Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 68/861 | < Previous Page | 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Internet Troubles - PPPoE vs PPPoA?

    - by AkkA
    I have been having some internet troubles at home (ADSL2+ connection in Australia). We get random drop-outs from the authentication connection. It will keep the connection to the DSL service, but we lose authentication and either have to restart the router/modem (its combined, a Belkin one, not sure on model number) or unplug the phone cable, wait about 30 seconds and plug it in again. I've called the ISP (Telstra) a few times, but they only offer limited support when we dont use their supported hardware. Apparently something had happened on their side, they checked the box again (at least it sounded that simple), and told me it would be fine. It wasnt. I've replaced all the filters around the house, but that didnt help either. We do live a little bit away from the exchange (get a sync speed of about 3000/900), so I thought it could be due to line noise but that hasnt helped. Telstra allow both PPPoE and PPPoA connections (which I'm configuring through my router, dont have software on the PC side). I've been running PPPoA the whole time, would it make any difference changing it to PPPoE? If not, are there any other theories as to why we would be experiencing these drop-outs? It has been fine for at least 12 months, then suddenly started about 2 months ago.

    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

  • VPN sharing on Mac OS X 10.5 machine

    - by Jens
    I have a rather weird problem. I want to share a VPN connection that has been established by my Mac OS X 10.5 computer with another machine in my network. This is what I did: In the /etc/hostcongig file on the main computer I added the line: IPFORWARDING=-YES- I assigned a fixed IP address to my computer (192.168.178.30), a fixed one to the other machine (192.168.178.60) and my computer's IP address as gateway on the other machine. I connected to my VPN using the internal Mac OS X VPN client (PPTP connection) I run this script: #!/bin/sh natd -same_ports -use_sockets -unregistered_only -dynamic -interface ppp0 -clamp_mss ipfw -f flush ipfw add divert natd ip from any to any via ppp0 ipfw add pass all from any to any sysctl -w net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 Source: Using (and sharing) a VPN connection on your Mac Now everthing works smootly, however speed is an issue. I get 1,8 MBit/s on my main machine and only 0,3 - 0,6 MBit/s on the other one. My question: What could possibly be wrong? Do I have to tweak MTU settings, is there any packet inspection ongoing that needs time....? Any help appreciated!

    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

  • Windows 7 ICS client web failure

    - by n8wrl
    I have several windows 7 PC's connected on a LAN via a hub. One has a Verizon 3G connection and works great. I have internet connection sharing enabled on it, which automagically set the LAN connection to 192.168.137.1 and enabled DHCP. I am trying to get the client PC's working one at a time. The others are off. The client is able to: Get an IP via DHCP with correct settings. Ping any web address I can throw at it, so DNS and routing are working. Windows update works. But web sites hang in IE. All but google.com! I type www.msn.com, microsoft.com, amazon.com, etc. etc. All ping via a cmd window but IE just hangs - it says web site found but the green progress bar just slowly creeps and no content displays. www.google.com comes up even after clearing browser and dns cache. I am pulling my hair out - what am I missing? EDIT: After some more gyrations with a router I'm back to ICS. Same symptoms, only now I have an answer to Andrew's question, YES I can do Google searches but clicking on any of the result links hangs! Let one sit for half an hour with no timeout or error.

    Read the article

  • Lion MacBook Pro will not load webpages with DNS just after wake

    - by NReilingh
    I'm working with a 2011 MacBook Pro running Lion (10.7.2), that after waking from sleep (i.e. opening the lid) takes an inordinately long amount of time (2-3 minutes or more) to get a usable internet connection. Upon waking, the wi-fi icon signifies it is negotiating a network connection, and completes one a few seconds later. At this point, network diagnostics will not show any issues, and everything in Network preferences looks as normal: I'm connected to the proper network, have the right IP address and gateway, and DNS settings are correct. However, any site accessed with a domain name (like http://www.google.com) in Safari will return the "You are not connected to the Internet." error. Accessing a site directly, say, with Google's 74.125.226.212, is successful. Yet, Network Diagnostics will insist that DNS is functioning properly. After a few minutes, the following lines will be printed to the Console log, and regular behavior will be restored. 11/18/11 8:11:31.288 PM airportd: _doAutoJoin: Already associated to “Wireless”. Bailing on auto-join. 11/18/11 8:11:32.000 PM kernel: en1: BSSID changed to 00:25:9c:63:91:bd This behavior occurs only when waking from sleep--not when turning wi-fi on and off. This problem also occurs when using a wired Ethernet connection. As per this thread, I have tried flushing the DNS cache and wiping the wireless network from memory (it's not a protected network). Neither have worked.

    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

  • Browsing is much slower on one PC wired to the same router - why?

    - by deanalt
    Wife is not happy. It takes about 5 seconds to open a google window, versus about 1 second on the faster computer which is about 3 years old itself. Yes, it is an older computer (5 -6 years old, I'd guess), surely with less RAM, but for simple browsing, should it matter? Both are hardwired to the same Netgear Rangemax router. Both use fixed IP addresses. Both are XP. Both have about 8 feet of cable to the router. I have the fastest service my cable provides. Probably irrelevant but ...two newer MACs are connected wirelessely during the summer and they are even faster, but I think that's the difference in browsers. If you could point me to a list of process of elimination steps that would be most appreciated. Thanks Dean

    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

  • Will adding extra RAM in my computer speed it up?

    - by Harry Simpson
    I have a 5 year old Dell Inspiron 530 desktop computer which is slowly grinding to a halt. Someone told me if i put extra RAM in itll speed it up. Inside the computer there are four slots for memory but only two has memory in them and they are 1GB each. if i bought another 2no. 1GB and put them in the free slots would it speed the computer up (would it be twice as fast?) and is it as simple as just putting them in or is there other things i need to do?

    Read the article

  • SQL - an error occurred during the pre-login handshake

    - by Rivka
    Until yesterday evening, I was able to connect to my server from my local machine. Now, I get the following error: A connection was successfully established with the server, but then an error occurred during the pre-login handshake. (provider: SSL Provider, error: 0 - The wait operation timed out.) (.Net SqlClient Data Provider) Note, I can log on to the actual server with no problem. Yesterday, I installed IIS on my machine and set up a site using my IP address - don't know if this has anything to do. I did come across this article, followed the steps, but didn't seem to help. http://www.escapekeys.com/blog/index.cfm/2011/1/26/Microsoft-SQL-Server-Error-64-A-connection-was-successfully-established-with-the-server I also went through the following article, changed TC/IP settings, restarted, but nothing. http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2009/05/21/sql-server-fix-error-provider-named-pipes-provider-error-40-could-not-open-a-connection-to-sql-server-microsoft-sql-server-error/ Started trying suggestions from comments too but stopped when I realized I might be messing things up more. So, why is this happening / how can I fix?

    Read the article

  • Big Excel File Freezing/Running Slowly

    - by ktm5124
    Hi, My co-worker has a very large Excel file (over 7 MB) that suffers from the problems of (A) running slowly (B) taking forever to open/save/close and (C) freezing the computer, requiring a restart. I set the calculations to Manual, and I repaired the file, but the file didn't change in file size and it is still having these problems. My questions are: (1) Is there any way around this problem or is Excel just bad at handling ~7MB files? (2) Would upgrading RAM make a big difference? (3) It's possible that we can't afford to spend the money on a RAM upgrade. Are there are any other ways of mitigating the problem? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Safari 4 starting up slowly on a Vista machine

    - by puri
    I have two PCs (different specs) with the latest Windows Vista and Safari 4 updates installed. In one machine, Safari 4 works great but in the other, it starts up slowly (less than a minute though) with harddisk sound indicating data access activities. I have cleared all internet caches and I am quite sure that there is no virus in both machines. Are there any other reasons that Safari performances are so different in comparably similar software and hardware environments?

    Read the article

  • Are there any other causes of this error that are NOT related to initial setup?

    - by LordScree
    I'm trying to diagnose an issue at a customer site. They are receiving the following error: A network-related or instance-specific error occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server I've seen this a few times, but only during the initial setup - it's often caused by one of the following: The database server is turned off The network connection between the database server and the application is closed or somehow blocked (e.g. a firewall) The SQL Server instance is not set up to receive remote connections from the application server (e.g. TCP is turned off, remote connections are disabled, or the "SQL Server Browser" service is stopped/disabled) However, if I assume that no configuration changes have been made, I'm trying to postulate on what the reason might be for getting this error at a random point after the initial setup. My initial thought is: SQL Server machine has run out of resources (e.g. RAM) and is unable to accept new requests from the application server Is this a valid theory? What other possible causes are there of this error that are not related to the initial setup of the server / application connection? Or is it simply impossible that this error could occur without a configuration change having been made (either on the SQL Server side, application side, or somewhere in-between (network))? NOTE: I believe this question differs from the plethora of questions related to this error message because the application and server have been talking to each other quite happily until now (most, if not all, other questions seem to relate to initial setup).

    Read the article

  • It takes a long time until windows xp recognize I connected USB diks

    - by Pavol G
    Hello IT guys, I have a problem with my new USB disk. When I connect it to my laptop with Windows XP SP2 it takes about 4-5min until Windows recognized it and show it as a new disk. I can also see (disk's LED is blinking) that something is scaning the disk when I connect it, when this is done Windows imediately recognize it. Also when I'm copying data to this disk the speed is about 3.5MB/sec. It's connected using USB2.0. I tried to check for spyware (using spybot), also run windows in safe mode. But still have the same problems. Do you have any idea what could help to solve this problem? On Windows Vista (another laptop) everything is ok, disk loads in about 15sec and speed is about 20-30MB/sec. Thanks a lot for every advice!

    Read the article

  • Configuring WPA WiFi in Ubuntu 10.10

    - by sma
    Hello, I am trying to configure my wireless network on my laptop running Ubuntu 10.10 and am having a bit of difficulty. I am a complete Linux newb, but want to learn it, hence the reason I'm trying to set this up. Here's the vitals: It is a Gateway 600 YG2 laptop. It was previously running Windows XP, but I installed Ubuntu 10.10 in place of it (not a dual boot, I removed XP altogether). I have an old wireless card that I'm trying to resurrect. I haven't really used the card in a couple years, but it seems to still work, I just can't connect to my home's wireless network. The card is a Linksys WPC11 v2.5. When I plug it in, Ubuntu recognizes the network, but won't connect to it. My home network uses WPA encryption and the only connection type that Ubuntu's network manager is giving me is WEP and then it asks for a key -- I have no idea what that key should be. So, basically, I'm asking, is there a way I can instead connect through WPA? I've tried creating a new connection in network manager, but that won't work, it keeps falling back to the WEP connection and asking me for a key. I have tried to install the XP driver using ndiswrapper but I don't know if that's working or not. Is there a way to tell if: A) the card is working as it should B) the correct drivers are installed (again, I installed the XP one using ndiswrapper NET8180.INF, but I'm not sure what to do next) Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How do I setup routing for two companies with different Internet connections on the same LAN?

    - by Clint Miller
    Here's the setup: Two companies (A & B) share office space and a LAN. A 2nd ISP is brought in and company A wants its own Internet connection (ISP A) and company B wants its own Internet connection (ISP B). VLANs are deployed internally to separate the two companies' networks (company A: VLAN 1, company B: VLAN 2, shared VOIP: VLAN 3). With separate VLANs it's simple enough to use separate DHCP servers (or separate scopes on the same server) to assign the default gateway to each company's gateway for their Internet connection. Static routes can be created on each gateway to point traffic destined for the other company's VLAN or the voice VLAN so that all nodes are reachable as expected. However, I think this is a form of asymmetrical routing, right? (The path from node A1 to node B1 is not the same as the path back from node B1 to node A1). Can I set up policy-based routing to correct this? In that case, can I assign the same default gateway to every device on all VLANs and create a routing policy on a L3 switch to look at the source address and forward traffic to the appropriate next hop? In that case, I want the routing logic to go like this: If the destination address is known, forward the traffic (traffic destined for a different VLAN). If the destination address is unknown, forward the traffic to ISP A's gateway if the source address is on VLAN A; or forward the traffic to ISP B's gateway if the source address is VLAN B. Am I thinking about this problem in the correct way? Is there another way to solve this problem that I am overlooking?

    Read the article

  • Why is my computer running slower after I just installed more RAM and a new HDD?

    - by hopla
    I just bought 4 GB of ram (2x2GB) and a 1TB hard drive and installed them, upgrading from my original 1GB RAM and 250GB HDD. I put the 2GB sticks in 1st and 3rd slots and the 1GB stick in 2nd. Now with my new ram and HDD my computer is running MUCH slower and I dont know why. I've tried restarting just to see what happens and I noticed that even the Windows XP starting music is lagging. If anyone could help that would be fantastic. It's hard even to type this out.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  | Next Page >