Search Results

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

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 17/184 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Under what circumstances can/will a 10BASE-T device slow down a 100BASE-T or faster network?

    - by Fred Hamilton
    Suppose I have a 10BASE-T device, but everything else on my network is 100BASE-T or faster. When I attach the 10Mbit device, one of two things could happen: It could be passed through as 10BASE-T, making whatever it's connected to slow down to 10BASE-T, or It could be converted to a higher speed. I'm looking for all the plausible examples where #1 could happen; where attaching this 10Mbit device will slow down other traffic. I sorta think it can't happen - that as soon as it comes into contact with other traffic it has to get retimed to be inserted into the higher rate traffic (so no slowdown aside from the extra bits from the connection), and that when it's not contacting other traffic, who cares if it's only 10Mbit? Basically I'd like a better understanding of any impact of inserting a slow device into a fast ethernet network.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to make scp run faster on a Mac OS X?

    - by paul_sns
    I'm trying to a upload a Flex generated SWF file from my Macbook (running Snow Leopard) using the command scp main.swf server.com:/ I had setup key authentication to prevent typing the user/pass every time. This process normally takes up to two minutes using my connection at home (768kbps down/300+ kbps up). The interesting part is that when I use WinSCP in my Windows XP machine, the process only takes 30 seconds max. Both my MacBook and Windows XP machine use the same internet connection. The MacBook is connected to the router via cable (which should be faster right?) while the Windows XP connects through Wifi. Let me know if you need additional information in order to diagnose the problem. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is PCI Express x4 faster or slower than a standard PCI slot for graphic cards?

    - by Stephen R
    I am looking at potential motherboards for a computer I want to build and ran into this conundrum. The motherboard has two PCI Express slots that allow for 16 channel cards to fit in them. The catch is only one of them operates at 16 channels, the other operates only 4 channels. My question is, would it be faster to buy a PCI Express graphic card and install it in the 4 channel PCI Express slot? Or would it be better to buy a standard PCI graphic card and install it in one of the available PCI slots?

    Read the article

  • Lenovo N100 and Samsung SSD 830, shouldn't this go faster than 100MB/s?

    - by Jook
    I recently upgrated my Lenovo N100 0768 with a Samsung SSD 830 - specified to support 520 MB/s read and 320MB/s write. However, having only SATA1 with max. of 150MB/s speed, it has to run in a slower mode - of course. But, shouldn't it be more on the edge of this limit than ranging between 90-115MB/s and averaging around 103MB/s? Or is this really as much as I can expect? Tested with HD-Tach. Has anyone comparable results on a SATA1 controller with a SSD drive faster than SATA1? Preferably similar to the Samsung 830?

    Read the article

  • Which type of memory is faster than average for server use?

    - by Tony_Henrich
    I am building a server computer which will be used for SQL Server and I am planning to use like 32G+ of RAM and putting the databases in memory. (I know all about data loss issues when power is gone). I haven't been up to date with the new types of memory sticks out there. What kind of memory should I get which is faster than average and not very expensive? I am buying a lot of ram so I am looking for memory that's above average but below high end if high end is very expensive. (I will be using Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard or Windows HPC Server 2008 R2)

    Read the article

  • SCCM - How to make new deployed applications appear in Software Center faster?

    - by icehac
    I am trying to make the process between SCCM deployments and the Software Center (configmgr) faster, if not seamless. Right now, applications generally take about 1-2 hours to populate properly. However, by going to the "Configuration Manager" under the Windows Control Panel, there is an "Actions" tab. Generally 5 minutes after running these "Actions", the software will populate inside the Software Center. The downside of this is the user interaction with the "Actions" pane...I can't have a user going through this process when they request a new application that needs to be deployed through SCCM. I have have played around with using "net stop ccmexec" and "net start ccmexec" to manually run all of these "Actions" on the start command, but it feels a bit archaic. Does anyone have any suggestions how to speed this process up? I feel there is something simple I am missing.

    Read the article

  • how to cause linux system datetime to run faster than real world datetime?

    - by JamesThomasMoon1979
    Background I want to monitor a running linux system over several days. It's a custom gentoo build and with much custom software on board. This software has ongoing maintenance timers and cron scripts and other clock driven events. I need to verify these scheduled events are working. Problem Waiting for the system to step through daily and weekly activity is a long wait time. And modifying all clock-based timers on the system would be time consuming. Yet, I often want to test a system's end-to-end scheduled activities without waiting a week. Potential Solution Have the linux system under test appear to run through it's daily cycle of activity within just a few hours. My Question for Serverfault Is there a way to cause the system's time to run faster than real world time? My first thought is manipulating the ntp daemon to repeatedly and smoothly increment the clock . Any other ideas? And yes, I know this may have strange side affects. However, the system has no important or time critical interactions with systems outside of itself. And this may be a valuable testing technique.

    Read the article

  • Why is wget so much faster than Firefox at some downloads?

    - by Earlz
    Recently, I needed to do an update of Xilinx WebPack, mind you, this is one hefty piece of software. It weighs in at 6gigs, which definitely isn't "quick" on any internet I've ever had available to me. So, when I went to download it(using Firefox of course), I was very... unsettled by the fact that the download was only going at 110kByte/s. My internet connection is capable of about 2200kByte/s download, so what gives!? My workaround in the past for this issue has been to take the link to my Linode linux server and download it there with wget, where the download will zip along at 14MByte/s, and then either copying it to my website directory and downloading it that way through HTTP, or using sftp. Both ways work about as well and will sufficiently max out my connection. However, I recently figured out the missing variable. I tried doing the download locally with wget and was able to max out my connection! TL;DR; Now, my question. Why is wget so much faster than firefox at downloading this file? I hardly ever have such a difference in download speeds except for with this one file.

    Read the article

  • Why is processing a sorted array faster than an unsorted array?

    - by GManNickG
    Here is a piece of code that shows some very peculiar performance. For some strange reason, sorting the data miraculously speeds up the code by almost 6x: #include <algorithm> #include <ctime> #include <iostream> int main() { // generate data const unsigned arraySize = 32768; int data[arraySize]; for (unsigned c = 0; c < arraySize; ++c) data[c] = std::rand() % 256; // !!! with this, the next loop runs faster std::sort(data, data + arraySize); // test clock_t start = clock(); long long sum = 0; for (unsigned i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) { // primary loop for (unsigned c = 0; c < arraySize; ++c) { if (data[c] >= 128) sum += data[c]; } } double elapsedTime = static_cast<double>(clock() - start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; std::cout << elapsedTime << std::endl; std::cout << "sum = " << sum << std::endl; } Without std::sort(data, data + arraySize);, the code runs in 11.54 seconds. With the sorted data, the code runs in 1.93 seconds. Initially I thought this might be just a language or compiler anomaly. So I tried it Java... import java.util.Arrays; import java.util.Random; public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) { // generate data int arraySize = 32768; int data[] = new int[arraySize]; Random rnd = new Random(0); for (int c = 0; c < arraySize; ++c) data[c] = rnd.nextInt() % 256; // !!! with this, the next loop runs faster Arrays.sort(data); // test long start = System.nanoTime(); long sum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) { // primary loop for (int c = 0; c < arraySize; ++c) { if (data[c] >= 128) sum += data[c]; } } System.out.println((System.nanoTime() - start) / 1000000000.0); System.out.println("sum = " + sum); } } with a similar but less extreme result. My first thought was that sorting brings the data into cache, but my next thought was how silly that is because the array was just generated. What is going on? Why is a sorted array faster than an unsorted array? The code is summing up some independent terms, the order should not matter.

    Read the article

  • DVD/CD burning .zip: is it more reliable, faster, longer lasting to burn a zip of files rather than the files as a folder?

    - by Rob
    Is it more reliable, faster, longer lasting to burn to CD/DVD a zip (or a few large zips) of files rather than the files as a folder? Just thinking if 1000s of small files would not be as efficiently recorded compared with one or a few large zips. Also, even after the burning program verifies the disc, I also use Beyond Compare to compare the files with those on the disc. Always binary compares as identical but I hear the drive stuttering presumably as the head is being shifted only slightly each time to seek the next file, which leads me to think that its best to make one or more zips and copy those locally to compare. Or is it that burning invidual files to the disc is not as readable which causes the head to stutter. There aren't any problems, my disc burns are reliable, just thinking more of efficiency and longevity, the discs burn and verify fast enough on my 18x DVD burner. I'm using ImgBurn mostly. Also used Nero in the past. I burn whole discs closed, finalised. Not sure which write mode but would think Disc At Once from a temporary cached image made by the burning program would be the most reliable.

    Read the article

  • Why is piping dd through gzip so much faster than a direct copy?

    - by Foo Bar
    I wanted to backup a path from a computer in my network to another computer in the same network over a 100MBit/s line. For this I did dd if=/local/path of=/remote/path/in/local/network/backup.img which gave me a very low network transfer speed of something about 50 to 100 kB/s, which would have taken forever. So I stopped it and decided to try gzipping it on the fly to make it much smaller so that the amount to transfer is less. So I did dd if=/local/folder | gzip > /remote/path/in/local/network/backup.img.gz But now I get something like 1 MB/s network transfer speed, so a factor of 10 to 20 faster. After noticing this, I tested this on several paths and files and it was always the same. Why does piping dd through gzip also increase the transfer rates by a large factor instead of only reducing the bytelength of the stream by a large factor? I'd expected even a small decrease in transfer rates instead, due to the higher CPU consumption while compressing, but now I get a double plus. Not that I'm not happy, but just wondering. ;)

    Read the article

  • Intel CPU: Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon Dual Core. Which is faster?

    - by Clay Nichols
    Xeon: Dual Core Intel® Xeon® W3503 2.40GHz, 4M L3, 4.8GT/s Intel® Core™2 Duo E8400 (6MB,3.0 GHz, 1333FSB), USES: Virtual PC (and doing software development within Virtual PC) A little bit of video editing Desktop software (like Outlook, Quickbooks, etc.) I think #1 is faster, but wanted feedback from other folks here. Which is faster and why? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How is it that json serialization is so much faster than yaml serialization in python?

    - by guidoism
    I have code that relies heavily on yaml for cross-language serialization and while working on speeding some stuff up I noticed that yaml was insanely slow compared to other serialization methods (e.g., pickle, json). So what really blows my mind is that json is so much faster that yaml when the output is nearly identical. >>> import yaml, cjson; d={'foo': {'bar': 1}} >>> yaml.dump(d, Dumper=yaml.SafeDumper) 'foo: {bar: 1}\n' >>> cjson.encode(d) '{"foo": {"bar": 1}}' >>> import yaml, cjson; >>> timeit("yaml.dump(d, Dumper=yaml.SafeDumper)", setup="import yaml; d={'foo': {'bar': 1}}", number=10000) 44.506911039352417 >>> timeit("yaml.dump(d, Dumper=yaml.CSafeDumper)", setup="import yaml; d={'foo': {'bar': 1}}", number=10000) 16.852826118469238 >>> timeit("cjson.encode(d)", setup="import cjson; d={'foo': {'bar': 1}}", number=10000) 0.073784112930297852 PyYaml's CSafeDumper and cjson are both written in C so it's not like this is a C vs Python speed issue. I've even added some random data to it to see if cjson is doing any caching, but it's still way faster than PyYaml. I realize that yaml is a superset of json, but how could the yaml serializer be 2 orders of magnitude slower with such simple input?

    Read the article

  • What is faster- Java or C# (Or good old C)?

    - by Rexsung
    I'm currently deciding on a platform to build a scientific computational product on, and am deciding on either C#, Java, or plain C with Intels compiler on Core2 Quad CPU's. It's mostly integer arithmetic. My benchmarks so far show Java and C are about on par with each other, and dotNET/C# trails by about 5%- however a number of my coworkers are claiming that dotNET with the right optimizations will beat both of these given enough time for the JIT to do its work. I always assume that the JIT would have done it's job within a few minutes of the app starting (Probably a few seconds in my case, as it's mostly tight loops), so I'm not sure whether to believe them Can anyone shed any light on the situation? Would dotNET beat Java? (Or am I best just sticking with C at this point?). The code is highly multithreaded and data sets are several terabytes in size. Haskell/erlang etc are not options in this case as there is a significant quantity of existing legacy C code that will be ported to the new system, and porting C to Java/C# is a lot simpler than to Haskell or Erlang. (Unless of course these provide a significant speedup). Edit: We are considering moving to C# or Java because they may, in theory, be faster. Every percent we can shave off our processing time saves us tens of thousands of dollars per year. At this point we are just trying to evaluate whether C, Java, or c# would be faster.

    Read the article

  • Why Enumerable.Range is faster than a direct yield loop?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    Below code is checking performance of three different ways to do same solution. public static void Main(string[] args) { // for loop { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); int accumulator = 0; for (int i = 1; i <= 100000000; ++i) { accumulator += i; } sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, accumulator); } //Enumerable.Range { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); var ret = Enumerable.Range(1, 100000000).Aggregate(0, (accumulator, n) => accumulator + n); sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret); } //self-made IEnumerable<int> { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); var ret = GetIntRange(1, 100000000).Aggregate(0, (accumulator, n) => accumulator + n); sw.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret); } } private static IEnumerable<int> GetIntRange(int start, int count) { int end = start + count; for (int i = start; i < end; ++i) { yield return i; } } } The result is like this: time = 306; result = 987459712 time = 1301; result = 987459712 time = 2860; result = 987459712 It is not surprising that "for loop" is faster than the other two solutions, because Enumerable.Aggregate takes more method invocations. However, it really surprises that "Enumerable.Range" is faster than the "self-made IEnumerable". I thought that Enumerable.Range will take more overhead than the simple GetIntRange method. What is the possible reason for this?

    Read the article

  • Why would using a Temp table be faster than a nested query?

    - by Mongus Pong
    We are trying to optimise some of our queries. One query is doing the following: SELECT t.TaskID, t.Name as Task, '' as Tracker, t.ClientID, (<complex subquery>) Date, INTO [#Gadget] FROM task t SELECT TOP 500 TaskID, Task, Tracker, ClientID, dbo.GetClientDisplayName(ClientID) as Client FROM [#Gadget] order by CASE WHEN Date IS NULL THEN 1 ELSE 0 END , Date ASC DROP TABLE [#Gadget] (I have removed the complex subquery, cos I dont think its relevant other than to explain why this query has been done as a two stage process.) Now I would have thought it would be far more efficient to merge this down into a single query using subqueries as : SELECT TOP 500 TaskID, Task, Tracker, ClientID, dbo.GetClientDisplayName(ClientID) FROM ( SELECT t.TaskID, t.Name as Task, '' as Tracker, t.ClientID, (<complex subquery>) Date, FROM task t ) as sub order by CASE WHEN Date IS NULL THEN 1 ELSE 0 END , Date ASC This would give the optimiser better information to work out what was going on and avoid any temporary tables. It should be faster. But it turns out it is a lot slower. 8 seconds vs under 5 seconds. I cant work out why this would be the case as all my knowledge of databases imply that subqueries would always be faster than using temporary tables. Can anyone explain what could be going on!?!?

    Read the article

  • Are reads and (transactional) writes faster for entities of the same group than otherwise?

    - by indiehacker
    What advantage is there to designing child-parent relationships, which allow us to do writes in transactions, when there is never a real concern for consistency and contention and those sort of more complex issues? Does it make writes and reads faster? Consider my situation where there are many .png images that are referenced to one mosaic layer, and these .png images are written just once by a single user. The user can design many mosaic layers and her mosaic layers and referenced image entities are never changed/updated, they are just deleted some time in the future. Other users can come to the web project site and interactively view the mosaic layer as different layouts/configurations of the images as they play (query) with different criteria. So reads should be very fast. So there is no real worry of contention, or users conflicting with one another with writing new image entities. And because of that I am assuming there is no "requirement" for the .png image entities to be grouped by their same mosaic layer in child-parent relationship. However, perhaps, since the documentation says they are stored close to one another, if the many image entities were grouped as children to a single mosaic layer parent than this has the advantage that the writing (in transaction) and reading will happen much faster?

    Read the article

  • Java reflection Method invocations yield result faster than Fields?

    - by omerkudat
    I was microbenchmarking some code (please be nice) and came across this puzzle: when reading a field using reflection, invoking the getter Method is faster than reading the Field. Simple test class: private static final class Foo { public Foo(double val) { this.val = val; } public double getVal() { return val; } public final double val; // only public for demo purposes } We have two reflections: Method m = Foo.class.getDeclaredMethod("getVal", null); Field f = Foo.class.getDeclaredField("val"); Now I call the two reflections in a loop, invoke on the Method, and get on the Field. A first run is done to warm up the VM, a second run is done with 10M iterations. The Method invocation is consistently 30% faster, but why? Note that getDeclaredMethod and getDeclaredField are not called in the loop. They are called once and executed on the same object in the loop. I also tried some minor variations: made the field non-final, transitive, non-public, etc. All of these combinations resulted in statistically similar performance. Edit: This is on WinXP, Intel Core2 Duo, Sun JavaSE build 1.6.0_16-b01, running under jUnit4 and Eclipse.

    Read the article

  • 2 approaches for tracking online users with Redis. Which one is faster?

    - by Stanislav
    Recently I found an nice blog post presenting 2 approaches for tracking online users of a web site with the help of Redis. 1) Smart-keys and setting their expiration http://techno-weenie.net/2010/2/3/where-s-waldo-track-user-locations-with-node-js-and-redis 2) Set-s and intersects http://www.lukemelia.com/blog/archives/2010/01/17/redis-in-practice-whos-online/ Can you judge which one should be faster and why?

    Read the article

  • is there a faster version of fminbnd in matlab?

    - by kloop
    I am now using fminbnd in Matlab, and I find it relatively slow (I am using it inside a nested loop). The function itself, its interface and the values it returns are great, but when looking into the .m file I see it is not optimized. As a matter of fact, I was hoping for something like that to be written as a mex. Anyone knows of an alternative to fminbnd which works much faster and does not have much overhead?

    Read the article

  • What is faster in MySQL? WHERE sub request = 0 or IN list

    - by Nicolas Manzini
    Hello I was wondering what is better in MySQL. I have a SELECT querry that exclude every entry associated to a banned userID currently I have a subquerry clause in the WHERE statement that goes like AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TheBlackListTable WHERE userID = userList.ID AND blackListedID = :userID2 ) = 0 Which will accept every userID not present in the TheBlackListTable Would it be faster to retrieve first all Banned ID in a previous request and replace the previous clause by AND creatorID NOT IN listOfBannedID Thank you!

    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 | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >