Search Results

Search found 8604 results on 345 pages for 'typing 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 30/345 | < Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >

  • Why can't get more speed on iperf on windows xp

    - by SledgehammerPL
    I test my bandwith and throughput using iperf (jperf) on desktop PC with WinXP. I can't get more than 3Mbit/s outside until I change TCP Window size - about 84Kb is ok. but I can't force XP to use this value by default.. I try very many magic spells on Registry, use many TCP Optimisers - but nothing works. I will accept that that everything is ok, when I reboot the PC, run iperf and will see 18.1Mbit - like my Linux box standing very near my Windows XP Box. Is it possible?

    Read the article

  • Network Drive Via Ethernet Port for Speed?

    - by Yar
    I have a Macbook with Firewire 400 and USB 2.0, so the only way I can get fast external storage is through the Ethernet port. A really fast firewire 800 drive on ANOTHER computer is actually much faster than the built-in drive (according to XBench). So I thought I would try to go one better and buy an ethernet-ready drive. I bought a Seagate GoFlex™ Home Network Storage System, and it seems like the only way to get it to work is to plug it into a router. Can this drive be used without a router (i.e., direct to computer)? Are there any drives that can be plugged directly into the ethernet port for fast access? I don't want the drive on my router: I want it on my computer. Ideally I'd need 7200rpm or faster, too... Update: Just chatted with Seagate and they said that this particular drive will not work that way. Will any others?

    Read the article

  • High speed network configuration

    - by Peter M
    Sorry if this seems to be a stupid question, I'm not sure how to specify what I want to know when checking google. I will have 2 or 3 devices pumping out data on a 100Base-T port. The combined data rate of all devices is about 15KB/S which exceeds the optimal 100Base-T channel capacity (12KB/S), but well within the realms of a 1000Base-T connection. Each device will be sending a burst of data in the form of an FTP transfer to a common, single host computer in a sequential manner ie: Device A establishes FTP connection and transfers data Device B establishes FTP connection and transfers data Device C establishes FTP connection and transfers data It may be that the A&B, B&C and C&A transfers overlap in the time domain to some extent. There will be minimal traffic going back from the computer to each device (in general what ever is needed to support the FTP transfers), and the network will be dedicated to transferring data between these devices and the host computer. Is it possible to use a switch to combine the multiple incoming 100Base-T streams into a single outgoing 1000Base-T stream? if so what features in a switch should I be looking for? Or would it be better to have 3 physical point-to-point 100Base-T dedicated connections between each device and the host computer? (thus having at least 3 physical Ethernet interfaces on that computer) Note that I can't change the interface on the devices, but I am free to choose the network and host computer configuration. Thanks for you help Peter

    Read the article

  • Hibernate speed, and hard drive temperature

    - by cometbill
    My computer is taking in the region of 4 minutes or so, to hibernate 4GB of RAM. Also, resting my hand on the top of it is rather hot to the touch, so I ran CrystalDisk Info and that is reporting a temperature of 49 degrees C. I It's a Western Digital 5400 rpm drive, I've had it in the laptop since I bought it for most of the 2.75 years I've had it. Power on Count is 1219 Power on Hours is 3940 hours Boot up time is quicker than resuming from hibernate, too. Is there anything I can / should check ? Advice is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • NTFS write speed really slow (<15MB/s)

    - by Zulakis
    I got a new Seagate 4TB harddrive formatted with ntfs using parted /dev/sda > mklabel gpt > mkpart pri 1 -1 mkfs.ntfs /dev/sda1 When copying files or testing writespeed with dd, the max writespeed I can get is about 12MB/s. The harddrive should be capable of atleast 100MB/s. top shows high cpu usage for the mount.ntfs process. The system has a AMD dualcore. This is the output of parted /dev/sda unit s print: Model: ATA ST4000DM000-1F21 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 7814037168s Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 2048s 7814035455s 7814033408s pri The used kernel is 3.5.0-23-generic. The ntfs-3g versions I tried are ntfs-3g 2012.1.15AR.1 (ubuntu 12.04 default) and the newest version ntfs-3g 2013.1.13AR.2. When formatted with ext4 I get good write speeds with about 140MB/s. How can I fix the writespeed?

    Read the article

  • Where would an S3 upload speed cap originate?

    - by CoreyH
    I do a ton of uploading to S3 and am experiencing capped speeds and I can't quite figure out how to address it. The setup: Windows Server 2008 R2 x64, external HD, using a Java based upload tool called Jsh3ll and custom VBS scripts to kick the jobs off. Running one process at a time, I am always limited to about 4mbps. I have FiOS at 35/35mbps speeds, so it isn't an outright limit. AND, I can run parallel instances and can go all the way up to 35mbps, so I know the problem isn't gateway/nic/machine/amazon related. Running parallel instances works to a degree as a solution, but increases the complexity of my workflow greatly. Solving this would make my life dramatically easier. When I was first doing this I was playing around with a bunch of Windows TCP parameters and was able to briefly get unconstrained bandwidth, but it wasn't repeatable. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Verizon FiOS Speed concerns

    - by Josh K
    I'm working on getting a separate internet connection to run out and I was looking into available options. FiOS claims to offer 25Mb up / 25 Mb down as a maximum rate. Do they have listed minimum rates? Is there anything with fiber I should be concerned about? Special hardware, special routers, availability concerns?

    Read the article

  • When I type certain characters, they come out as backquotes

    - by JXG
    Very strange behavior. Some background: I bought a new lenovo G550 laptop, running Windows 7. I live in Israel. When I type certain keys, in any application, they are prefaced with the backquote (`). These characters are: Insert, Delete, Left Ctrl (the right-hand one is fine), - (the regular dash: the one on the keypad is fine), =, 5 (the regular one), 4 (the one on the numeric keypad, whether or not Num Lock is on), and PgDn (the regular one). When I press the Fn key with these I don't get the behavior. Does anyone know why this is happening, or how I can fix it?

    Read the article

  • DNS Resolver Speed Techniques

    - by Rob Olmos
    I recently received a reply to my concerns about some DNS servers being slower than others despite all servers being anycast: In practice, most resolvers won't be impacted by the slower paths to some of the name servers in the set. Most resolvers employ various techniques to provide fast lookups, such as preferring name servers that were previously seen to be faster, sending simultaneous queries to multiple name servers, or pre-fetching queries before the TTL has expired. I was not aware that resolvers used these techniques and I was unsuccessful at searching for more info about this. Are there any names for these techniques? Which resolvers employ which of these techniques?

    Read the article

  • 2010 MBP HD speed sanity check?

    - by hvgotcodes
    I have a 2010 MBP with the 7200 rpm hard drive. I was copying a 2.1GB file, and noticed read/write speeds of around 20MB/s. Is that reasonable? Seems slow to me.... What is the proper way to benchmark a HD on OS X? Googling I see xbench, but that hasn't been updated in years. I also see some guides for using the command line. The goal would be to benchmark my drive and then compare the results to some official scores that the drive should be getting.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 9.10 Dowload Speed Very Slow

    - by Don
    I'm running Ubuntu 9.10 desktop and I'm new to the Linux world, so bear with me. I'm on a corporate network of 3 T1s shared across 50-60 users. I typically get about 300 KB/sec for downloads, but for whatever reason, the Linux box will start out in that range, then drop to less than 1KB/Sec sometimes. Doesn't seen to matter where I'm downloading from. Right now I'm trying to get Eclipse for PHP and it's running at 3-6KB/sec. Getting the updates for the system will also drop to very slow rates. Our IT person has set up the machine to get the same 10.0.0.x address when it starts, and moved this IP to bypass our Proxy/Firewall going out, so that shouldn't be the issue. Can anyone recommend something I can try to better diagnose the problem. Again, I'm new to the Linux world and the hardware/OS setup side in general (coming form more of a coding background). Thanks for any advice.

    Read the article

  • Application runs with different speed for two different user logins on windows server

    - by karthi
    We have a application in Windows Server that download data from SQL server and store in our local machine. Now the problem I have is my Windows Server has two logins and in one login the app runs real slow, like gets 1 row in a minute, and from another login it fetches 20 rows in a minute. We have this problem only for a last couple of days. What could have caused this? More details: SQL server:S QL server2008 Os: Windows server 2008 Access method: Remote connection. Application: Custom .Net application to get data Both accounts are limited rights accounts. Any tools to track this? I am not sure what should I start with.

    Read the article

  • Hard drive write speed - finding a lighter antivirus?

    - by Shingetsu
    I recently have been getting a lot of system lag here (for example, the mouse and the display in general take about 15 seconds to react in the worst cases). After a lot of monitoring the resources, I found that the problem mainly happens when too much Disk I/O is being done. Three culprits have been identified: My browser had the highest write I/O with 35,000,000 I/O Write Bytes. Steam had the highest read I/O (when IDLE!!!) with 106,000,000 I/O Read Bytes. My antivirus (in both cases I will soon mention) was the runner up in both cases with: 30,000,000ish write and 80,000,000ish read. The first AV I had was Avast! which I had liked on my previous system. After noticing it taking so much I/O I switched to Panda (supposing it wouldn't use TOO much during idle phase). However it only used a bit less I/O. Just a lot less memory and cpu and somewhat more network. My browser at the moment is Maxthon 3 (which I like a lot). Before this I was running chrome which had similar data and much higher cpu when running in the background was enabled. I'm not going to be running steam all the time and there aren't many alternatives to it. I like my browser very much, but I AM willing to switch if there's an obvious problem (I'm in programming, however I'm not a very good sysadmin, especially not when it comes to windows). Finally, my system almost stops lagging when I turn off the antivirus (and preferably steam) (some remains but once in every 5-6 hours for a few seconds so it isn't a big problem). My question (has a few parts): Is it possible to configure steam to lower it's I/O usage? (and maybe network while we're at it?) Which antivirus (very preferably free) uses lowest I/O while idle (I leave PC alone during active scans so that isn't a problem). Is there an obvious problem with my current browser and, if so, is there a way to fix it or should I switch and, if so, to what? (P.S. I've been on FFox for some time too). Info on system: Windows 7 (32 bit T_T, I am getting a new one in a few months but I want to keep using system during that time though). Hard Drive (main) is a Raid0. (Also have an external 1TB one which contains steam (and steam alone). As such it doesn't get used by much anything other than steam and isn't a very large problem. However steam still uses some I/O of registry) CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU [email protected] RAM: 6GB (3.25GB usable) (this and CPU have little effect as shown in next section) Additional info: Memory usage during problematic times: 44% CPU usage during problematic times: 35% Page File: main drive: system managed. 1TB drive: none. The current system I'm using is about 6 years old and is mainly a place holder while I await the new one in a few months. Final words: this is my 1st post on Super User (this question wouldn't feel right on Stack Overflow where I usually stay). If it doesn't have it's place here please tell me. If anything is wrong with it, same. Edit Technically I'm looking for a live thread detection program with minimal IO usage. I already have good active scan capability: Kaspersky (the free scanner uses the paid database) and MalwareBytes. Edit 2 Noticed another one, it seems that windows media player has been using stuff even when off! Turning it off and restarting now. If the problem is fixed I'll tell you guys. The reason I didn't notice it before was because I didn't have resource manager in front of me at the MOMENT of the problem. Now I did and it was at the very top of the list!

    Read the article

  • RAID setup for maximizing data retention and read speed

    - by cat pants
    My goals are simple: maximize data retention safety, and maximize read speeds. My first instinct is to do a a three drive software RAID 1. I have only used fakeraid RAID 1 in the past and it was terrible (would have led to data loss actually if it weren't for backups) Would you say software raid 1 or a cheap actual hardware raid card? OS will be linux. Could I start with a two drive raid 1 and add a third drive on the fly? Can I hot swap? Can I pull one of the drives and throw it into a new machine and be able to read all the data? I do not want a situation where I have a raid card fail and have to try and find the same chipset in order to read my data (which i am assuming can happen) Please clarify any points on which it sounds like I have no idea what I am talking about, as I am admittedly inexperienced here. (My hardest lesson was fakeraid lol) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Redirect traffic to local address so iOS speedtest app measures LAN speed

    - by ivan_sig
    I have mounted a Speedtest Mini server on a local LAMP, so I can test my LAN speeds effortlessly just by opening the URL with a Flash enabled web browser, the thing is, I want my iOS and Android devices to test with the LAN server too, not with the WAN, as I'm trying to measure LAN-Only performance. Is there a way so I can redirect the traffic intended to an specific external IP (The one of the real server) to my local server?. I know the servers IP as a short Wireshark analysis gave me the data, but still searching for a way to make that redirect. I have Jailbreak and root on my devices, so playing with system files is not a problem. I've tried mounting a proxy and making redirects by the hosts file and domain names, but it looks like Ookla's app relies on IP address only.

    Read the article

  • Can my PC run Need for Speed Shift

    - by John
    Here are my PC's specs: Operating System MS Windows 7 32-bit CPU Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T8100 @ 2.10GHz Penryn 45nm Technology RAM 3.0GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 332MHz 5-5-5-15 Motherboard Sony Corporation VAIO (N/A) Graphics Nvidia Defaul @ 1280x800 256MB GeForce 8400M GT (Sony) Hard Drives 250GB Hitachi Hitachi HTS542525K9SA00 ATA Device (IDE) Optical Drives Optiarc DVD RW AD-7560A ATA Device Audio High Definition Audio Device

    Read the article

  • Up-to-date Comparison of High-Speed USB Flash Drives

    - by Zoredache
    I am looking for comparison of the performance of USB flash drives. I have found several older comparisons, but I am trying to find a more up-to-date comparisons that apply to the larger storage sizes (32-128GB). I can try looking up the specs of various drives, but vendors have been known to exaggerate, or use numbers that are on accurate in tests that do not reflect actual usage. I was hoping to find 3rd party site which had perform testing.

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 File Transfer Speed over Gigabit is slow

    - by Adam Haile
    I've got windows 7 pro running on my file server and my main desktop. Each has a gigabit network connection and I'm connected to a gigabit switch. However, when trying to copy some large files, it's running pretty slow at a measly 12-15 MB/s The data is coming from a 7200RPM SATA drive (which I think should be good for almost 150MB/s) and going to a Drobo on the server connected via FireWire 800, so I can't think of any bottlenecks I might have in the hardware. But TeraCopy still says it's only going at 12-15 MB/s What else could be wrong here?

    Read the article

  • Copy past speed very slow for a large number of files on Windows [closed]

    - by Arno2501
    I've run the following test I've created a folder containing 15'000 files of 400 bytes using this batch : @ECHO off SET times=15000 FOR /L %%i IN (1,1,%times%) DO ( fsutil file createnew filename%%i.txt 400 ) then I copy past it on my Windows Computer using this command : robocopy LargeNumberOfFiles\ LargeNumberOfFiles2\ After it has completed I can see that the transfer rate was 915810 Bytes/sec this is less than 1 MB/s. It took me several seconds to copy 7 MBytes Please note that this is very slow. I've tried the same with a folder with a single file of 50 Mbytes and the transfer rate is 1219512195 Bytes/sec. (yeah GB/s) instantaneous. Why copying large number of files take so much time - ressources on a windows filesystem ? Please note that I've tried to do the same on a linux system which runs on the same computer in a virtual machine (vmware player) with ext3 filesystem. I use the cp command and the copy is instantaneous ! Please also note the following : no antivirus I've tested that behaviour on multiple windows computers (always ntfs) i always get comparable results (transfer rate under 1MB/s avg 7-8 seconds to copy 7 MBytes) I've tested on multiple linux ext3 system the copy is always instantaneous for that amount (15000 files of 400 bytes) The question is about understanding what makes windows filesystem so slow to copy large number of files compared to a linux one for instance.

    Read the article

  • Speed up connection to MySQL

    - by Leonick
    So here's one for you. Any idea on a way to shorten the time it takes to connect to a MySQL database? The reason I'm wondering is because I find that just connecting to the DB adds just over a second to the rendering of the page and that seems a bit long considering Apache and MySQL is running on the same machine and the mysqli_connect is connecting to localhost. It's just such a shame when the connection takes a second while any query I end up doing won't add any significant amount of time to the render/load time. Any ways to shorten the time it takes to open a connection?

    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 | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >