Search Results

Search found 7671 results on 307 pages for 'slow browsing'.

Page 32/307 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

  • How to make easily PDF version of a web?

    - by MartyIX
    I'm trying to make an offline version of a web and I'm looking for a tool that would do the task automatically for the whole web (circa 1000 pages of HTML + images). Is there anything like that and free? I know it is quite challenge for a program but maybe I'll be lucky :). EDIT: It should be a program for Windows. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • ADSL to T1, Is it worth it for us?

    - by Jack Hickerson
    The company I work for has roughly 45-55 simultaneous users (local and remote/VPN) logged in at a given time. We currently subscribe to an ADSL connection but we have been experiencing slower upload/download speeds as our number of users increase. So, I have a few questions with regards to upgrading our connection to a t1 line. I am aware that the number of channels on a t1 line are much greater then that of our current ADSL connection, but I have heard that the number of active users on a t1 line should be no greater than ~30 for optimal performance. I would think this statement is dependent on what each user was using the connection for and could change depending on this variable. That being said, I have tried to break down how the line would be used in our organization based on our major departments: Sales (~60% of total users) - Everyday surfing, email, research, occasional streaming media Marketing (~15% of total users) - Heavy reliance on uploading/downloading, streaming media, file sharing Other (~25% of total users) - email, rare use of any connection intensive activities. I have considered keeping the ADSL for our local users and dedicating the t1 to our remote users (or vice versa) but the cost is significantly higher then what we had hoped for. All factors being equal (# of users, frequency of downloads/uploads from our current activities) Would you suspect a significant performance increase in making the transition to a t1 line from our current ADSL line? What are your thoughts or recommendations?

    Read the article

  • Computer Studdering When Transferring Over Network

    - by Nalandial
    This is a really weird problem that I've never even seen before. When I copy to or from my server share, my computer studders terribly and the data transfers very slowly at only around 12MB/s. By studdering I mean the mouse skips around and all my applications respond very slowly; as soon as I cancel the transfer it resolves immediately. I looked at Task Manager and the CPU is only at ~35% with plenty of RAM free. This only started semi-recently; before, I had no problems and the transfer speed maxed out the gigabit connection. I have two hard drives in my computer. When I try transferring files between drives it's fine, but when I copy from the share to either drive or to it from either drive, I get studdering. I'm running Windows 7 x64. Anyone have any idea what's going on? Any help would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What software can I use to pinpoint why Windows Server 2003 takes 15 seconds for any operation?

    - by Dr. Zim
    Ram is about 1/2 in use, four CPUs are all but idle. I tried "Microsoft Server Performance Advisor" with no luck. No entries in the Event Log for hardware failures, etc. And yet I can click on the start menu and wait 15 seconds for any new attempt. Launching software takes 30 seconds to respond. The server has an 8 drive WD RE 250 gig each Dell Perc 6 Sata raid array with Intel gigabit network cards. Anyone have any software titles that could analyze what is going wrong with this server?

    Read the article

  • RAID Read/Write Speed Gradually Slows

    - by Nalandial
    This is actually a server at home, but I felt it was sufficiently complicated as to not have it on SuperUser and could easily apply to a professional situation. I have a file server running Debian (Lenny 5.0.4), and it has an XFS LVM on top of a RAID 5 with the OS drive separate from the RAID. It's also running apache, samba, and postgresql. Side note: before anyone asks, I'm using RAID5 because I get more bang for the buck on raw drive space, and still have some fault tolerance. When the box is started (via shutdown or reboot) reading/writing to it's samba share maxes out the gigabit network connection. Over time, this slowly degrades eventually becoming < 10MB/s; however, when rebooted the speed returns to maxing out the connection. Why is this happening, and is there a way to 'clear' out whatever's causing it without taking the server down? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • rundll32.exe constantly running taking up resources slowing down my Win 7 computer

    - by Joe Fletcher
    Over the past week, my Windows 7 Home Premium computer (8gb RAM, 64bit) has been running slowly. When I look at my processes, there are always 2 rundll32.exe's running taking up 3 & 25% CPU power, memory slowly creeping upwards from around 115mb to 160mb each in the time it has taken me to right this message, sometimes popping upt o 300mb and back down. Svchost.exe is at 260mb. When I end those processes, everything returns to snappiness. I recently did some Windows Updates, and I think it was around the time my computer started acting slowly, but I can't remember if it was before or after the updates that things started running slowly. Last night I ccleaned & defrag'ed. How can I diagnose what's causing the slowness?

    Read the article

  • Why do computers get slower over time? [closed]

    - by Paperflyer
    Possible Duplicate: Why does hardware get slower with time? You probably know this: A newly bought computer is snappy and responsive and just really fast. Then you use it for a couple of months and slowly but steadily the computer gets slower. Opening programs now takes a long time, accessing files takes longer, everything just takes longer than it used to. If you wipe your hard drive and reinstall, everything is back to its original snappyness, but will deteriorate again. This always happend with any operating system I used. Worst of all Windows XP, but also with Ubuntu Linux, Fedora Linux, OSX 10.5/10.6, Windows Vista... (haven't used Win 7 long enough to confirm this) Do you know the reason for this? Or even, a cure?

    Read the article

  • 4 - 7 second delay accessing Mysql across the network

    - by Kristiaan
    Hello, our company has recently purchased a new server with the intention of replacing our aging database server. its a full 64bit 2008 enterprise system, i have got the basic server setup and configured and then installed the 64bit version of mysql on the server, this has then been configured to match where possible our existing server as much as it can. however i have noticed that when it was swapped with the production database server our software systems had an increased delay accessing the mysql database this was anything beween 4 - 7 seconds. i have tried disabling TOE, IPv6 and a few other suggested soultions to this but so far cannot find out where this slowdown is coming from. replacing the server with the production one and the delay goes away. in terms of software and hardware the servers are not very identical at all due to one being windows 2003 std with a 32bit server and the new one being windows 2008 enterprise with a 64bit server. thanks Kris

    Read the article

  • PC runs very slowly for no apparent reason

    - by GalacticCowboy
    I have a Dell Latitude D820 that I've owned for about 2.5 years. It is a Core 2 Duo T7200 2.0GHz, with 2 GB of RAM, an 80 GB hard drive and an NVidia Quadro 120M video card. The computer was purchased in late November of 2006 with XP Pro, and included a free upgrade to Vista Business. (Vista was available on MSDN but not yet via retail, so the Vista Business upgrades weren't shipped until March of '07.) Since we had an MSDN subscription at the time, I installed Vista Ultimate on it pretty much as soon as I got it. It ran happily until sometime in the spring of 2007 when Media Center (which I had never used except to watch DVDs) started throwing some kind of bizarre SQL (CE?) error. This error would pop up at random times just while using the computer. Furthermore, Media Center would no longer start. I never identified the cause of this error. I had the Vista Business upgrade by this time, so I nuked the machine, installed XP and all the drivers, and then the Vista Business upgrade. Again, it ran happily for a few months and then started behaving badly once again. Vista Business doesn't have Media Center, so this exhibited completely unrelated symptoms. For no apparent reason and at fairly random times, the machine would suddenly appear to freeze up or run very slowly. For example, launching a new application window (any app) might take 30-45 seconds to paint fully. However, Task Manager showed very low CPU load, memory, etc. I tried all the normal stuff (chkdsk, defrag, etc.) and ran several diagnostic programs to try to identify any problems, but none found anything. It eventually reached the point that the computer was all but unusable, so I nuked it again and installed XP. This time I decided to stick with XP instead of going to Vista. However, within the past couple of months it has started to exhibit the same symptoms in XP that I used to see in Vista. The computer is still under Dell warranty until December, but so far they aren't any help unless I can identify a specific problem. A friend (partner in a now-dead business) has an identical machine that was purchased at the same time. His machine exhibits none of these symptoms, which leads me to believe it is a hardware issue, but I can't figure out how to identify it. Any ideas? Utilities? Seen something similar? At this point I can't even identify any pattern to the behavior, but would be willing to run a "stress test"-style app for as long as a couple days if I had any hope that it would find something. EDIT July 17 I'm testing jerryjvl's answer regarding the video card, though I'm not sure it fully explains the symptoms yet. This morning I ran a video stress test. The test itself ran fine, but immediately afterward the PC started acting up again. I left ProcExp open and various system processes were consuming 50-60% of the CPU but with no apparent reason. For example, "services.exe" was eating about 40%, but the sum of its child processes wasn't higher than about 5%. I left it alone for several minutes to settle down, and then it was fine again. I used the "video card stability test" from firestone-group.com. Its output isn't very detailed, but it at least exercises the hardware pretty hard. EDIT July 22 Thanks for your excellent suggestions. Here is an update on what I have tried so far. Ran memtest86, SeaTools (Seagate), Hitachi drive fitness test, video card stability test (mentioned above). The video card test was the only one that seemed to produce any results, though it didn't occur during the actual test. I defragged the drive (again...) with JkDefrag I dropped the video card

    Read the article

  • My processor is running slower than usually it has to run

    - by Soham
    I've Core2Duo E7400 2.80GHz processor on my Intel D945gcnl mobo. From CPU-Z, I've get to know that my processor speed is 1596MHz with X6 multiplier and 266MHz Bus Speed on each core. Why my processor is being operated at 1596 MHz rather than 2.80GHz...!!???? From my side I've tried to disable SpeedStep from my bios by setting EIST to 'Disable' and also tried to change Power Option to 'High Performance' in Windows 7. And also done like suggested in this question:http://superuser.com/questions/119176/processor-not-running-at-max-speed But it gains me nothing. I've also tried to run few massive applications together to check whether it was increasing at that time or not, but it remains same. Should I have to increase my multiplier or overclock to gain that lost speed...??? Should I have to check my power supply for any problem..??? or anything else...??? Please help me on this.... And yeah I've desktop computer so no problem causing by battery. Here's my CPU-Z Screenshot: http://i56.tinypic.com/2lk4mqc.jpg

    Read the article

  • IIS serving pages extremely slowly

    - by mos
    TL;DR: IIS 7 on WS2008R2 serves pages really slowly; everyone assumes it's because it's IIS and we should have gone with an Apache solution on Linux. I have no idea where to start debugging the problem. I work in a nearly all-MS shop with a bunch of fellow programmers who think Linux is the One True Way. Management recently added a Windows machine with IIS to serve Target Process (third-party agile system), but the site runs extremely slowly. Everyone, to a man, assumes it's because it's on IIS, and if only management would grow a brain and get some Linux servers in here, we could really start cleaning things up! ...Right. Everyone "knows" IIS isn't fit to serve .txt files. ...Well, as the only non-Microsoft hater in the bunch, I am apparently the only one who thinks maybe the Linux guy who hated being told to set up the IIS server may have screwed things up. I'd like to go fix it, but I don't have any clue as to where to start as I am not a sys admin. Help?

    Read the article

  • Lag spikes at full CPU usage, maybe video card

    - by Roberts
    I am posting this thread in hurry so few things may be missed (I will update tomorrow). My PC specs: Motherboard Name - Gigabyte GA-945PL-S3 CPU Type - DualCore Intel Core 2 Duo E4300, 1800 MHz (9 x 200) OS - Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate OS Kernel Type - 32-bit OS Version - 6.1.7601 I bougth a new video card one month ago. GeForce 210. I didn't have any problems. I wanted to overclock it, in other words: "Play with it". So I installed Gigabyte EasyBoost from CD and overclocked the GPU 590 + 110 mhz, memory to max to 960mhz from 800mhz. Benchmarks showed a little bit bigger score. Then I overclocked shader clock from 1405 to [..] (don't remeber really). So I was playing Modern Warfare 2 when off sudden computer froze when I wanted to select team, I was afk before that. I had to reset CMOS. After that I had problems with Skype: unread messages and no sound. Then I figured it out that when ever I open EasyBoost - Skype starts to glitch again. Now I use EVGA Precission X. Now after a month, I cleaned computer and closed the case, it was open all the time. I started to overclock GPU clock only (just a bit) because there was no problems that would stop me. So sometimes on heavy CPU load graphics starts to lag. Dragging a window is painful to watch too. Sometimes the screen freezes for 5 to 10 seconds (I can see that hard disk activity is maximal). You may say that CPU fault it is, isn't it? But sometimes lag spikes starts randomly when CPU load is at maximum. All 3 benchmark softwares (PerformanceTest, NovaBench and MSI Kombustor) shows that performance of my video card has dropped about 25%. BUT! CPU score is lower too. I ignored these problems but when I refreshed Windows Experience Index I was shocked. Month before (in latvian language but not so hard to understand): Now (upgraded RAM): This happened when I tried to capture Minecraft with Fraps on underclocked GPU to 580mhz (def: 590mhz): All drivers are up to date. Average CPU temperature from 55°C to 75°C (at 70°C sometimes starts these lag spikes). Video card's tempratures are from 45°C to 60°C (very hard to reach 60°C). So my hope is that the video card is fine, cause this card is very new and I want to upgrade CPU anyways. Aplogies for my mistakes in vocabulary (I am trying to type this as fast I can).

    Read the article

  • the more DVDs at the same time , the slower the burning!

    - by sajad
    hi i'm using nero to burn multi DVDs at the same time. When i burn 1 DVD at one time it takes about 8 mins to finish. but when i try to burn 4 DVDs at the same time, it takes about 40 mins! why does it take too longe to burn multi DVDs at the same time? i don't have any problem with hardware because when i'm burning dvds , less than 20 % of my cpu & RAM are in use. thx in advance.

    Read the article

  • Clear OS always showing "Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec"

    - by Blue Gene
    Have been trying to install clear os addon but nothing is working as i am facing this error on every mirror in the .repo file. Yum install squid http://mirror2-dallas.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on http://mirror2-dallas.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. mirror2-dc.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror2-dc.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. mirror1.timburgess.net/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror1.timburgess.net/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. mirror2-houston.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror2-houston.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. mirror3-toronto.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror3-toronto.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. mirror2-dallas.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror2-dallas.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'O*peration too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds'*) Trying other mirror. mirror2-dc.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror2-dc.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. mirror1.timburgess.net/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror1.timburgess.net/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. mirror3-toronto.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 12] Timeout on mirror3-toronto.clearsdn.com/clearos/core/6/x86_64/repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2: (28, 'Operation too slow. Less than 1 bytes/sec transfered the last 30 seconds') Trying other mirror. Error: failure: repodata/primary.sqlite.bz2 from clearos-core: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. How can i fix this.i am able to access repo through web,and it seems nothing wrong with the repo.Where can be the problem. Tried yum clean all but it also didnt help. Is there a way to fix it as i am not able to install any package in it.

    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

  • 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

  • I want a hyperlink to open a browser tab, then all subsequent link clicks go to the same tab

    - by rossmcm
    I suspect I'm out of luck on this one, but here goes... Say I have a CHM help file that has http:// hyperlinks embedded in the help pages. When the user clicks on a hyperlink of the style: <a href="http://www.example.com" target="_blank">click here!</a> a browser window is opened and the target web page is displayed. If a browser is already open a new tab is created and the target displayed in that. If the user clicks on another link (or the same link) another browser window/tab opens, and so on. Is there any way I can force all clicks of the links to go to the same tab/browser window?

    Read the article

  • Using mozilla firefox with utf-8 addresses (in greek) on mac

    - by Panagiotis
    Very often when I use firefox (any version from 10+) and I type my utf-8 seo url it behaves strangely. For example it randomly cuts the url and adds the url again at whole like this: http://www.mysite.com/????G????S/???? would make it as http://www.mysite.com/????G???http://www.mysite.com/????G????S/???? resulting in converting the url to urlencoded letters and 404 errors. I am using Lion with the latest firefox (yes I have uninstalled it once and reinstalled it).

    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

  • Missing the "add tab group to favorites " option in IE8

    - by dennis461
    I have internet options selected for quick tabs and tab groups in setting, IE8 WIndows XP. I can open a list of favorites from the menu using the blue arrow as a tab group. I can then use the quick tabs button to show the groups open. However, I do not have the "add tab group to favorites" option in the pull down menu for favotites at the Favorite Bar. Is this a Vista feature only?

    Read the article

  • "Turn Off The Lights" on any website?

    - by gojira
    On Youtube, there is this nice button (easy to overlook - top left of the video) which lets one "turn off the lights": the site background changes from white to black, the text color changes from black to grey. There is an unrelated plug-in for Firefox called "Turned Off The Lights", which has a very similar functionality. This makes websites so much easier to read. However, both technologies only work on YouTube. Is there anything to achive the same effect for all websites? Preferably with Firefox? I.e.: I want to have very dark background and light text color on all websites viewed with Firefox, how can I do that?

    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

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >