. It is probably overkill for what I need. Maybe NFS or even Samba offer these possibilities. I read a bit about Windows' Offline Files, but its operation seems limited (at least on Windows XP). As this is just for personal use, I'm not willing to spend a lot of money. A free solution would be preferred. Also, the server needs to run on Linux, and I need a client for at least Windows.

    Read the article

  • how I can Specifying tcpreplay speed

    - by herzl shemuelian
    I am tring to Specify tcpreplay speed but I can't do it this is my detail of test: $tcpreplay -V tcpreplay version: 3.4.4 (build 2450) 1)$ tcpreplay -i %0 -p 100 -L 500 _udp_only.pcap Actual: 500 packets (42247 bytes) sent in 5.05 seconds.Rated: 8365.7 bps, 0.06 Mbps, 99.01 pps s 2)$ tcpreplay -i %0 -p 1000 -L 5000 _udp_only.pcap Actual: 5000 packets (427710 bytes) sent in 5.19 seconds. Rated: 82410.4 bps, 0.63 Mbps, 963.39 pps //here is problem I stay in 966.00 pps 3)$ tcpreplay -i %0 -p 10000 -L 50000 _udp_only.pcap Actual: 50000 packets (4322559 bytes) sent in 51.76 seconds.Rated: 83511.6 bps, 0.64 Mbps, 966.00 pps I have same problem when I try to Specify --mbps for 8600 packets 86 byte avg for each packet -M0.086 -L 860 ---- Rated: 10812.9 bps, 0.08 Mbps, 127.22 pps -M0.86 -L 860 ---- Rated: 83062.5 bps, 0.63 Mbps, 977.27 pps -M0.86 -L 8600 ---- Rated: 82554.9 bps, 0.63 Mbps, 965.21 pps why and how I can to Specify speed? I use OS windows7

    Read the article

  • my torrent speed is slower all of the sudden

    - by nazmi98
    Last year when I tried to download torrent the speed was around 120 kb/s, but now it's only 10 kbs/s. I'm really confused here. I have been trying everything that I could find on the internet but nothing seems to work, so I'm really desperate for help. One more thing: I don't know if this will help, but i'm from Malaysia. My internet speed is 1 mb. I tried using all the PCs that I own and all seems to produce the same result.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >