Search Results

Search found 21501 results on 861 pages for 'slow connection'.

Page 55/861 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

  • HTTP downloads slow - FTP of same file very fast - Windows 2003

    - by Paul Hinett
    I am having some issues with download speeds on my site via http, i am averaging around 70kbps downloading a file that is around 70mb. But if i connect to my server via FTP and download the same file on the same computer / connection i am averaging about 300+kbps. I know my server has alot of connections at any one time, probably around 400 connections. My server has a 1gbps connection to the internet so there is plenty of bandwidth available, as proven with the FTP. I have no throttling of any kind enabled in IIS. If interested there is a test file here you can download to check the speed: http://filesd.house-mixes.com/test.zip I am based in the UK and the server is in Washington, USA if that makes any difference. Paul

    Read the article

  • Netbook (Samsung N220) on Ubuntu 10.04 slows down WiFi for other computers

    - by Joachim
    I encountered a really odd problem with my new netbook. I am running Ubuntu 10.04 on a Samsung N220 Mito. So far everything worked fine. Now I tried the machine for the first time in our work group where we have a wifi (with internet access) for all laptops. The wifi is controlled by a computer running Suse 9.3 which provides a DHCP server and imposes a firewall. At the moment there is only a macbook in the wifi, where no problems with the internet or wifi connection are encountered. Now coming to my actual problem: In addition to the macbook i connect the Samsung N220 to the Wifi. Problem: My download speed is for some reason limited to 70KB/s max. This is neither a limitation of the server/website i browse on, nor a configuration of the netbook: at home i have 500KB/s download speeds. Furthermore, it is not a default limitation for "untrusted" or "new machines" in the wifi, as for instance other new laptops get full speed internet with our wifi. Problem: Once the Samsung N220 is generating traffic in the wifi, the wifi is slowed down dramatically for all other machines: I run a ping to the router from the macbook. The ping times with the N220 ideling are 2-6ms. When I start downloading or browsing in the web with the N220 the ping speed drops to 800ms. Vice versa, when the macbook is generating the traffic the ping of the N220 to the rooter stays constant at around 2-6ms. So clearly, it is some problem originating from my netbook or maybe its treatment in the wifi. Thanks for any help

    Read the article

  • Apache on Win32: Slow Transfers of single, static files in HTTP, fast in HTTPS

    - by Michael Lackner
    I have a weird problem with Apache 2.2.15 on Windows 2000 Server SP4. Basically, I am trying to serve larger static files, images, videos etc. The download seems to be capped at around 550kB/s even over 100Mbit LAN. I tried other protocols (FTP/FTPS/FTP+ES/SCP/SMB), and they are all in the multi-megabyte range. The strangest thing is that, when using Apache with HTTPS instead of HTTP, it serves very fast, around 2.7MByte/s! I also tried the AnalogX SimpleWWW server just to test the plain HTTP speed of it, and it gave me a healthy 3.3Mbyte/s. I am at a total loss here. I searched the web, and tried to change the following Apache configuration directives in httpd.conf, one at a time, mostly to no avail at all: SendBufferSize 1048576 #(tried multiples of that too, up to 100Mbytes) EnableSendfile Off #(minor performance boost) EnableMMAP Off Win32DisableAcceptEx HostnameLookups Off #(default) I also tried to tune the following registry parameters, setting their values to 4194304 in decimal (they are REG_DWORD), and rebooting afterwards: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AFD\Parameters\DefaultReceiveWindow HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\AFD\Parameters\DefaultSendWindow Additionally, I tried to install mod_bw, which sets the event timer precision to 1ms, and allows for bandwidth throttling. According to some people it boosts static file serving performance when set to unlimited bandwidth for everybody. Unfortunately, it did nothing for me. So: AnalogX HTTP: 3300kB/s Gene6 FTPD, plain: 3500kB/s Gene6 FTPD, Implicit and Explicit SSL, AES256 Cipher: 1800-2000kB/s freeSSHD: 1100kB/s SMB shared folder: about 3000kB/s Apache HTTP, plain: 550kB/s Apache HTTPS: 2700kB/s Clients that were used in the bandwidth testing: Internet Explorer 8 (HTTP, HTTPS) Firefox 8 (HTTP, HTTPS) Chrome 13 (HTTP, HTTPS) Opera 11.60 (HTTP, HTTPS) wget under CygWin (HTTP, HTTPS) FileZilla (FTP, FTPS, FTP+ES, SFTP) Windows Explorer (SMB) Generally, transfer speeds are not too high, but that's because the server machine is an old quad Pentium Pro 200MHz machine with 2GB RAM. However, I would like Apache to serve at at least 2Mbyte/s instead of 550kB/s, and that already works with HTTPS easily, so I fail to see why plain HTTP is so crippled. I am using a Kerio Winroute Firewall, but no Throttling and no special filters peeking into HTTP traffic, just the plain Firewall functionality for blocking/allowing connections. The Apache error.log (Loglevel info) shows no warnings, no errors. Also nothing strange to be seen in access.log. I have already stripped down my httpd.conf to the bare minimum just to make sure nothing is interfering, but that didn't help either. If you have any idea, help would be greatly appreciated, since I am totally out of ideas! Thanks! Edit: I have now tried a newer Apache 2.2.21 to see if it makes any difference. However, the behaviour is exactly the same. Edit 2: KM01 has requested a sniff on the HTTP headers, so here comes the LiveHTTPHeaders output (an extension to Firefox). The Output is generated on downloading a single file called "elephantsdream_source.264", which is an H.264/AVC elementary video stream under an Open Source license. I have taken the freedom to edit the URL, removing folders and changing the actual servers domain name to www.mydomain.com. Here it is: LiveHTTPHeaders, Plain HTTP: http://www.mydomain.com/elephantsdream_source.264 GET /elephantsdream_source.264 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.mydomain.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:55:16 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8r PHP/5.2.17 Last-Modified: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:20:09 GMT Etag: "c000000013fa5-29cf10e9-493b311889d3c" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 701436137 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain LiveHTTPHeaders, HTTPS: https://www.mydomain.com/elephantsdream_source.264 GET /elephantsdream_source.264 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.mydomain.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:56:57 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8r PHP/5.2.17 Last-Modified: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:20:09 GMT Etag: "c000000013fa5-29cf10e9-493b311889d3c" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 701436137 Keep-Alive: timeout=15, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain

    Read the article

  • Can I make TCP/IP session to run less than 60 seconds?

    - by par
    Our server is overloaded with TCP/IP sessions, we have 1200 - 1500 of them. Most of them are hanging in TIME_OUT state. It turns out that a connection in TIME_OUT state occupies a socket until 60 second time-out is elapsed. The problem is that the server gets unresponsive and many clients are not getting served. I have made a simple test: download an XML file from the server with Internet Explorer 8.0 The download finishes in a fraction of second. But then I see that the TCP/IP connection is hanging in TIME_OUT state for 60 seconds. Is there any way to get rid of TIME_OUT waiting or make it less to free the socket for new connections? I understand why TCP/IP connection enters TIME_OUT state, but I don't understand why Internet Explorer does not close the connection after the XML file download is over. The details. Our server runs web service written in Perl (mod-perl). The service provides weather data to clients. Client is a Flash appication (actually Flash ActiveX control embedded in Windows application). OS: Ubuntu Apache "Keep Alive" option is set to 0

    Read the article

  • Seemingly random network connectivity.

    - by AngryHacker
    This has been driving me nuts for a while. When I turn on the PC (which has a wired Ethernet connection), it cannot be accessed by other computers on the network. In other words, inbound connections do not work. The firewall is disabled. The PC itself can hit up anything it wants just fine. By process of elimination, I've figured out that checking or unchecking the Eaclift driver in the properties for my network connection restored the inbound connection. I do not know what Eaclift driver is or does or how it even got on my PC (e.g. I am not allowed to uninstall it either). And it does not matter whether it's on or off - I just need to toggle it to restore connectivity. One other thing that happens when I toggle the Eaclift driver, is than an Internet Connection icon appears in the Network Connections and it was not there before. Can someone shed some light as to what is going on? How to fix it so that I don't have to deal with this insanity?

    Read the article

  • Slow http traffic between VMWare guest and host.

    - by toluju
    I have a web application running as an http server inside the VMWare guest OS, and I'm trying to access the content from the host OS. The guest is running Ubuntu, and the host is running Windows XP. The problem is, when I try to access the application from a browser in the host OS, the content takes a very long time to load (up to a minute for a single page). A browser in the guest OS can access the application with no problems. I've tried using both NAT and bridged networking, but the results are the same. The Windows firewall is turned off. The connection itself appears fine, as ping requests from guest to host as well as host to guest complete without errors or delays. Both guest and host can access the external Internet connection without a problem. I'm using VMWare Player. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Trouble connecting to a local SQL server instance from the web

    - by dfarney
    We have a small network behind a firewall (WatchGuard XTM 2 series) and network switch. On our network we have multiple instances of SQL server, but 1 in specific that I would like to be able to access remotely from our website. We have a static IP address from our ISP and then all the machines on the network have a locally assigned dynamic IP address. When trying to connect to the database from outside our network how do I get the request to be directed to the proper machine / SQL instance? Is it a parameter in my connection string or something in my firewall? A few things to rule out: 1) The firewall is allowing access from the website to our network. I added the site's IP and opened up port 1433. Also, when trying to connect and monitoring the firewall no exceptions come up as they did before I added the proper IP address. 2) Remote connections on the SQL server has been setup and enabled. I've done a lot of reading up on remote connections and I am sure it has been setup properly. I am currently getting this error message on my site: A network-related or instance-specific error occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server. The server was not found or was not accessible. Verify that the instance name is correct and that SQL Server is configured to allow remote connections. (provider: TCP Provider, error: 0 - A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.)

    Read the article

  • Slow remote desktop connection to VPS

    - by Jonathan
    When I use Windows 7's remote desktop connection to our company's VPS (Win Server 2008 32bit) I receive a very slow connection - most of the times it actually grinds down to a complete halt. This is in contrast to my team mates which have no problem remoting to the VPS. I'm using a brand new Dell Studio 1558 laptop with Intel Core i7 and 4GB RAM with a clean installation of Windows 7 64bit Ultimate. Any suggestions for how to diagnose \ solve \ workaround the problem would be appreciated. UPDATES: I checked, and it seems the problem exists with all the computers connected to my home LAN. Once I take my laptop to the nearest coffee shop it works fine. What could be the problem with the LAN?

    Read the article

  • Setup routing and iptables for new VPN connection to redirect **only** ports 80 and 443

    - by Steve
    I have a new VPN connection (using openvpn) to allow me to route around some ISP restrictions. Whilst it is working fine, it is taking all the traffic over the vpn. This is causing me issues for downloading (my internet connection is a lot faster than the vpn allows), and for remote access. I run an ssh server, and have a daemon running that allows me to schdule downloads via my phone. I have my existing ethernet connection on eth0, and the new VPN connection on tun0. I believe I need to setup the default route to use my existing eth0 connection on the 192.168.0.0/24 network, and set the default gateway to 192.168.0.1 (my knowledge is shaky as I haven't done this for a number of years). If that is correct, then I'm not exactly sure how to do it!. My current routing table is: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface MSS Window irtt 0.0.0.0 10.51.0.169 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 0 0 0 10.51.0.1 10.51.0.169 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tun0 0 0 0 10.51.0.169 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 0 0 0 85.25.147.49 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0 0 0 0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth0 0 0 0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 0 0 0 After fixing the routing, I believe I need to use iptables to configure prerouting or masquerading to force everything for destination port 80 or 443 over tun0. Again, I'm not exactly sure how to do this! Everything I've found on the internet is trying to do something far more complicated, and trying to sort the wood from the trees is proving difficult. Any help would be much appreciated. UPDATE So far, from the various sources, I've cobbled together the following: #!/bin/sh DEV1=eth0 IP1=`ifconfig|perl -nE'/dr:(\S+)/&&say$1'|grep 192.` GW1=192.168.0.1 TABLE1=internet TABLE2=vpn DEV2=tun0 IP2=`ifconfig|perl -nE'/dr:(\S+)/&&say$1'|grep 10.` GW2=`route -n | grep 'UG[ \t]' | awk '{print $2}'` ip route flush table $TABLE1 ip route flush table $TABLE2 ip route show table main | grep -Ev ^default | while read ROUTE ; do ip route add table $TABLE1 $ROUTE ip route add table $TABLE2 $ROUTE done ip route add table $TABLE1 $GW1 dev $DEV1 src $IP1 ip route add table $TABLE2 $GW2 dev $DEV2 src $IP2 ip route add table $TABLE1 default via $GW1 ip route add table $TABLE2 default via $GW2 echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr ip rule add from $IP1 lookup $TABLE1 ip rule add from $IP2 lookup $TABLE2 ip rule add fwmark 1 lookup $TABLE1 ip rule add fwmark 2 lookup $TABLE2 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $DEV1 -j SNAT --to-source $IP1 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $DEV2 -j SNAT --to-source $IP2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -A OUTPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $DEV1 -m state --state NEW -j CONNMARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $DEV2 -m state --state NEW -j CONNMARK --set-mark 2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m connmark --mark 1 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m connmark --mark 2 -j MARK --set-mark 2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m state --state NEW -m connmark ! --mark 0 -j CONNMARK --save-mark iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i $DEV2 -m state --state NEW -p tcp --dport 80 -j CONNMARK --set-mark 2 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i $DEV2 -m state --state NEW -p tcp --dport 443 -j CONNMARK --set-mark 2 route del default route add default gw 192.168.0.1 eth0 Now this seems to be working. Except it isn't! Connections to the blocked websites are going through, connections not on ports 80 and 443 are using the non-VPN connection. However port 80 and 443 connections that aren't to the blocked websites are using the non-VPN connection too! As the general goal has been reached, I'm relatively happy, but it would be nice to know why it isn't working exactly right. Any ideas? For reference, I now have 3 routing tables, main, internet, and vpn. The listing of them is as follows... Main: default via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 10.38.0.1 via 10.38.0.205 dev tun0 10.38.0.205 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.38.0.206 85.removed via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1000 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.73 metric 1 Internet: default via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 10.38.0.1 via 10.38.0.205 dev tun0 10.38.0.205 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.38.0.206 85.removed via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1000 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.73 metric 1 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.0.73 VPN: default via 10.38.0.205 dev tun0 10.38.0.1 via 10.38.0.205 dev tun0 10.38.0.205 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.38.0.206 85.removed via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1000 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.73 metric 1

    Read the article

  • Is SiteCore slow and buggy?

    - by Larsenal
    I've seen plenty of negative comments regarding performance and general bugginess. However, to be fair, most of these look like they were within the v5.3 timeframe. Have they fixed all of those issues in v6.0? Is it an excellent product? Some examples of the complaints: Maybe it’s just a case of user error, but this guy says, “some pages take as much as 20s to render…” Source Here, in the comments, one fellow remaks, “Sitecore backend is incredible slow. Sitecore developement is really pain, it takes from 2 minutes to start sitecore and many many seconds to do small backend operations. They claim to have a quick client, but that is a BIG LIE. All developers in my company really hate sitecore for being so slow.” Source Another search yielded, “Sitecore’s users listed three issues as number one: licensing, the server as a resource hog, and the site’s slow responsiveness.” Source

    Read the article

  • What can cause throughput to become really slow when an ISAPI filter implements SF_NOTIFY_SEND_RAW_D

    - by Gerald
    I have an ISAPI filter for IIS6 that I've been developing for a while, but I just noticed something disturbing. Anytime I have the filter installed and I download a file, the file download becomes really slow. From a remote machine I'm getting ~120kb per second without the filter installed, and ~45kb per second with the filter installed. This seems to be related to the SF_NOTIFY_SEND_RAW_DATA callback. Whenever I register for this callback, I get the slow downloads, when I don't register for it, everything is fine. Even if I make my HttpFilterProc function just return immediately, like this: DWORD WINAPI HttpFilterProc( PHTTP_FILTER_CONTEXT pfc, DWORD notificationType, LPVOID pvNotification ) { return SF_STATUS_REQ_NEXT_NOTIFICATION; } I've also tried returning SF_STATUS_REQ_HANDLED_NOTIFICATION with the same result. Is it possible that I have some build setting on my DLL that is causing a slow execution of the callback function, or is this just the way it's going to be with ISAPI?

    Read the article

  • pyplot: really slow creating heatmaps

    - by cvondrick
    I have a loop that executes the body about 200 times. In each loop iteration, it does a sophisticated calculation, and then as debugging, I wish to produce a heatmap of a NxM matrix. But, generating this heatmap is unbearably slow and significantly slow downs an already slow algorithm. My code is along the lines: import numpy import matplotlib.pyplot as plt for i in range(200): matrix = complex_calculation() plt.set_cmap("gray") plt.imshow(matrix) plt.savefig("frame{0}.png".format(i)) The matrix, from numpy, is not huge --- 300 x 600 of doubles. Even if I do not save the figure and instead update an on-screen plot, it's even slower. Surely I must be abusing pyplot. (Matlab can do this, no problem.) How do I speed this up?

    Read the article

  • AFP painfully slow

    - by yairchu
    Copying a file using AFP took 40 minutes but using scp it only took 7 mins. Why is AFP so slow? My setup: D-Link DIR-300 wifi router iMac with Snow-Leopard serves AFP Macbook with Leopard is the client

    Read the article

  • Monitoring slow nginx/unicorn requests

    - by injekt
    I'm currently using Nginx to proxy requests to a Unicorn server running a Sinatra application. The application only has a couple of routes defined, those of which make fairly simple (non costly) queries to a PostgreSQL database, and finally return data in JSON format, these services are being monitored by God. I'm currently experiencing extremely slow response times from this application server. I have another two Unicorn servers being proxied via Nginx, and these are responding perfectly fine, so I think I can rule out any wrong doing from Nginx. Here is my God configuration: # God configuration APP_ROOT = File.expand_path '../', File.dirname(__FILE__) God.watch do |w| w.name = "app_name" w.interval = 30.seconds # default w.start = "cd #{APP_ROOT} && unicorn -c #{APP_ROOT}/config/unicorn.rb -D" # -QUIT = graceful shutdown, waits for workers to finish their current request before finishing w.stop = "kill -QUIT `cat #{APP_ROOT}/tmp/unicorn.pid`" w.restart = "kill -USR2 `cat #{APP_ROOT}/tmp/unicorn.pid`" w.start_grace = 10.seconds w.restart_grace = 10.seconds w.pid_file = "#{APP_ROOT}/tmp/unicorn.pid" # User under which to run the process w.uid = 'web' w.gid = 'web' # Cleanup the pid file (this is needed for processes running as a daemon) w.behavior(:clean_pid_file) # Conditions under which to start the process w.start_if do |start| start.condition(:process_running) do |c| c.interval = 5.seconds c.running = false end end # Conditions under which to restart the process w.restart_if do |restart| restart.condition(:memory_usage) do |c| c.above = 150.megabytes c.times = [3, 5] # 3 out of 5 intervals end restart.condition(:cpu_usage) do |c| c.above = 50.percent c.times = 5 end end w.lifecycle do |on| on.condition(:flapping) do |c| c.to_state = [:start, :restart] c.times = 5 c.within = 5.minute c.transition = :unmonitored c.retry_in = 10.minutes c.retry_times = 5 c.retry_within = 2.hours end end end Here is my Unicorn configuration: # Unicorn configuration file APP_ROOT = File.expand_path '../', File.dirname(__FILE__) worker_processes 8 preload_app true pid "#{APP_ROOT}/tmp/unicorn.pid" listen 8001 stderr_path "#{APP_ROOT}/log/unicorn.stderr.log" stdout_path "#{APP_ROOT}/log/unicorn.stdout.log" before_fork do |server, worker| old_pid = "#{APP_ROOT}/tmp/unicorn.pid.oldbin" if File.exists?(old_pid) && server.pid != old_pid begin Process.kill("QUIT", File.read(old_pid).to_i) rescue Errno::ENOENT, Errno::ESRCH # someone else did our job for us end end end I have checked God status logs but it appears CPU and Memory Usage are never out of bounds. I also have something to kill high memory workers, which can be found on the GitHub blog page here. When running a tail -f on the Unicorn logs I see some requests, but they're far and few between, when I was at around 60-100 a second before this trouble seemed to have arrived. This log also shows workers being reaped and started as expected. So my question is, how would I go about debugging this? What are the next steps I should be taking? I'm extremely baffled that the server will sometimes respond quickly, but at others time it's very slow, for long periods of time (which may or may not be peak traffic times). Any advice is much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Monitoring MySQL SELECT/WRITE/UPDATE/SLOW queries in Nagios

    - by imaginative
    There's ways to get performance graphs with several monitoring software packages out there such as ZenOSS. There's a plugin available that will graph MySQL based SELECT/WRITE/SLOW queries in a nice rrd style graph. I'm curious if there is a way to also get similar graphs available in Nagios 3.0? I know Nagios has tools like pnp and can integrate rrd, but is there something readily available that can plugin to monitor those MySQL specifics?

    Read the article

  • Why is the vSphere console view so slow?

    - by blade
    Hi, Why is the Console view on the vSphere client so slow? It's a real shame because it's a shame to have to establish an RDP session every time you work on one of the VMs because of the speed of the console (I saw a tool to right click and open an RDP session to a VM in vSphere Client/ESX but this was not reliable). The Workstation console view is very smooth so I'd expect the vSphere Client console view to be very smooth. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Slow Memcached: Average 10ms memcached `get`

    - by Chris W.
    We're using Newrelic to measure our Python/Django application performance. Newrelic is reporting that across our system "Memcached" is taking an average of 12ms to respond to commands. Drilling down into the top dozen or so web views (by # of requests) I can see that some Memcache get take up to 30ms; I can't find a single use of Memcache get that returns in less than 10ms. More details on the system architecture: Currently we have four application servers each of which has a memcached member. All four memcached members participate in a memcache cluster. We're running on a cloud hosting provider and all traffic is running across the "internal" network (via "internal" IPs) When I ping from one application server to another the responses are in ~0.5ms Isn't 10ms a slow response time for Memcached? As far as I understand if you think "Memcache is too slow" then "you're doing it wrong". So am I doing it wrong? Here's the output of the memcache-top command: memcache-top v0.7 (default port: 11211, color: on, refresh: 3 seconds) INSTANCE USAGE HIT % CONN TIME EVICT/s GETS/s SETS/s READ/s WRITE/s cache1:11211 37.1% 62.7% 10 5.3ms 0.0 73 9 3958 84.6K cache2:11211 42.4% 60.8% 11 4.4ms 0.0 46 12 3848 62.2K cache3:11211 37.5% 66.5% 12 4.2ms 0.0 75 17 6056 170.4K AVERAGE: 39.0% 63.3% 11 4.6ms 0.0 64 13 4620 105.7K TOTAL: 0.1GB/ 0.4GB 33 13.9ms 0.0 193 38 13.5K 317.2K (ctrl-c to quit.) ** Here is the output of the top command on one machine: ** (Roughly the same on all cluster machines. As you can see there is very low CPU utilization, because these machines only run memcache.) top - 21:48:56 up 1 day, 4:56, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.05 Tasks: 70 total, 1 running, 69 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.3%st Mem: 501392k total, 424940k used, 76452k free, 66416k buffers Swap: 499996k total, 13064k used, 486932k free, 181168k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 6519 nobody 20 0 384m 74m 880 S 1.0 15.3 18:22.97 memcached 3 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.3 0.0 0:38.03 ksoftirqd/0 1 root 20 0 24332 1552 776 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.56 init 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd 4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kworker/0:0 5 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.02 kworker/u:0 6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/0 7 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.62 watchdog/0 8 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 cpuset 9 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 khelper ...output truncated...

    Read the article

  • Network transfer from host to VM very slow - VMWare Server & Windows 2003 Server

    - by barfoon
    Hey everyone, Im trying to transfer a file from a Windows 7 host running VMWare Server to a Windows 2003 server VM, and it's painfully slow. I've tried adding/adjusting registry keys and settings found on KB articles, and still nothing. Ive tried this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/898468 http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1619 Vmware tools are installed. Any ideas? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Linux server very slow after IP change and synflood attack

    - by Johannes Ruof
    our server experienced a synflood attack and we used the csf firewall synflood settings to block it. Our server administrators also changed the IP of the server to a new one and blackholed the old IP. The attack went over and I changed the synflood settings back. However the server is still very slow, with a very low CPU usage and very low traffic on the website. Does anybody have an idea what might be causing this? The server is a CENTOS 6.4 x86_64 Thanks in advance, J. Ruof

    Read the article

  • Upload of photos from cf card to pc is super slow

    - by Sharon
    I have a new custom built pc. It has 8B of RAM and was working like a dream. Suddenly it is super slow and taking hours to download photos that used to take just minutes. I notice that there is 8GB RAM but only 3,25GB usable. could this be the problem? If so how to I change it? I'm using Windows 7

    Read the article

  • Why is Windows 7 slow resume from suspend?

    - by John McC
    I have Windows 7 on an HP Mini 5101. It is can be very slow to resume from suspend (not hibernate) state. The time from power on to the login prompt varies from say 10 sec to over a minute. This machine mainly gets used for sofa surfing so usually only Firefox and gtalk are running. Any suggestions on how to achieve Mac-like start-up or suggestions on how to track down the problem appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Check mysql slow queries

    - by Rafal Kaminski
    Is it possible to monitoring mysql like: if some queries is run more then 300 seconds - it will be warnings if some queries is run more then 500 seconds - it will be critical I tried: /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_mysql_health --hostname localhost --username icinga --password XXX --mode slow-queries --warning 300 But is show only rate slow_queries/per second :( Do you have some idea how i can monitoring sth. like i want? Thank you for help. Br,

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >