Search Results

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

Page 39/307 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • Terribly slow Apache2 on VM Virtualbox

    - by cadavre
    I just launched VM Virtualbox with guest Ubuntu Server on host Windows 8. Both 64bit. Everything works perfectly fine. Maybe it's because I'm not using any X... Htop shows ~25% of memory usage, everything is fine, but not Apache2. Normally it's fine, but when I send request from my browser on host (networking mode set to Bridge mode), Apache2 is turning into 1-minute-long loading process with 100% CPU time. Any ideas how to debug it? Any ideas about solving this throat problem?

    Read the article

  • slow network in centos5 VM with centos5 host running KVM

    - by dan
    I setup KVM following the guide here: http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/centos-rhel-linux-kvm-virtulization-tutorial/ I setup a bridged network and it worked fine except that the transfer speed is 200KB/s instead of the gigabit speed that I get on the host machine by itself. I tried editing the guest network settings to set "model=virtio" http://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Virtio but this just moves ifconfig-eth0 to ifconfig-eth0.bak in the VM and networking doesn't work at all. I tried moving ifconfig-eth0 back and starting up eth0, which works, but now the transfer speed is ~ 60KB/s I have no idea what else to try. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Slow logins with roaming profiles

    - by tliff
    We are running an ActiveDirectory environment with Windows 2008 as DC and Samba 3.3 as fileserver, using roaming profiles. Some of our offices are connected to HQ via slowish links (1/2 Mbit). Naturally this is not very fast but that was expected. What I do not understand is, that if a user logs out (taking a long time to sync, as expected) and then logs in again the next day it also takes a long time to login. And that is what I don't understand. Shouldn't the sync recognize that nothing has changed rather quickly? Also: Is there any decent docu on how the synchronization is implemented?

    Read the article

  • Jboss unreachable/ slow behind apache with ajp

    - by Niels
    I have an linux server running with a JBoss Instance with apache2. Apache2 will use AJP connection to reverse proxy to JBoss. I found these messages in the apache error.log: [error] (70007)The timeout specified has expired: ajp_ilink_receive() can't receive header [error] ajp_read_header: ajp_ilink_receive failed [error] (120006)APR does not understand this error code: proxy: read response failed from 8.8.8.8:8009 (hostname) [error] (111)Connection refused: proxy: AJP: attempt to connect to 8.8.8.8:8009 (hostname) failed [error] ap_proxy_connect_backend disabling worker for (hostname) [error] proxy: AJP: failed to make connection to backend: hostname [error] proxy: AJP: disabled connection for (hostname)25 I googled around but I can't seem to find any related topics. There are people say this behavior can be caused by misconfigured apache vs jboss. Telling the max amount of connections apache allows are far greater then jboss, causing the apache connection to time out. But I know the app isn't used by thousands of simultaneous connections at the time not even hundreds of connections so I don't believe this could be a cause. Does anybody have an idea? Or could tell me how to debug this problem? I'm using these versions: Debian 4.3.5-4 64Bit Apache Version 2.2.16 JBOSS Version 4.2.3.GA Thanks

    Read the article

  • Macports Apache Slow to Start/Stop

    - by moranjk
    I am running OSX 10.8.5 (Mountain Lion) with Apache2 from MacPorts for local development, and just recently I noticed it is taking almost a minute to restart Apache. I wouldn't think anything of it except it normally would restart in less than a second. I had all but given up Googling when I noticed that if I turned off the WiFi (I haven't tried hardwire yet) Apache would restart just as it use to. What would cause Apache to take longer to start when I am connected to the LAN? What can be done to mitigate this issue?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu server very slow out of the blue sky (Rails, passenger, nginx)

    - by snitko
    I run Ubuntu server 8.04 on Linode with multiple Rails apps under Passenger + nginx. Today I've noticed it takes quite a lot of time to load a page (5-10 secs). And it's not only websites, ssh seems to be affected too. Having no clue why this may be happening, I started to check different things. I checked how the log files are rotated, I checked if there's enough free disk space and memory. I also checked IO rate, here's the output: $ iostat avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.57 0.16 99.07 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn xvda 2.25 39.50 16.08 147042 59856 xvdb 0.00 0.05 0.00 192 0 xvdc 2.20 25.93 24.93 96530 92808 xvdd 0.01 0.12 0.00 434 16 xvde 0.04 0.23 0.35 858 1304 xvdf 0.37 0.31 4.12 1162 15352 Rebooting didn't help either. Any ideas where should I be looking?

    Read the article

  • Samsung 830 very slow benchmark numbers

    - by alekop
    I just bought a new SSD, and installed a fresh copy of Windows on it. I didn't see any noticeable difference in boot times, app start-up times, so I decided to benchmark it. Asus P7P55D-E Intel i5-760 Samsung 830 256GB SATA III Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit The Windows experience index gave the drive a 7.3 rating, but real-world performance is not particularly impressive. Any ideas why the numbers are so low? UPDATE: It turns out that SATA III support is turned off by default on the P7P55D motherboard. After enabling it in BIOS (Tools - Level Up), the scores went up: Read Write Seq 325 183 4K 16 49 IOPS 32K 28K It's an improvement, but still far below what they should be for this drive.

    Read the article

  • very slow bridge detection

    - by deddihp
    hello everyone, I have setup some bridge interface with 4 ethernet port. My problem is, when they detect some network topology change, the bridge really need a lot of time to have done it. Is there any solution, so the bridge can detect topology change faster ? thanks.

    Read the article

  • Slow INFORMATION_SCHEMA query

    - by Thomas
    We have a .NET Windows application that runs the following query on login to get some information about the database: SELECT t.TABLE_NAME, ISNULL(pk_ccu.COLUMN_NAME,'') PK, ISNULL(fk_ccu.COLUMN_NAME,'') FK FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES t LEFT JOIN INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_CONSTRAINTS pk_tc ON pk_tc.TABLE_NAME = t.TABLE_NAME AND pk_tc.CONSTRAINT_TYPE = 'PRIMARY KEY' LEFT JOIN INFORMATION_SCHEMA.CONSTRAINT_COLUMN_USAGE pk_ccu ON pk_ccu.CONSTRAINT_NAME = pk_tc.CONSTRAINT_NAME LEFT JOIN INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_CONSTRAINTS fk_tc ON fk_tc.TABLE_NAME = t.TABLE_NAME AND fk_tc.CONSTRAINT_TYPE = 'FOREIGN KEY' LEFT JOIN INFORMATION_SCHEMA.CONSTRAINT_COLUMN_USAGE fk_ccu ON fk_ccu.CONSTRAINT_NAME = fk_tc.CONSTRAINT_NAME Usually this runs in a couple seconds, but on one server running SQL Server 2000, it is taking over four minutes to run. I ran it with the execution plan enabled, and the results are huge, but this part caught my eye (it won't let me post an image): http://img35.imageshack.us/i/plank.png/ I then updated the statistics on all of the tables that were mentioned in the execution plan: update statistics sysobjects update statistics syscolumns update statistics systypes update statistics master..spt_values update statistics sysreferences But that didn't help. The index tuning wizard doesn't help either, because it doesn't let me select system tables. There is nothing else running on this server, so nothing else could be slowing it down. What else can I do to diagnose or fix the problem on that server?

    Read the article

  • Slow solid state drive on laptop running Linux

    - by wcyang
    I installed a solid state drive on my laptop, but I don't get the blazing speeds which people write about. My system: Laptop: Acer Aspire 7552G-6061 Solid state drive: Crucial 256GB M4 CT256M4SSD2 Operating system: Linux (Trisquel 5.5, a derivative of Ubuntu) I am using AHCI. I installed the operating system onto the solid state drive (as opposed to copying it). How can I make the solid state drive faster? Could the problem be with the block or sector alignment?

    Read the article

  • Command line is horribly slow in Ubuntu Server

    - by hekevintran
    I am running Ubuntu Server on VirtualBox. I am not using X Windows, only the command line. It looks like it is redrawing the screen for every line that causes the screen to shift down. In other words if there is empty space on the screen below the current line, it works normally, but if the current line is at the bottom of the screen, when the system moves to the next line it refreshes the whole screen line by line. This causes the system to run very slowly because I have to wait for the whole screen to refresh for every line and it hits the CPU at 90%. I installed Debian Lenny in VirtualBox and it didn't do this. Why does Ubuntu Server redraw the screen for each line? Is there a way to make this behaviour go away?

    Read the article

  • Slow Network Performance with Windows Server 2008 SP1

    - by Axeva
    I recently installed Service Pack 1 for Windows Server 2008. Since that time, network performance has been awful. Both Windows 7 and Mac Snow Leopard clients have seen miserable speeds when trying to read or write to the server. This is the exact update: Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 x64 Edition (KB976932) It's a very simple file server setup. No Domain or Active Directory. Essentially just shared folders. It's Windows Web Server that I'm running. Are there any settings I can tweak? Should I roll back the update (doesn't seem wise)? Update: I've turned off the Power Management for the Network Adapter. That may help. If it doesn't have to be powered on at the start of a request, it should speed things up. Or so I would assume.

    Read the article

  • Apache Slow Over http, Fast Over https

    - by Josh Pennington
    I have an Apache server running Debian. I am having this very strange situation where loading a page takes about 2 to 3 times longer to load over http than https. The primary use of the website is Magento, but I am seeing similar results with other things that we have loaded on the website. I don't have the first clue where to even look on our server or what the problem could be. Does anyone have any insight as to what could be going on or where to look. Josh

    Read the article

  • Random Slow Response

    - by ARehman
    We have an ASP.NET MVC 1.0 application running on Windows Server 2008 – Standard (32 –bit), Dual Core Xeon (3.0 GHz), 2 G.B R.A.M. Most of the times application renders response in 3-4 seconds, but sometimes users get very late response and delay is up to 40 seconds or more than a minute. It happens in following way: User browsed a page, idle for 5, 10 or 15 minutes, tried to browse same page or some other. Now, there is a chance that he will see late response whereas the app pool is still up and running. This can happen with any arbitrary page. We have tried followings/observations. Moved the application to stand alone web server App Pool idle shutdown time is 60 minutes. There are no abrupt shut downs/restarts. CPU or memory doesn’t spike. No delays in SQL queries. Modified App Pool setting to run in classic-mode. It didn’t help. Plugged-in custom module to log all those requests which took more than 5 seconds to complete. It didn’t pick any request of interest. Enabled ‘Failed Request Tracing’ to log all those requests which take 20 or more seconds to complete. It didn’t log anything. Event Viewer, HTTPER log, W3SVC logs or WAS logs don’t indicate anything. HTTPERR only has ‘_ _ Timer_ConnectionIdle _ _’ entries. There is not much traffic to server. This can happen also if only two users are active. Next we captured TCP/IP terrific on both a user and server end with Wireshark and below are details in brief of this slowness: Browser sends a request for ~/User/Home/ (GET Request) by setting up a receiving end point using port 'wlbs(port-2504)'. I'm not sure if this could be a problem in some way that browser didn't hand-shake with the server first and assumed that last connection is still open, whereas, I browsed the same page 4 minutes ago and didn't perform any activity with site after that. If I see the HTTPERR log, it indicates that it has ‘_ _ Timer_ConnectionIdle _ _ _’ entry for my last activity with server. Browser (I was using Chrome) waits for any response from the server, doesn’t find any then starts retransmitting the same request using same end point after incrementing wait intervals, e.g. after 8, 18, 29, 40, 62, and 92 seconds. All these GET requests were received by server as well. But, server didn’t send any packet to client. Browser didn't see any response on the end point it set up in point 1, it opened a new end point 'optiwave-lm (port-2524)', did a hand shake with the server and transmitted the same request again. Server received, processed it, and returned successful response. What happened to earlier 6-7 requests? Whether they were passed on to HTTP.SYS or not? Why Failed Request Tracing not logged anything, we didn't find any clue yet. Server served the same page successfully just 4 minutes ago. Looking forward for more suggestions/solutions. -- Thanks

    Read the article

  • WD my cloud 4th is Super Slow

    - by Saduser
    I am using a WD my cloud 4Tb and I have read other posts about users complaining about getting only 10Mb per second. My problem is that I am getting about 100kb/s to transfer a 125gb iPhoto library. Estimated time is 11 days to transfer this file. This is unacceptable. On the back of the WD cloud I am getting a solid green light and from what I read this means that I am on a gigabyte network. I have mac book pro running Mac OS Mavericks. I have tried 4 different cables and turned off my router firewall. I don't run anti-virus nor any firewall on the mac. Other things I have checked: direct connection to both router and WD cloud device. Tried wireless but it is even slower. Previously I was able to transfer a 55Gb iPhoto library in 14 hours which I felt was acceptable. I figured it would take approximately double the time to transfer the 125gb file but 11 days is ridiculous. Any other suggestions? Anything else I can check (how to check it) what is the bottle neck?

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 slow after refreshing and rebooting

    - by Dan Drews
    First, I apologize if this is in the wrong place. I use S/O a lot but not the other sites much. I have an HP Split X2 that has been very choppy as of late (takes several seconds to respond to any form of input), so I went ahead and did a system refresh. After the refresh everything ran very fast as it should, then when I went to download my old apps I needed to reboot. After rebooting, it went back to the choppiness. Does anybody have any thoughts on what this could be?

    Read the article

  • Unknown redirect & slow page load

    - by Andrew
    Hello: I am hosting a website with GoDaddy's "Deluxe Linux" package. Of late, I noticed my website is loading nearly 10x slower. As I begin to debug, I noticed the following redirect occurring however nothing in my script would be causing it. It hits the URL, www.domain.com, then a 302 fires to www.domain.com/39dnda, then another 302 back to www.doamin.com ??? The first 302 is random each time... You can see the images here: http://yfrog.com/4jredirectvp

    Read the article

  • Two internet connections coming in, one Sonicwall Tz170 (enhanced os), and slow speed

    - by Development 4.0
    I work a lot from my home office and being in general a tad paranoid I have cable and DSL pipes coming into my house. I have used an Ebay bought Sonicwall Tz170 with the enhanced OS for a good while. I believe it does failover and has a feature for doing round robin on which connection is used. I get the impression from using it that I might not be getting the most out of this setup. Is it possible/likely that my router could be a cause of the slowdown? Are there more appropriate choices?

    Read the article

  • Very slow first handshake Apache

    - by Johan Larsson
    Any one having any ideas where should I start to fix this issue, the first handshake take sometimes up to 20s, but refreshes after that takes only 0.9s. The setup, 100/10 Mbps Windows OS 4GB RAM Intel Core 2 @ 3.0 GHz And 7200 RPM HDD Apache 2.4 No SSL Mod_Security Enabled Mod_Deflate Enabled Mod_Expires Enabled Mod_ReWrite Enabled PHP & MySQL on same machine. I have seen much slower machines preforming better, therefor I think my problem is ony an optimization issue.

    Read the article

  • Slow internet using Arch Linux

    - by GZaidman
    after a week or so of using Arch Linux I cant access the internet - it takes around 5 mins to load google (most of the other websites just give me a timeout), pacman's downloading speed range between 5-2Kbs, and pinging google takes around 9Kms. I'm connected using wireless network (wifi card is Intel Ultimate 6300 and router is Edimax 6524n). Every other Windows machine that's connected to the network (and even the T410 running Windows) is fine, so the problem lies in Linux. So far, i checked the resolv.conf file (my router ip address is listed), and the hosts file (pretty much default), and I disabled the ipv6 module. None of that helped. PS: i'm using NetworkManager (but the problem still occurs when connecting using wicd) running on Gnome3. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide! EDIT: something really strange happens whenever I ping google: i get an unknown host 'google.com', but the bit rate from the card jumps at the exact second I ping google (so far, the bit rate jumped to 54Mb/s from 1Mb/s over the course of 4 pings).

    Read the article

  • download speed is fast but transfer rate is slow

    - by Ieyasu Sawada
    I've just changed ISP and I'm pretty disappointed with the transfer rate. My previous connection has a download speed of 1.08 Mb/s as seen from this site: http://speedtest.net and the download transfer rate is about 100kb/s for sites that doesn't limit their bandwidth. Now my connection has about 2Mb/s download speed but the transfer rate is dancing from 20-50kb/s . I was expecting a speed much higher than this because of the download speed that I'm getting when I'm testing. The question is what's the difference between transfer rate and download speed, is it normal to have a high download speed but low transfer rate, should the download speed be proportional to the transfer rate?

    Read the article

  • Slow parity initialization of RAID-5 array on HP Smart Array 411 controller

    - by Rob Nicholson
    On 29th October 2011, I built a RAID-5 array using 4 x 146.8GB Seagate SAS ST3146855SS drives running at 15k connected to a PowerEdge R515 with HP Smart Array P411 controller running Windows 2008 (so nothing particularly unusual). I know that parity initialisation of a RAID-5 array can take some time but it's still running after 2.5 weeks which seems a little unusual. I'd previously built another array on the same controller using 4 x 2TB SATA-2 drives and that did take a while to complete but a) I'm sure it was less than 2.5 weeks, b) that array was ~12 times bigger and c) during initialization, the percentrage slowly increased each day. At the moment, the status display for this new 2nd array simply says "Parity Initialization Status: In Progress" and it's said that since the start. It's this lack of change on the status that worries me the most - feels like it's not actually doing anything. Do you think something has gone wrong or am I being unpatient and for some reason, the status not increasing is normal? I kind of expected a much smaller array on faster drives (15k SAS versus 7.5k SATA-2) to build in a few days. This is our primary SAN running StarWind so my "have a play" options are very limited. This 2nd array is currently in use for one small virtual disk so I could shut the target machine down, move the virtual disk to another drive and try rebuilding.

    Read the article

  • Disk IO slow on ESXi, even slower on a VM (freeNAS + iSCSI)

    - by varesa
    I have a server with ESXi 5 and iSCSI attached network storage(4x1Tb Raid-Z on freenas 8.0.4). Those two machines are connected to each other with Gigabit ethernet. The raid-z volume is divided into three parts: two zvols, shared with iscsi, and one directly on top of zfs, shared with nfs and similar. I ssh'd into the freeNAS box, and did some testing on the disks. I used ddto test the third part of the disks (straight on top of ZFS). I copied a 4GB (2x the amount of RAM) block from /dev/zero to the disk, and the speed was 80MB/s. Other of the iSCSI shared zvols is a datastore for the ESXi. I did similar test with time dd .. there. Since the dd there did not give the speed, I divided the amount of data transfered by the time show by time. The result was around 30-40 MB/s. Thats about half of the speed from the freeNAS host! Then I tested the IO on a VM running on the same ESXi host. The VM was a light CentOS 6.0 machine, which was not really doing anything else at that time. There were no other VMs running on the server at the time, and the other two "parts" of the disk array were not used. A similar dd test gave me result of about 15-20 MB/s. That is again about half of the result on a lower level! Of course the is some overhead in raid-z - zfs - zvolume - iSCSI - VMFS - VM, but I don't expect it to be that big. I belive there must be something wrong in my system. I have heard about bad performance of freeNAS's iSCSI, is that it? I have not managed to get any other "big" SAN OS to run on the box (NexentaSTOR, openfiler). Can you see any obvious problems with my setup?

    Read the article

  • RAID 50 24Port Fast Writes Slow Reads - Ubuntu

    - by James
    What is going on here?! I am baffled. serveradmin@FILESERVER:/Volumes/MercuryInternal/test$ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/Volumes/MercuryInternal/test/test.fs bs=4096k count=10000 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 41943040000 bytes (42 GB) copied, 57.0948 s, 735 MB/s serveradmin@FILESERVER:/Volumes/MercuryInternal/test$ sudo dd if=/Volumes/MercuryInternal/test/test.fs of=/dev/null bs=4096k count=10000 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 41943040000 bytes (42 GB) copied, 116.189 s, 361 MB/s OF NOTE: My RAID50 is 3 sets of 8 disks. - This might not be the best config for SPEED. OS: Ubuntu 12.04.1 x64 Hardware Raid: RocketRaid 2782 - 24 Port Controller HardDriveType: Seagate Barracuda ES.2 1TB Drivers: v1.1 Open Source Linux Drivers. So 24 x 1TB drives, partitioned using parted. Filesystem is ext4. I/O scheduler WAS noop but have changed it to deadline with no seemingly performance benefit/cost. serveradmin@FILESERVER:/Volumes/MercuryInternal/test$ sudo gdisk -l /dev/sdb GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 0.8.1 Partition table scan: MBR: protective BSD: not present APM: not present GPT: present Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. Disk /dev/sdb: 41020686336 sectors, 19.1 TiB Logical sector size: 512 bytes Disk identifier (GUID): 95045EC6-6EAF-4072-9969-AC46A32E38C8 Partition table holds up to 128 entries First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 41020686302 Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries Total free space is 5062589 sectors (2.4 GiB) Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size Code Name 1 2048 41015625727 19.1 TiB 0700 primary To me this should be working fine. I can't think of anything that would be causing this other then fundamental driver errors? I can't seem to get much/if any higher then the 361MB a second, is this hitting the "SATA2" link speed, which it shouldn't given it is a PCIe2.0 card. Or maybe some cacheing quirk - I do have Write Back enabled. Does anyone have any suggestions? Tests for me to perform? Or if you require more information, I am happy to provide it! This is a video fileserver for editing machines, so we have a preference for FAST reads over writes. I was just expected more from RAID 50 and 24 drives together... EDIT: (hdparm results) serveradmin@FILESERVER:/Volumes/MercuryInternal$ sudo hdparm -Tt /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing cached reads: 17458 MB in 2.00 seconds = 8735.50 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 884 MB in 3.00 seconds = 294.32 MB/sec EDIT2: (config details) Also, I am using a RAID block size of 256K. I was told a larger block size is better for larger (in my case large video) files. EDIT3: (Bonnie++ Results. Would love some guidance with this!)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >