Search Results

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

Page 44/184 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • ASP.NET 3.5 GridView Images

    You might have learned how to put hyperlinks in the GridView in Tuesday s tutorial on ASP.NET 3.5 GridView hyperlink columns. One of GridView s important features lets you display images retrieved from the database. These images are then rendered in the browser using the HTML image tag. This tutorial will show you how to take advantage of this feature which has several applications in e-commerce and online catalogs.... Transportation Design - AutoCAD Civil 3D Design Road Projects 75% Faster with Automatic Documentation Updates!

    Read the article

  • SQL VIEW Basics

    SQL Views are essential for the database developer. However, it is common to see them misued, or neglected. Joe Celko tackles an introduction to the subject, but there is something about the topic that makes it likely that even the experienced developer will find out something new from reading it. Get smart with SQL Backup ProGet faster, smaller backups with integrated verification.Quickly and easily DBCC CHECKDB your backups. Learn more.

    Read the article

  • The PoSh DBA: Solutions using PowerShell and SQL Server

    PowerShell is worth using when it is the quickest way to providing a solution. For the DBA, it is much more than getting information from SQL Server instances via PowerShell; it can also be run from SQL Server as part of a system that helps with administrative and monitoring tasks. New! SQL Backup Pro 7.2 - easy, automated backup and restoresTry out the latest features and get faster, smaller, verified backups. Download a free trial.

    Read the article

  • HP Slate with Windows 7: Dead or Alive?

    There is speculation lately regarding Hewlett Packard s Slate device. The speculation centers around whether or not the device will come equipped with Windows 7 as its operating system.... Transportation Design - AutoCAD Civil 3D Design Road Projects 75% Faster with Automatic Documentation Updates!

    Read the article

  • Data Mining: Part 14 Export DMX results with Integration Services

    In this chapter we will explain how to work with Data Mining models and the Integration Services. Specifically, we will talk about the Data Mining Query Task in SSIS. Free ebook "TortoiseSVN and Subversion Cookbook - Oracle Edition"Use these recipes to work better, faster, and do things you never knew you could do with SVN. If you're new to source control, this book provides a concise guide to getting the most out of Subversion. Download it for free.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Azure Storage Queues Part 1: 360 Degrees

    Microsoft Azure Queues are more than just a class or a concept – they're a ready-to-use service that loosely connects components or applications through the cloud. Roman Schacherl provides a helicopter overview of the service. 12 must-have SQL Server toolsThe award-winning SQL Developer Bundle contains 12 tools for faster, simpler SQL Server development. Download a free trial.

    Read the article

  • Simplified Restores with SQL Server 2012 Recovery Advisor

    Occasionally, a DBA may need to restore a database from a multiple backup files that originated from multiple servers. This requirement might arise, for example, in a database-mirroring configuration, where backups may be from either of the servers. Get smart with SQL Backup ProGet faster, smaller backups with integrated verification.Quickly and easily DBCC CHECKDB your backups. Learn more.

    Read the article

  • Can I turn off global menu only in Nautilus?

    - by Syzygy
    According to post #15 of this Ubuntu Forums thread about Nautilus being slow, turning off global menu speeds Nautilus up significantly. This is certainly true for me, as running Nautilus as root makes it a few times (!) faster (with no gnome-scripts installed, cache cleared, Dropbox turned off). Now, I like the global menu--but I also want Nautilus to be fast! Is there a way to turn off the global menu only for Nautilus?

    Read the article

  • How to set Fn+F2 to show battery's status throug OSD and not power statistics?

    - by papukaija
    In natty pressing Fn+F2 on my Samsung NC10 opened a new notification with the remaining battery power. After upgrading to Oneiric, it opens the power statistics. Is the a way to revert this change? Checking the battery status with the notification is much faster than finding it from the power statistics. I know that the remaining battery time can be set to be shown on the panel but I'm used to Fn+F2.

    Read the article

  • What's the lightest Ubuntu desktop environment? [duplicate]

    - by user242125
    This question already has an answer here: How do I find out which version and derivative of Ubuntu is right for my hardware in terms of minimal system requirements? 5 answers My computer has 1GB ram and a very low graphic card, but I don't know how much powerful it is. My computer is very slow with Ubuntu Unity and I saw that there are many desktop environments which are much faster, even for a slow computer. So, what's the lightest desktop environment.

    Read the article

  • Free eBook: Defensive Database Programming

    Resilient T-SQL code is code that is designed to last, and to be safely reused by others. The goal of defensive database programming, the goal of this book, is to help you to produce resilient T-SQL code that robustly and gracefully handles cases of unintended use, and is resilient to common changes to the database environment. 12 must-have SQL Server toolsThe award-winning SQL Developer Bundle contains 12 tools for faster, simpler SQL Server development. Download a free trial.

    Read the article

  • ReadyBoost in Windows 7

    - by Robert Koritnik
    I've bought an SD card today for my phot frame, but when I inserted it into my notebook I saw I could use it for ReadyBoost. Some background I'm a .net developer, using VMs and developing web applications (and Sharepoint). I use an HP notebook machine with Core 2 Duo 2GHz + 4GB RAM + 320 7200 HD. I simultaneously run Visual Studio 2010 with some plugins SQL Server Firefox with at least 10 tabs Chrome with about 5 tabs IIS VM with Server 2008 machine Sharepoint and occasionally also Photoshop and some InDesign as well. So I don't let my machine have a break. :D Question If I buy myself some really fast SDHC card (like SanDisk 16GB Extreme 30MB/s - is there anything faster) and use it with my Windows 7 ReadyBoost, will I see any performance gain? Is it going to work something similar to Seagate's HybridDrive Momentus with 4GB of solid state drive? What could I actually expect if I do put this card into my machine? And what would be recommended size? Observations I guess redirecting page file to it would speed up the system. Some VM machines on it would probably run faster as well because they could run parallel to HD host system I guess. Am I right or wrong?

    Read the article

  • IDE/PATA high-speed hard drive dock

    - by wfaulk
    I frequently need to access bare drives for backups and need a quick, high-speed way to deal with them. There are a multitude of SATA hard drive docks (for example), but I have a lot of IDE/PATA (hereafter "IDE") drives that I would like to be able to use similarly. There are IDE-to-SATA adapters so you can plug your IDE hard drive into a SATA port, so I don't see any reason why you couldn't use the same technology to have a native dock, yet none seems to exist. Now, I'm aware that 3.5" IDE drives do not have a specification for the layout of the connector, and therefore can't be slapped into a dock the same way a SATA drive could, but 2.5" PATA drives do. In fact, I'm not terribly interested in supporting 3.5" drives. It would be nice, but I deal with them far less frequently than 2.5" drives. Also, I'd very much like for the connection to the computer be faster than USB, preferably eSATA, I don't want to be spending time mounting a drive inside an enclosure, I don't want bare drives lying around with a cable hanging off of them, and I'd prefer a single dock rather than two. What seems like the ideal solution to me would be a regular SATA→eSATA dock and some sort of screwless adapter for IDE drives, but I'm open to any suggestions, regardless of my stated preferences, but which are, in some sort of order of preference: high-speed (faster than USB, at least) holder for drive (not just a cable) no complicated enclosure support for 3.5" IDE drives single dock Updates: Here's a 3.5" IDE to 3.5" SATA docking adapter that could be part of the solution. Weird. I figured that would be the impossible part. I was hoping to find something like this 2.5" to 3.5" SATA chassis that would take a 44-pin IDE drive internally. It looks like the Vantec EZ Swap EX comes awfully close. It has its own bay dock, but it looks like the SATA ports on the back are spaced properly, even if they're not aligned quite properly. Unfortunately, the proper position is at the very edge of the drive, which means that the docks' connectors are at the very edge of their recesses, which means there's no way to fit it in there.

    Read the article

  • Creating mdraid device on top of other existing mdraid devices

    - by Dmitriusan
    I'm considering creating something like "hierarchical raid" and wondering whether it is possible using pure mdraid. Moreover, I'm going to boot from this device. I'm using Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS with Grub2 bootloader. Motivation behind doing that is: I have 4 x 1tb 7200rpm disks. Two are newer and faster (up to 200mb/sec) and other two are slower (up to 140mb/sec). I want to create RAID-0 device from them. When creating such RAID-0 directly from 4 hard disks, I get summary speed up to ~480mb/sec. That is roughly 4*120mb/sec, so RAID-0 works with speed of the slowest device. I have an idea to create a separate RAID-0 md0 device from 500gb partitions of slower hard disks. Theoretically, this md0 device will have speed 2*140=240~280mb/sec. After that, I'm going to add this md0 device to RAID-0 with faster disks, finishing with up to 3*200=600mb/sec. Stripe-width for this raid will be 2x times bigger than for underlying raid with slow disks. Questions are: is it possible or I'm missing something? will that work as expected? can I boot from such consolidated raid device? any better ideas? any pitfalls? I don't want to use fakeraid for consolidating slow disks for multiple reasons (portability, ability to customize parameters and so on). PS Speed is needed for home virtualization server and just for experience/fun. Reliability is provided via regular automatic backups to a separate device. PPS I considered also using different stripe-width for hard disks with different speed in single raid, but mdraid does not seem to support that.

    Read the article

  • Why are my socks proxies slow

    - by vps_newcomer
    I have a linux vps, and i have tried a few socks proxy setups to test their performance: All tests were using speedtest.net The standard ssh tunnel proxy 0.8mbit/s download and 0.1-0.2mbit/s upload speeds dante-server proxy 1.3mbit/s download and 0.4-0.5mbit/s upload I am wondering why are these speeds so slow? Is anything shaping them? Is it just the nature of socks proxies? I know that the ssh tunnel has to do encryption and what not so that is why its slow, but i was surprised to see that the second setup was also quite slow. On the VPS i have received download speeds of 25MB/s per second (thats about 200mbit/s and upload speed of atleast 5MB/s (haven't got a good enough pipe to test anything faster). The other option i was going to try is to setup OpenVPN and see how that goes, however i need to find a good tutorial as it's fairly complicated to setup. So why is it so slow? How can i test to see where the bottleneck is? How can i make it faster :D

    Read the article

  • Computer Comparison - which is "better"

    - by David Murdoch
    A company I work with recently replaced their old server and gave it to me. Their old server is a Dell PowerEdge 2600. I've been playing with the machine and even installed Windows Server 2008 on it...and it seems to run it pretty well. Here are the specs for the two machines: Dev Machine: AMD Athlon64 3000+ 2.38 GHz (overclocked from 1.8GHz [@ 280x8.5] - it is stable-ish) Memory (RAM): 1x1GB OCZ PC3200 (Dual-Channel) 300GB HD OS: Windows XP Pro (32bit) SuperPi 1M digit test: 40 seconds Dell PowerEdge 2600 Server: Intel Xeon CPU 2.8GHz 2.8GHz Memory (RAM): 512MBx2 (PC2700, not dual channel) 68GB HD (RAID 5) OS: Windows Server 2000 (32bit) SuperPi 1M digit test: 56 seconds [using 1 processor] (Themes and Aero-Flass UI turned off, of course) I use my computer to regularly run Photoshop CS5, Illustrator CS5, Flash CS5, 5 browsers (Chrome, FF, IE, Safari, Opera), iTunes, Visual Studio 2010, and Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 [sometimes simultaneously :-) ]. The SuperPi test has my dev machine coming in about 30% faster than the Server machine...though this could be due to the server running "Vista" with background processes prioritized. Do you think it would be realistic/advantageous for me to move from my dev machine to the Dell PowerEdge 2600? Is it possible to install additional DVD drives/burners on the server? Can I install my internal 300 GB hard drive on the server? Can I add some USB 2.0 ports? Note: I'll probably install Win XP Pro on the dev machine if I do switch. If not, are there any creative and useful way for me to take advantage of this server (with the goal of faster computing)?

    Read the article

  • Software mirroring (RAID1) versus "Fake Raid" for new Windows 7 install

    - by kquinn
    I've just ordered two new hard drives for my main desktop and a copy of Windows 7 Professional 64-bit. I'd like to do a clean install of Win7 onto the new drives (leaving my old XP Pro boot partition around for a while in case something goes disastrously wrong, etc.). I want to have them set up in mirrored (RAID-1) mode. My understanding is that Win7 Pro can do software mirroring, but can I set this up directly at install time? If so, how? Note that I'd like the disk to be split into three partitions (OS/Apps&Data/Bulk data), all of which should be mirrored. Would it be better (more reliable or faster) to use my motherboard's hardware RAID support? My motherboard is an older nVidia nForce 680i SLI, which is not the most stable of motherboards, and I'm not sure how trustworthy its RAID1 configuration might be (or if Win7 could even detect and install onto a hardware-mirrored volume). Also, the performance characteristics of RAID1 are rather different than RAID0 or RAID5, and I'm wondering if Win7's software mirroring might actually be faster than hardware RAID1 (for example, I'm more of a Unix admin when I have to wear the sysadmin hat, and I've had great success deploying ZFS; most hardware RAID1 implementations have to read both disks and compare results to look for data errors, but ZFS can read from only one disk in the mirror and just use the built-in checksum, meaning it can have up to 2x the number of reads in-flight, as long as there's no data corruption). Edit: Okay, my question about whether Windows 7 can do software mirroring has been answered, and it can. I'm still unsure whether Windows software RAID or my motherboard's hardware "fake RAID" function is a better choice, though. Remember, I'm only interested in mirroring -- not the more complicated striping or parity operations that generally show the poor performance of crappy motherboard RAID solutions.

    Read the article

  • virtual disk image - file or partition

    - by tylerl
    I'm looking at the differences between using a file versus a partition to store a virtual disk image in VM use. The common knowledge is that partition-based images are faster than file-based images because of a decreased overhead. It makes sense, but I've never seen any actual numbers. My own testing bears out a different result. When I benchmark a direct-to-partition virtual disk, then format that same partition with ext4, create a virtual disk image stored on that ext4 filesystem, and then benchmark that, I see no speedup at all for the direct-to-partition virtual disk. Instead on some systems the file-based image is even faster (possibly due to host OS caching or something like that). This test was repeated many times on many systems, with fairly consistent results. So perhaps throwing out the performance justification, is it still considered better to use a partition rather than a virtual disk image? Is there some other reason why direct partition access is better than image files? Or perhaps is there some reason to go the other way around? Perhaps an advantage in one of the virtual disk file formats that you don't get with raw partition images?

    Read the article

  • Why are my socks proxies slow

    - by vps_newcomer
    I have a linux vps, and i have tried a few socks proxy setups to test their performance: All tests were using speedtest.net The standard ssh tunnel proxy 0.8mbit/s download and 0.1-0.2mbit/s upload speeds dante-server proxy 1.3mbit/s download and 0.4-0.5mbit/s upload I am wondering why are these speeds so slow? Is anything shaping them? Is it just the nature of socks proxies? I know that the ssh tunnel has to do encryption and what not so that is why its slow, but i was surprised to see that the second setup was also quite slow. On the VPS i have received download speeds of 25MB/s per second (thats about 200mbit/s and upload speed of atleast 5MB/s (haven't got a good enough pipe to test anything faster). The other option i was going to try is to setup OpenVPN and see how that goes, however i need to find a good tutorial as it's fairly complicated to setup. So why is it so slow? How can i test to see where the bottleneck is? How can i make it faster :D

    Read the article

  • Network latency and speed of light

    - by James
    This was kinda of covered by the following Is minimum latency fixed by the speed of light? , but i would like to add the follow up a bit. The scenario is as follows; we have two opposing sites one on the West Coast of the US and one in Ireland. The customer is in central Europe, and has requested a latency test. Ireland gives responses of ~65-70ms. However the West Coast guys claim to be faster with a response of 60ms. Now a quick check says that light in fiber would take about 42ms to make the trip to the States and 8.5ms to Ireland. So obviously this is a single hop and does not include routers, switches, firewalls, protocol overhead etc. Would I be right to call BS on their figures? As a final note I tested a ping to Google IP address that was allegedly on the west coast from a site that covered a similar distance and was amazed to get a response time of 20ms. Suggesting ICMP packets that travel twice the speed of light. So A) what am I missing B) Am I right to suspect shenanigans? UPDATE: Guys thanks so far for your help and I have been reading various previous questions on this. About 5 years I had an issue where the hop from the UK to Ireland added 10ms of latency no matter what we did. In the end I moved the servers; So imagine my surprise when I have guys that claim they are 5ms faster with a transatlantic trip. So again should I call BS? Oh and assume both sites are normal mortals that don't have access to Google magical routing, warp dives or flux capacitors. :)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >