Search Results

Search found 9286 results on 372 pages for 'transfer speed'.

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 153/372 | < Previous Page | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >

  • methods for preventing large scale data scraping from REST api

    - by Simon Kenyon Shepard
    I know the immediate answer to this is going to be there is no 100% reliable method of doing this. But I'd like to create a question that details the different possibilities, the difficulty of implementing them and success rates. I would like to go from simple software ip/request speed analysis to high end sophisticated soft/hardware tools, e.g. neural networks. With a goal of predicting and preventing bogus requests and attempts to scrape the service. Many Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How much it costs to tun own hosting server

    - by Mirage
    I currently have VPS in my company and there i host about 20 websites. My copany wants to set up server locally where they can host all websites rtaher using 3rd party VPS How it will cost e,g about upload ,download speed from data centre. Cpanels license IP registration, hardware , backups, electricity backups, Any other cots etc I would prefer centos

    Read the article

  • HP DL380 using HP NC522SFP NIC shows supported link modes: not reported

    - by MikeS
    When using ethtool on this NIC, the supported link modes show "not reported". Any idea why this is the case? Settings for eth0: Supported ports: [ FIBRE ] Supported link modes: Not reported Supported pause frame use: Symmetric Supports auto-negotiation: No Advertised link modes: Not reported Advertised pause frame use: No Advertised auto-negotiation: No Speed: 10000Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: FIBRE PHYAD: 1 Transceiver: external Auto-negotiation: off Supports Wake-on: g Wake-on: g Current message level: 0x00002000 (8192) hw Link detected: yes

    Read the article

  • Slow file copying/network browsing in Windows 7

    - by tomp
    The file copying on local discs and network shares, and browsing shared folders is much slower on the Windows 7 than it was on Windows XP. I'm sure everyone encountered this problem, I personally have seen it on many different computers. What would you recommend to speed up these operations?

    Read the article

  • port is not open in torrent client even though it was forwarded

    - by aukxn
    I have a problem with port forwarding with my torrent, port check tool says that it open, the firewall exception as well. But with the test by the client not say so. I don't know why. Can anybody help me fix me this problem, the download and upload speed with torrent is very slow. ![enter image description here][1] I don't have enough reputation to post images so here is the link of the image http://i.stack.imgur.com/tgOdr.png http://i.stack.imgur.com/OgjX4.png

    Read the article

  • How to permanently save power options in windows 7

    - by Ieyasu Sawada
    How can I set the hard disk to never turn off permanently?And the sleep to never, together with the hibernate. Because the options resets to their default values when I turn off, log off or restart my computer. I am using granola on my laptop and it is set to lowest speed. When I restart it turns to full power again. Does it have something to do with the power options resetting to their default values?

    Read the article

  • Fastest Mac OS X RSS reader

    - by Mr. Man
    I am currently using NetNewsWire as my primary RSS reader on my Mac and was wondering if there was anything faster in terms of feed reload speed. Currently it is pretty slow reloading my 54 RSS feeds that I keep tabs on. There are some features I would like it to have. Google Reader Sync (MUST have feature) Starring/Saving of articles for later reading Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Why should I choose either PCL or PS when both are supported

    - by Goyuix
    Obviously the answer depends to some degree on the various versions supported, but in general terms - is there any reason I should pick one over the other? PCL for art and PS for text? Does one typically require less RAM on the printer? Speed differences? For home use it doesn't matter and only professional print people will notice and care? Wikipedia References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_Command_Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript

    Read the article

  • How to install Dvorak Type 2 (ii) German on Ubuntu using Gnome

    - by Peter Lustig
    Currently I am using standard Dvorak on Ubuntu 13.10 and Gnome 3.10. Unfortunately, writing Umlauts (ä,ö,ü) in German requires me to switch to QWERTY/QWERTZ frequently or forces me to not write those umlauts (which looks strange to German native speakers). Is there a way to use Dvorak Type 2, including the umlauts, but otherwise using the standard English layout on Ubuntu with Gnome? I'm a fast typer on standard English Dvorak and would like to avoid fully switching to German Dvorak as this would (at least temporarily) reduce my typing speed.

    Read the article

  • Disable scroll acceleration (windows/lenovo)

    - by dhardy
    Exactly the opposite of http://superuser.com/questions/101482/global-scroll-acceleration-in-windows, is there a way to disable scroll-accelartion on windows (touchpad -- maybe from lenovo drivers). It's heck of annoying -- using no accelartion but high sensitivity like on linux is so much more precise. ( With this silly acceleration, I either have incredibly slow scrolling, or scrolling so fast it skips whole chunks of text at once. Speed control but not acceleration control. Could say the same for mouse cursor, though that's less annoying. )

    Read the article

  • Handler_read_rnd is too high (more than 2GB)

    - by pnm123
    Hello, I am running an advertising program and there are some SELECT, UPDATE and DELETE queries when showing ads. Sometimes, displaying ads is fast but sometimes it is too slow. At this time, it is slow and Handler_read_rnd and Handler_read_rnd_next is as mentioned below. Handler_read_rnd 2,844.68 M Handler_read_rnd_next 2,945.63 M How can I speed-up displaying ads (decreasing Handler_read_rnd and Handler_read_rnd_next) Thank you, pnm123 PS: Currently there are 7,068,528 rows on the advertising program's database.

    Read the article

  • e2fsck extremely slow, although enough memory exists

    - by kaefert
    I've got this external USB-Disk: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ lsusb -s 2:3 Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0bc2:3320 Seagate RSS LLC As can be seen in this dmesg output, there is some problem that prevents that disk from beeing mounted: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ dmesg ... [ 113.084079] usb 2-1: new high-speed USB device number 3 using ehci_hcd [ 113.217783] usb 2-1: New USB device found, idVendor=0bc2, idProduct=3320 [ 113.217787] usb 2-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=2, Product=3, SerialNumber=1 [ 113.217790] usb 2-1: Product: Expansion Desk [ 113.217792] usb 2-1: Manufacturer: Seagate [ 113.217794] usb 2-1: SerialNumber: NA4J4N6K [ 113.435404] usbcore: registered new interface driver uas [ 113.455315] Initializing USB Mass Storage driver... [ 113.468051] scsi5 : usb-storage 2-1:1.0 [ 113.468180] usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage [ 113.468182] USB Mass Storage support registered. [ 114.473105] scsi 5:0:0:0: Direct-Access Seagate Expansion Desk 070B PQ: 0 ANSI: 6 [ 114.474342] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) [ 114.475089] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off [ 114.475092] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00 [ 114.475959] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA [ 114.477093] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) [ 114.501649] sdb: sdb1 [ 114.502717] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) [ 114.504354] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk [ 116.804408] EXT4-fs (sdb1): ext4_check_descriptors: Checksum for group 3976 failed (47397!=61519) [ 116.804413] EXT4-fs (sdb1): group descriptors corrupted! ... So I went and fired up my favorite partition manager - gparted, and told it to verify and repair the partition sdb1. This made gparted call e2fsck (version 1.42.4 (12-Jun-2012)) e2fsck -f -y -v /dev/sdb1 Although gparted called e2fsck with the "-v" option, sadly it doesn't show me the output of my e2fsck process (bugreport https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467925 ) I started this whole thing on Sunday (2012-11-04_2200) evening, so about 48 hours ago, this is what htop says about it now (2012-11-06-1900): PID USER PRI NI VIRT RES SHR S CPU% MEM% TIME+ Command 3704 root 39 19 1560M 1166M 768 R 98.0 19.5 42h56:43 e2fsck -f -y -v /dev/sdb1 Now I found a few posts on the internet that discuss e2fsck running slow, for example: http://gparted-forum.surf4.info/viewtopic.php?id=13613 where they write that its a good idea to see if the disk is just that slow because maybe its damaged, and I think these outputs tell me that this is not the case in my case: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo hdparm -tT /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing cached reads: 3562 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1783.29 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 82 MB in 3.01 seconds = 27.26 MB/sec kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: multcount = 0 (off) readonly = 0 (off) readahead = 256 (on) geometry = 364801/255/63, sectors = 5860533160, start = 0 However, although I can read quickly from that disk, this disk speed doesn't seem to be used by e2fsck, considering tools like gkrellm or iotop or this: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ iostat -x Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (blechmobil) 2012-11-06 _x86_64_ (2 CPU) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 14,24 47,81 14,63 0,95 0,00 22,37 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util sda 0,59 8,29 2,42 5,14 43,17 160,17 53,75 0,30 39,80 8,72 54,42 3,95 2,99 sdb 137,54 5,48 9,23 0,20 587,07 22,73 129,35 0,07 7,70 7,51 16,18 2,17 2,04 Now I researched a little bit on how to find out what e2fsck is doing with all that processor time, and I found the tool strace, which gives me this: kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo strace -p3704 lseek(4, 41026998272, SEEK_SET) = 41026998272 write(4, "\212\354K[_\361\3nl\212\245\352\255jR\303\354\312Yv\334p\253r\217\265\3567\325\257\3766"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 48404766720, SEEK_SET) = 48404766720 read(4, "\7t\260\366\346\337\304\210\33\267j\35\377'\31f\372\252\ffU\317.y\211\360\36\240c\30`\34"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 41027002368, SEEK_SET) = 41027002368 write(4, "\232]7Ws\321\352\t\1@[+5\263\334\276{\343zZx\352\21\316`1\271[\202\350R`"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 48404770816, SEEK_SET) = 48404770816 read(4, "\17\362r\230\327\25\346//\210H\v\311\3237\323K\304\306\361a\223\311\324\272?\213\tq \370\24"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 41027006464, SEEK_SET) = 41027006464 write(4, "\367yy>x\216?=\324Z\305\351\376&\25\244\210\271\22\306}\276\237\370(\214\205G\262\360\257#"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 48404774912, SEEK_SET) = 48404774912 read(4, "\365\25\0\21|T\0\21}3t_\272\373\222k\r\177\303\1\201\261\221$\261B\232\3142\21U\316"..., 4096) = 4096 ^CProcess 3704 detached around 16 of these lines every second, so 4 read and 4 write operations every second, which I don't consider to be a lot.. And finally, my question: Will this process ever finish? If those numbers from fseek (48404774912) represent bytes, that would be something like 45 gigabytes, with this beeing a 3 terrabyte disk, which would give me 134 days to go, if the speed stays constant, and e2fsck scans the disk like this completly and only once. Do you have some advice for me? I have most of the data on that disk elsewhere, but I've put a lot of hours into sorting and merging it to this disk, so I would prefer to getting this disk up and running again, without formatting it anew. I don't think that the hardware is damaged since the disk is only a few months and since I can't see any I/O errors in the dmesg output. UPDATE: I just looked at the strace output again (2012-11-06_2300), now it looks like this: lseek(4, 1419860611072, SEEK_SET) = 1419860611072 read(4, "3#\f\2447\335\0\22A\355\374\276j\204'\207|\217V|\23\245[\7VP\251\242\276\207\317:"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 43018145792, SEEK_SET) = 43018145792 write(4, "]\206\231\342Y\204-2I\362\242\344\6R\205\361\324\177\265\317C\334V\324\260\334\275t=\10F."..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 1419860615168, SEEK_SET) = 1419860615168 read(4, "\262\305\314Y\367\37x\326\245\226\226\320N\333$s\34\204\311\222\7\315\236\336\300TK\337\264\236\211n"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 43018149888, SEEK_SET) = 43018149888 write(4, "\271\224m\311\224\25!I\376\16;\377\0\223H\25Yd\201Y\342\r\203\271\24eG<\202{\373V"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 1419860619264, SEEK_SET) = 1419860619264 read(4, ";d\360\177\n\346\253\210\222|\250\352T\335M\33\260\320\261\7g\222P\344H?t\240\20\2548\310"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 43018153984, SEEK_SET) = 43018153984 write(4, "\360\252j\317\310\251G\227\335{\214`\341\267\31Y\202\360\v\374\307oq\3063\217Z\223\313\36D\211"..., 4096) = 4096 So the numbers in the lseek lines before the reads, like 1419860619264 are already a lot bigger, standing for 1.29 terabytes if those numbers are bytes, so it doesn't seem to be a linear progress on a big scale, maybe there are only some areas that need work, that have big gaps in between them. UPDATE2: Okey, big disappointment, the numbers are back to very small again (2012-11-07_0720) lseek(4, 52174548992, SEEK_SET) = 52174548992 read(4, "\374\312\22\\\325\215\213\23\0357U\222\246\370v^f(\312|f\212\362\343\375\373\342\4\204mU6"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 46603526144, SEEK_SET) = 46603526144 write(4, "\370\261\223\227\23?\4\4\217\264\320_Am\246CQ\313^\203U\253\274\204\277\2564n\227\177\267\343"..., 4096) = 4096 so either e2fsck goes over the data multiple times, or it just hops back and forth multiple times. Or my assumption that those numbers are bytes is wrong. UPDATE3: Since it's mentioned here http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=282125&page=2 that you can testisk while e2fsck is running, i tried that, though not with a lot of success. When asking testdisk to display the data of my partition, this is what I get: TestDisk 6.13, Data Recovery Utility, November 2011 Christophe GRENIER <[email protected]> http://www.cgsecurity.org 1 P Linux 0 4 5 45600 40 8 732566272 Can't open filesystem. Filesystem seems damaged. And this is what strace currently gives me (2012-11-07_1030) lseek(4, 212460343296, SEEK_SET) = 212460343296 read(4, "\315Mb\265v\377Gn \24\f\205EHh\2349~\330\273\203\3375\206\10\r3=W\210\372\352"..., 4096) = 4096 lseek(4, 47347830784, SEEK_SET) = 47347830784 write(4, "]\204\223\300I\357\4\26\33+\243\312G\230\250\371*m2U\t_\215\265J \252\342Pm\360D"..., 4096) = 4096 (times are in CET)

    Read the article

  • Poor performance of single processor 32bit Windows XP xompared SMP in VBA+Excel

    - by Adam Ryczkowski
    Welcome! On many computers I experienced poor performance of 32 bit guests running on 64 bit Linux host (I used only the Debian family). At last I managed to collect benchmark data. I made the benchmark by running custom VBA macro, (which we use in our company) that generates 284 pages long Word document full of Excel Pie charts, tables and comments. The macro is run as a single task (excluding the standard services) on a set of identically configured Windows XP 32-bit systems. I measured the time (in sec.) needed to perform the test. The computer (i.e. my notebook Asus P53E) supports both VT-d extensions and native Windows XP. It has 2-core processor, each core is hyperthreaded, so in total we have 4 mostly independent execution units. I use the latest VirtualBox 4.2 and VMWare Workstation 9.0 for Linux, installed together on the same host (running Mint 13 Maya) but never run simultaneously. The results (in column Time) are no less accurate than ± 10% Here are the results (sorry for the format, but I couldn't find out a better solution for tables in SO): +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------------+------+ | Host software | # processor | Windows kernel | IO APIC | VT-x/AMD-V | 2D Video Accel | Time | +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------------+------+ | VirtualBox | 1 | Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1139 | | VirtualBox | 1 | Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1050 | | VirtualBox | 1 | Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1644 | | VirtualBox | 4 | ACPI Multiprocessor PC | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6809 | | VMWare | 1 | ACPI Uniprocessor PC | | 1 | 1 | 1175 | | VMWare | 4 | ACPI Multiprocessor PC | | 1 | 1 | 3412 | | Native | 4 | ACPI Multiprocessor PC | | | | 1693 | | Native | 1 | Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC | | | | 1170 | +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------+---------+------------+----------------+------+ Here are the striking conclusions: Although I've read in the VirtualBox fora about abysmal performance with 32-bit guest on 64-bit host, VMWare also has problems compared to native run, still being twice faster(!) than VBox. Although VBA is inherently single-threaded, the Excel calculations, which take much more than a half of total computation time, supposedly aren't. So one would expect some speed gain when running on 2+ cores ("+" for hyperthreading). What we see is a speed loss. And quite big one too. For the VirtualBox the VT-d extension isn't a big deal. Can anyone shed some light on why the singlethreaded Windows kernel is so much faster than the SMP one?

    Read the article

  • Problem with slow hard disk

    - by Makis Arvin
    We bought some new PCs in my company with the new iCore 7 and 8GB memory and the following hard disk: WESTERN DIGITAL WD8000AARS 800GB CAVIAR GREEN SATA2 The problem we have is that after installing windows XP64 SP2 the write speed of the hard disk is extremely low!. The windows system monitor shows that the Average Disk queue length is always at 100% and a winzip extract of 350mb takes about 8min. Is there any idea on where to start looking for the cause of that? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is "Turn Off Windows write-cache buffer flushing" safe on a laptop?

    - by Earlz
    my laptop's internal harddrive is a bit slow. I looked at the drive properties and there are two options: [X] Enable write caching on the device [ ] Turn off windows write-cache buffer flushing on the device As you can see, the first option is checked already, but the second option isn't. I've heard the second option can really speed things up, but it also sounds very risky. Is it safe to do on a laptop that rarely is off of AC power? (but still has battery as well)

    Read the article

  • Are these acceptable temperatures for my laptop?

    - by WilliamKF
    I just installed SpeedFan 4.0 since my laptop's fan seems to be continually running at a high speed. It reports these numbers: GPU: 74C Temp1 (ACPI): 75C Temp2 (ACPI): 95C Core 0: 89C Core 1: 89C These seem awfully high to me, should I be concerned? This is an HP EliteBook 8730w with Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9100 @ 3.06GHz and nVidia Quadro FX 3700M.

    Read the article

  • Are these acceptable temperatures for my laptop?

    - by WilliamKF
    I just installed SpeedFan 4.0 since my laptop's fan seems to be continually running at a high speed. It reports these numbers: GPU: 74C Temp1 (ACPI): 75C Temp2 (ACPI): 95C Core 0: 89C Core 1: 89C These seem awfully high to me, should I be concerned? This is an HP EliteBook 8730w with Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9100 @ 3.06GHz and nVidia Quadro FX 3700M.

    Read the article

  • Mysql replication, Slow resyncing of slave after an error

    - by James Hackett
    I have a slave that got an error about a months or so ago and got way behind the master. I fixed the error and now playing catchup with the master but its going very slowly. Its going at 1.3x real time. I was using less that 10% of the db resources when these writes were first happening so the speed of the server shouldn't be an issue. Is there any settings I can switch to help the slave catch up with the master?

    Read the article

  • Linux filesystem with inodes close on the disk

    - by pts
    I'd like to make the ls -laR /media/myfs on Linux as fast as possible. I'll have 1 million files on the filesystem, 2TB of total file size, and some directories containing as much as 10000 files. Which filesystem should I use and how should I configure it? As far as I understand, the reason why ls -laR is slow because it has to stat(2) each inode (i.e. 1 million stat(2)s), and since inodes are distributed randomly on the disk, each stat(2) needs one disk seek. Here are some solutions I had in mind, none of which I am satisfied with: Create the filesystem on an SSD, because the seek operations on SSDs are fast. This wouldn't work, because a 2TB SSD doesn't exist, or it's prohibitively expensive. Create a filesystem which spans on two block devices: an SSD and a disk; the disk contains file data, and the SSD contains all the metadata (including directory entries, inodes and POSIX extended attributes). Is there a filesystem which supports this? Would it survive a system crash (power outage)? Use find /media/myfs on ext2, ext3 or ext4, instead of ls -laR /media/myfs, because the former can the advantage of the d_type field (see in the getdents(2) man page), so it doesn't have to stat. Unfortunately, this doesn't meet my requirements, because I need all file sizes as well, which find /media/myfs doesn't print. Use a filesystem, such as VFAT, which stores inodes in the directory entries. I'd love this one, but VFAT is not reliable and flexible enough for me, and I don't know of any other filesystem which does that. Do you? Of course, storing inodes in the directory entries wouldn't work for files with a link count more than 1, but that's not a problem since I have only a few dozen such files in my use case. Adjust some settings in /proc or sysctl so that inodes are locked to system memory forever. This would not speed up the first ls -laR /media/myfs, but it would make all subsequent invocations amazingly fast. How can I do this? I don't like this idea, because it doesn't speed up the first invocation, which currently takes 30 minutes. Also I'd like to lock the POSIX extended attributes in memory as well. What do I have to do for that? Use a filesystem which has an online defragmentation tool, which can be instructed to relocate inodes to the the beginning of the block device. Once the relocation is done, I can run dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M count=256 to get the beginning of the block device fetched to the kernel in-memory cache without seeking, and then the stat(2) operations would be fast, because they read from the cache. Is there a way to lock those inodes and/or blocks into memory once they have been read? Which filesystem has such a defragmentation tool?

    Read the article

  • Why does Chromium run so slow in portable mode?

    - by NoCatharsis
    I am using Chromium on a flash drive through LiberKey and it does everything I want it to do as far as syncing my Chrome bookmarks from home, etc. But it's soooooo slow. If I open more than 1 tab, or if a tab is heavy with code such as Gmail or GMaps, then the entire program hangs for about 5-10 seconds. I don't exactly know how portable apps work when run from a flash drive, so is there a way to speed up load times?

    Read the article

  • VMWare Pre-Allocated vs. Growable, which is faster?

    - by tekiegreg
    In an effort to increase speed in my Vmware setup, I was thinking about converting a Windows XP Guest 32 bit I have from growable to pre-allocated, I'm currently running VMWare Workstation 7 with Windows 7 64 bit as the host. Specs: Dual Core CPU, one allocated to guest 4GB of RAM, 2GB to guest HD max capacity is 500GB, 150GB allocated to guest (I have 300GB left and don't mind parting with the space, currently HD is 80GB and converting would obviously add another 70GB of space), HD that guest is running on is separate from Host OS Either that or any other suggestions you have might be appreciated, thanks!

    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 | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >