Search Results

Search found 6355 results on 255 pages for 'slow downs'.

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 27/255 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Timeouts when connecting to SQL Server since installing SP1 for Windows 7

    - by Julien
    Hi, I just installed SP1 for windows 7 and I have severe performance degradation when connecting to SQL Server 2005 since then. Establishing connection takes more than 30 seconds while it's instantaneous on another computer. Firewall is disabled and I didn't make any change to the configuration. It happens both when trying to connect with a hostname and with an ip address. Everything else seems to be fine (for instance, I'm have no issue connecting to other computers with remote desktop) What can cause such a problem? Thanks in advance! Edit : uninstalling the SP1 solves the issue instantly.

    Read the article

  • Server 2008 RAID 5 Write Speeds

    - by Solipsism
    I recently configured a RAID 5 partition in Server 2008 with 4 RAID 5 disks. These disks are connected through a SATA expansion card that uses PCIe. This morning, I checked and they had finally finished synchronizing, and so I tried to do some speed tests. Copying off the disks started pretty much fine - speeds began at 125MB/s, then trailed down to about 70MB/s, which I found odd but not worrying. Writing TO the disks however is a completely different story. I attempted to copy some of my VM host ISOs onto the disks (~2-4 GB apiece) and this resulted in speeds of approximately 10MB/s. I tried copying both from a local disk (connected directly to the motherboard) and from another server ththe gigabit network and results were the same. I checked the performance monitor while transferring the files and the only thing that stuck out was that my memory hard faults shot up to 6,000 per minute (spiking around 200/s) by explorer.exe. The system is running 2GB of DDR667 ECC RAM and a quad-core 2.3GHz opteron. Is there anything I can do to fix this performance issue (buy more RAM? move the drives to a faster box?, etc) or am I just screwed so long as I stick to windows.

    Read the article

  • Apache on Windows random long wait times

    - by Jaxbot
    I have a development machine with Apache installed as a service on Windows. The installation is fresh out of the box, with no changes to configuration aside from adding the PHP module. From day one, I've had a problem that looks like this: Essentially, Apache is freezing for about 11 seconds before replying on random requests. This appears to happen more frequently when the host hasn't been connected to in a while, but this is not always the case. I've eliminated MySQL, PHP, and the specific application; this long wait problem will occur even when loading a static file such as favicon.ico. Thus, the only factor remaining is Apache, which is freezing for consistently around 10-11 seconds before replying. The problem is not the DNS problem that many people point to; as you can see, the DNS lookup is instant, and the problem occurs both on localhost and 127.0.0.1. Thanks for the time.

    Read the article

  • Browsing is much slower on one PC wired to the same router - why?

    - by deanalt
    Wife is not happy. It takes about 5 seconds to open a google window, versus about 1 second on the faster computer which is about 3 years old itself. Yes, it is an older computer (5 -6 years old, I'd guess), surely with less RAM, but for simple browsing, should it matter? Both are hardwired to the same Netgear Rangemax router. Both use fixed IP addresses. Both are XP. Both have about 8 feet of cable to the router. I have the fastest service my cable provides. Probably irrelevant but ...two newer MACs are connected wirelessely during the summer and they are even faster, but I think that's the difference in browsers. If you could point me to a list of process of elimination steps that would be most appreciated. Thanks Dean

    Read the article

  • Dell PowerEdge 2950 III running XenServer with 2 VMs gets sluggish after a week and needs rebooted?

    - by Joshua Rountree
    It has weird hangs and then random CPU spikes that do a ton at once. While remoted into the VMs I get an update all at once then it hangs for another 20 seconds. When it lets it go through I get a CPU spike. Basic server specs for the HW node is: 8 CPUs, 16GB ram 1TB HDD total iPERC6 raid 10 The VMs are barely used but I have them spec'd at VM 1: 4 CPUs, 4GB Ram VM2: 4 CPUs 6GB ram The HW node currently says it's total CPU usage is 11% AND Used Memory is at 63%out of 16GB I'm new to this stuff so I'm not sure. I just recently installed this and set it all up. Please advise if you can!

    Read the article

  • Will adding extra RAM in my computer speed it up?

    - by Harry Simpson
    I have a 5 year old Dell Inspiron 530 desktop computer which is slowly grinding to a halt. Someone told me if i put extra RAM in itll speed it up. Inside the computer there are four slots for memory but only two has memory in them and they are 1GB each. if i bought another 2no. 1GB and put them in the free slots would it speed the computer up (would it be twice as fast?) and is it as simple as just putting them in or is there other things i need to do?

    Read the article

  • Big Excel File Freezing/Running Slowly

    - by ktm5124
    Hi, My co-worker has a very large Excel file (over 7 MB) that suffers from the problems of (A) running slowly (B) taking forever to open/save/close and (C) freezing the computer, requiring a restart. I set the calculations to Manual, and I repaired the file, but the file didn't change in file size and it is still having these problems. My questions are: (1) Is there any way around this problem or is Excel just bad at handling ~7MB files? (2) Would upgrading RAM make a big difference? (3) It's possible that we can't afford to spend the money on a RAM upgrade. Are there are any other ways of mitigating the problem? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Safari 4 starting up slowly on a Vista machine

    - by puri
    I have two PCs (different specs) with the latest Windows Vista and Safari 4 updates installed. In one machine, Safari 4 works great but in the other, it starts up slowly (less than a minute though) with harddisk sound indicating data access activities. I have cleared all internet caches and I am quite sure that there is no virus in both machines. Are there any other reasons that Safari performances are so different in comparably similar software and hardware environments?

    Read the article

  • It takes a long time until windows xp recognize I connected USB diks

    - by Pavol G
    Hello IT guys, I have a problem with my new USB disk. When I connect it to my laptop with Windows XP SP2 it takes about 4-5min until Windows recognized it and show it as a new disk. I can also see (disk's LED is blinking) that something is scaning the disk when I connect it, when this is done Windows imediately recognize it. Also when I'm copying data to this disk the speed is about 3.5MB/sec. It's connected using USB2.0. I tried to check for spyware (using spybot), also run windows in safe mode. But still have the same problems. Do you have any idea what could help to solve this problem? On Windows Vista (another laptop) everything is ok, disk loads in about 15sec and speed is about 20-30MB/sec. Thanks a lot for every advice!

    Read the article

  • Why is my computer running slower after I just installed more RAM and a new HDD?

    - by hopla
    I just bought 4 GB of ram (2x2GB) and a 1TB hard drive and installed them, upgrading from my original 1GB RAM and 250GB HDD. I put the 2GB sticks in 1st and 3rd slots and the 1GB stick in 2nd. Now with my new ram and HDD my computer is running MUCH slower and I dont know why. I've tried restarting just to see what happens and I noticed that even the Windows XP starting music is lagging. If anyone could help that would be fantastic. It's hard even to type this out.

    Read the article

  • Why is my mouse lagging?

    - by Boris_yo
    Don't remember this from earlier, but my mouse is lagging when I refresh specific websites in Chrome and Firefox. I can't observe such lags with Internet Explorer. Here's a video i made I tested with AIDA64 and sometimes noticed very little and short lags. Here's a second video Any thoughts? Hardware And Software Information: DELL Latitude E6420 Windows 7 64-Bit Enterprise 8GB of RAM Razer DeathAdder Black Edition mouse Firmware: 1.00 Driver version: 1.02

    Read the article

  • Performance of map overlay in conjunction with ItemizedOverlay is very poor

    - by oviroa
    I am trying to display one png (drawable) on a map in about 300 points. I am retrieving the coordinates from a Sqlite table, dumping them in a cursor. When I try to display them by parsing through the cursor, it takes for ever for the images to be drawn, about .5 second per image. I find that to be suspiciously slow, so some insight on how I can increase performance would help. Here is the snippet of my code that does the rendering: while (!mFlavorsCursor.isAfterLast()) { Log.d("cursor",""+(i++)); point = new GeoPoint( (int)(mFlavorsCursor.getFloat(mFlavorsCursor.getColumnIndex(DataBaseHelper.KEY_LATITUDE))*1000000), (int)(mFlavorsCursor.getFloat(mFlavorsCursor.getColumnIndex(DataBaseHelper.KEY_LONGITUDE))*1000000)); overlayitem = new OverlayItem(point, "", ""); itemizedoverlay.addOverlay(overlayitem); itemizedoverlay.doPopulate(); mFlavorsCursor.moveToNext(); } mapOverlays.add(itemizedoverlay); I tried to isolate all the steps and it looks like the slow one is this: itemizedoverlay.doPopulate(); This is a public method in my class that extends ItemizedOverlay that runs the private populate() method.

    Read the article

  • Why is Selenium RC so slow?

    - by Pete
    Hi. For some time I have been investigating Selenium RC in order to do functional testing of my web application. I have now found a test strategy that is so effective, that I do not want to move away from Selenium RC (after spending weeks trying to figure out a good way to validate ASP.NET validation controls). But now that my Selenium RC adventure is moving from a POC to be something that I actually use, I'm running into a problem. It is insanely slow. Executing a single test that loads a page, fills in some fields, and clicks a button takes in the magnitude of seconds to execute. When it is executing, I can easily see each individual field being filled out one at a time. Using Selenium IDE in Firefox is not that slow. I found this page, that clearly specifies that Selenium RC is slow http://selenium-grid.seleniumhq.org/how_it_works.html But why is that? Is it because the browser is polling the selenium server? If so, can this polling interval not be modified? Or is there another reason. I am not accustomed to a remote call taking a humanly noticable amount of time to execute. It is horrible that executing a few tests should take so long. I can execute my entire presentation (MVP), business, and database layer test suite (500+ tests) way quicker than it takes to run 10 tests for a single web page.

    Read the article

  • iText PDFReader Extremely Slow To Open

    - by Wbmstrmjb
    I have some code that combines a few pages of acro forms (with acrofields in tact) and then at the end writes some JS to the entire document. It is the PdfReader in the function adding the JS that is taking extremely long to instantiate (about 12 seconds for a 1MB file). Here is the code (pretty simple): public static byte[] AddJavascript(byte[] document, string js) { PdfReader reader = new PdfReader(new RandomAccessFileOrArray(document), null); MemoryStream msOutput = new MemoryStream(); PdfStamper stamper = new PdfStamper(reader, msOutput); PdfWriter writer = stamper.Writer; writer.AddJavaScript(js); stamper.Close(); reader.Close(); byte[] withJS = msOutput.GetBuffer(); return withJS; } I have benchmarked the above and the line that is slow is the first one. I have tried reading it from a file instead of memory and tried using a MemoryStream instead of the RandomAccessFileOrArray. Nothing makes it any faster. If I add JS to a single page document, it is very fast. So my thought is that the code that combines the pages is somehow making the PDF slow to read for the PdfReader. Here is the combine code: public static byte[] CombineFiles(List<byte[]> sourceFiles) { MemoryStream output = new MemoryStream(); PdfCopyFields copier = new PdfCopyFields(output); try { output.Position = 0; foreach (var fileBytes in sourceFiles) { PdfReader fileReader = new PdfReader(fileBytes); copier.AddDocument(fileReader); } } catch (Exception exception) { //throw } finally { copier.Close(); } byte[] concat = output.GetBuffer(); return concat; } I am using PdfCopyFields because I need to preserve the form fields and so cannot use the PdfCopy or PdfSmartCopy. This combine code is very fast (few ms) and produces working documents. The AddJS code above is called after it and the PdfReader open is the slow piece. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Slow Python HTTP server on localhost

    - by Abiel
    I am experiencing some performance problems when creating a very simple Python HTTP server. The key issue is that performance is varying depending on which client I use to access it, where the server and all clients are being run on the local machine. For instance, a GET request issued from a Python script (urllib2.urlopen('http://localhost/').read()) takes just over a second to complete, which seems slow considering that the server is under no load. Running the GET request from Excel using MSXML2.ServerXMLHTTP also feels slow. However, requesting the data Google Chrome or from RCurl, the curl add-in for R, yields an essentially instantaneous response, which is what I would expect. Adding further to my confusion is that I do not experience any performance problems for any client when I am on my computer at work (the performance problems are on my home computer). Both systems run Python 2.6, although the work computer runs Windows XP instead of 7. Below is my very simple server example, which simply returns 'Hello world' for any get request. from BaseHTTPServer import BaseHTTPRequestHandler, HTTPServer class MyHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler): def do_GET(self): print("Just received a GET request") self.send_response(200) self.send_header("Content-type", "text/html") self.end_headers() self.wfile.write('Hello world') return def log_request(self, code=None, size=None): print('Request') def log_message(self, format, *args): print('Message') if __name__ == "__main__": try: server = HTTPServer(('localhost', 80), MyHandler) print('Started http server') server.serve_forever() except KeyboardInterrupt: print('^C received, shutting down server') server.socket.close() Note that in MyHandler I override the log_request() and log_message() functions. The reason is that I read that a fully-qualified domain name lookup performed by one of these functions might be a reason for a slow server. Unfortunately setting them to just print a static message did not solve my problem. Also, notice that I have put in a print() statement as the first line of the do_GET() routine in MyHandler. The slowness occurs prior to this message being printed, meaning that none of the stuff that comes after it is causing a delay.

    Read the article

  • Does Function pointer make the program slow?

    - by drigoSkalWalker
    Hi guys. I read about function pointers in C And everyone said that will make my program run slow. Is it true? I made a program to check it. And I got the same results on both cases. (mesure the time.) So, is it bad to use fuction pointer? Thanks in advance. To response for some guys. I said 'run slow' for the time that I have compared on a loop. like this. int end = 1000; int i = 0; while (i < end) { fp = func; fp (); } When you execute this, i got the same time if I execute this. while (i < end) { func (); } So I think that function pointer have no difference of time and it don't make a program run slow as many people said.

    Read the article

  • Anyone Experiencing Slow Builds With VS2010?

    - by MrKWatkins
    Hi, We've recently upgraded to the final release of VS2010 and are experiencing very slow build times compared to the same code under 2008. I was wondering if anyone else is experiencing the same so I can work out whether it's just our environment or not? A few details: Using VS2010 Ultimate on Windows 7 with fairly beefy machines, talking to TFS 2010. The solution has been upgraded from VS2008 but still builds against .NET 3.5 and ASP.NET MVC 1.0. It doesn't seem to be the compilation itself taking long but something else in the build process. This is because even projects that are up to date and don't need compiling are taking a few seconds or so to process. It's not due to an Visual Studio addin because a couple guys in the team haven't installed any. The first build after loading VS2010 is pretty quick, then they seem to slow down over time. For example on of the projects in my solution just took 00:00:00.08 to process after a restart. (The project was up to date and didn't need compiling) I then immediately hit rebuild and it jumps to 00:00:01.33. We're also experiencing the problem with another solution that uses .NET 4.0 that was building perfectly fine under VS2010 RC. There are no build events or anything like that I can blame, just straightforward assembly builds. The IDE is not very responsive during the slow builds. Anyone else has similar problems? Update: It looks like the resolving assembly references is taking a long time. Looking at the MSBuild diagnostic output or the example above the first build has 30ms for ResolveAssemblyReferences, the second build has 800ms. Subsequent builds seem to be taking longer copying stuff around, e.g. CopyFilesToOutputDirectory jumps from 1ms to 27ms.

    Read the article

  • UIBezierPath too many paths = too slow?

    - by HHHH
    I have a loop in which I'm adding many (10000+) lines to a UIBezierPath. This seems to be fine, but once I try and render the bezierpath, my device becomes extremely slow and jerky. Is this because I've added too many lines to my path? Adding lines to UIBezierPath - simplified: (this seems fine) [path moveToPoint:CGPointZero]; for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++ ) { [path addLineToPoint:CGPointMake(i, i)]; } Rendering BeizerPath (Suggested by Rob) - this seems slow. - (void)drawBezierAnimate:(BOOL)animate { UIBezierPath *bezierPath = path; CAShapeLayer *bezier = [[CAShapeLayer alloc] init]; bezier.path = bezierPath.CGPath; bezier.strokeColor = [UIColor blueColor].CGColor; bezier.fillColor = [UIColor clearColor].CGColor; bezier.lineWidth = 2.0; bezier.strokeStart = 0.0; bezier.strokeEnd = 1.0; [self.layer addSublayer:bezier]; if (animate) { CABasicAnimation *animateStrokeEnd = [CABasicAnimation animationWithKeyPath:@"strokeEnd"]; animateStrokeEnd.duration = 100.0; animateStrokeEnd.fromValue = [NSNumber numberWithFloat:0.0f]; animateStrokeEnd.toValue = [NSNumber numberWithFloat:1.0f]; [bezier addAnimation:animateStrokeEnd forKey:@"strokeEndAnimation"]; } } Qs: 1) Is this because I'm adding too many paths too quickly? 2) I want to eventually draw many different lines of different colors, so I assume I would need to create multiple (10000+) UIBezierPaths - would this help or greatly slow the device as well? 3) How would I get around this? Thanks in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • Dell VRTX - slow cluster shared storage

    - by NorbyTheGeek
    I have a brand new Dell VRTX box set up as a Failover Cluster running HA Hyper-V virtual machines. This is my first time setting up clustering, and my first time with one of these boxes, so I'm sure I've missed something. The virtual machines are experiencing high disk latency and bad performance when accessing their VHD(x) files located on a Cluster Shared Volume. The VRTX has 10 x 900 GB 10K SAS drives in RAID 6 configuration, and the VRTX has the redundant Shared PERC 8 controllers. Both blades have full access to the virtual disks. There are two M520 blades installed, each with 128 GB RAM. MPIO is configured for the PERC 8 controllers. Operating system on the blades is Server 2012 (NOT R2). The RAID 6 array is split into a small (8 GB) volume for cluster quorum witness and a large (6.5 TB) volume for a Cluster Shared Volume (mounted on the nodes as C:\ClusterStorage\Volume1) An example of slow disk access: logging into a Server 2012 VM and having Server Manager come up automatically. Disk access goes to 100%, with write speeds at 20 MB or so, read speeds of 500 KB or so, and Average Response Time of over 1000 ms, sometimes spiking at 4000-5000 ms or so. It's the latency that really worries me. Is there something specific I should look at in my configuration? It doesn't seem to matter whether I use VHD or VHDX, dynamic or static.

    Read the article

  • DNS slow after losing DNS Server

    - by Tim
    We have set up a small Windows Server 2008 R2 network with a domain controller which is also acting as the DNS server for the network (we opted to install DNS when setting up the domain). This network isn't connected to the Internet in any way, so all machines have been configured to use the IP address of the domain controller as their primary DNS and no secondary DNS server has been configured. If we shut down or unplug the network cable from the domain controller, DNS lookups become quite slow and the performance of the network suffers. For example, running a ping command using a hostname takes around 5-6 seconds to resolve the name. I presume this is because it is looking for the DNS, then falling back to some other method of resolving the names as the DNS server is now gone. All the machines have static IP addresses so we are considering just putting all entries in the HOSTS file of each machine. However, it would be nice to have a centralised DNS in case we one day change the IP of one of the machines. Is there a better way to speed this up?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2012 Very Slow Typing

    - by DaoCacao
    I have a problem. After SP1 update, passing some time, VS 2012 becomes very-very slow when typing text. Solution size is not big, PC is quite powerful, it has 16GB of RAM, SSD drive, and i7-2600. I have attached using another VS and I see in debugger a lot of exceptions: First-chance exception at 0x753BB9BC in devenv.exe: Microsoft C++ exception: CVcsException at memory location 0x0027DF0C. First-chance exception at 0x753BB9BC in devenv.exe: Microsoft C++ exception: CVcsException at memory location 0x0027DF0C. First-chance exception at 0x753BB9BC (KernelBase.dll) in devenv.exe: 0xE0434352 (parameters: 0x80131509, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x64BF0000). First-chance exception at 0x753BB9BC in devenv.exe: Microsoft C++ exception: CVcsException at memory location 0x0027DF0C. First-chance exception at 0x753BB9BC in devenv.exe: Microsoft C++ exception: CVcsException at memory location 0x0027DF0C. First-chance exception at 0x753BB9BC (KernelBase.dll) in devenv.exe: 0xE0434352 (parameters: 0x80131509, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x64BF0000). The thread 0x288c has exited with code 0 (0x0). Anyone have any ideas on what CVcsException is? Googling it gives almost nothing. How do I get rid of this problem?

    Read the article

  • Slow VM on esxi 4.1

    - by user57432
    We have a FreeBSD 64bit running on a esxi 4.1, the hardware platform is a DELL R710 with 2 x 56xx (intel 6core cpu) and 48 GB ram. The FreeBSD vm is very slow, when we compiles/builds something on it, it takes 5 minuts and it says "build time 18 seconds.". There's no vmtools installed on the vm. The same vm is installaed on another R710 running esxi 4.0 for dell and there's no problems with that one. Does anyone have any idea about what to look for? the VMs on the second server (ESXi 4.1) is a clone of the VMs running on the first VMserver (ESXi 4.0 Dell edition). It's not possible for me to move the VM back to the first server since the file contaning the vm is too big. We installed the new esxi with a datasore with 8mb blocks because 1mb blocks dident allow for the file size we needed. It looks like the www server on the new ESXi 4.1 works fine, but I havent really tested it. There's not installed vmtools on any of the VMs (FreeBSD). The block size on the second VM (ESXi 4.1) datastorage is 8mb and 1mb on the first (ESXi 4.0)

    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 | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >