Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'uos'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Ubuntu 11 and 12 initially fast but later bogs down, CPU pegged

  - by uos??

  I started with Ubuntu 11 a few weeks ago. It's on a DELL M4300 with a OCZ SSD. Default setup, except that I've installed the proprietary NVIDIA graphics and BROADCOM wireless drivers. Dual boot with Windows. If I cold boot into Ubuntu, it is very fast, just like the Windows experience that I'm used to. But SOMETHING happens, and I haven't yet determined what, but the system gets incredibly slow and stays that way. At first I thought it had to do with Adobe Flash because it seemed to be triggered by sites with Flash. But then I removed Flash and the problem remains. I thought it was just an overheating problem, but I've now upgraded to 12.04 which supposedly fixes the overheating problems I've read about. Perhaps the heat situation was brought on by Flash in my early cases? So I installed Jupiter for CPU management, but the thermometer reports a familiar Windows-side temperature of 53 degrees Celsius. Switching Jupiter to lower performance doesn't help. When I check the System Monitor application, sorting by CPU usage, there are no obvious problem processes. However, in the graphs tab, both CPU cores are pegged at 100%! I notice that the slowness seems to be similar to the extremely bad performance I got prior to installing the NVIDIA drivers. I'm not sure if that helps. This is the strangest part to me - although the temperature seems OK, even after rebooting, the system remains slow - starting with GRUB2 which is very noticeably delayed, all the way through to either Ubuntu or Windows! That's right, even the Windows side suffers effects and takes several minutes to complete booting whereas normally (with my SSD) it's ready to use in 15 seconds. The only way to fix it is to shutdown and let the parts cool down. Or maybe it just needs to completely power off and boot rather than a soft reboot, temperature has nothing to do with it? - is that possible? But know that I have never had this problem in Windows, even if Windows gets very hot (135 F) a reboot would be enough time for it to recover. For this reason, I don't think it's a heat thing, but I can't imagine what else could be surviving the reboot. I'm entirely updated - there are no pending updates. I have the Post-Release updates of NVIDIA too, btw. If this sounds CLOSE to something you know about, but one of the details doesn't line up exactly, it might be a mistake in my perception. Are there tests you can suggest to rule something out? Thanks! processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9500 @ 2.60GHz stepping : 6 microcode : 0x60c cpu MHz : 800.000 cache size : 6144 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 lahf_lm ida dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority bogomips : 5187.00 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9500 @ 2.60GHz stepping : 6 microcode : 0x60c cpu MHz : 800.000 cache size : 6144 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 lahf_lm ida dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority bogomips : 5186.94 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: (Redundant figures removed. You can view them in the edits if they are still relevant) ps: %CPU PID USER COMMAND 9.4 2399 jason gnome-terminal 6.2 2408 jason bash 17.3 1117 root /usr/bin/X :0 -auth /var/run/lightdm/root/:0 -nolisten tcp vt7 -novtswitch -background none 13.7 1667 jason compiz 1.3 1960 jason /usr/lib/unity/unity-panel-service 1.3 1697 jason python /usr/bin/jupiter 0.9 1964 jason /usr/lib/indicator-appmenu/hud-service 0.6 1689 jason nautilus -n 0.4 1458 jason //bin/dbus-daemon --fork --print-pid 5 --print-address 7 --session I should highlight specifically that GRUB2 can also be very slow. I don't know the relationship of which scenarios GRUB2 is also slow, but WHEN it is slow, it is slow both before the menu appears and after the selection is made - although for the diagnosis of GRUB2 it is harder for me to tell what the normal speeds should be. With SSD, I would expect that GRUB2 could load instantly, and that the GRUB2 purple would disappear instantly after the selection. The only delay to be expected is the change in graphics modes (though I couldn't guess why that ever requires any noticeable time)

  Read the article

• Shopping cart for service providers?

  - by uos??

  From my limited exposure, it seems to me that most shopping cart/eCommerce platforms are specifically for products-based retailers. On several occasions now, I've been asked about ecommerce solutions for service providers. That is, it's basically just a single product with payment but no shipping, and highly configurable "product". Any recommendations for a cost-efficient solution (high feature coverage) for such a web platform? Requirements: .NET No/suppressed product catalog A service customization selection form Payment (probably PayPal with accountless credit card processing) Guest purchases (no site account required) Email confirmation Customer service -facing control panel It's hard to search for such a product because I get "web service based ecommerce software" and so on clouding up the results.

  Read the article

• Does Guest WiFi on an Access Point make any sense?

  - by uos??

  I have a Belkin WiFi Router which offers a feature of a secondary Guest Access WiFi network. Of course, the idea is that the Guest network doesn't have access to the computers/devices on the main network. I also have a Comcast-issues Cable Modem/Router device with mutliple wired ports, but no WiFi-capabilities. I prefer to only run one router/DHCP/NAT instead of both the Comcast Router and the Belkin Router, so I can disable the Routing functions of the Belkin and allow the Comcast Router to But if I disable the Routing functions of the Belkin device, the Guest WiFi network is still available. Is this configuration just as secure as when the Belkin acts as a Router? I guess the question comes down to this: Do Guest WiFi's provide security by 1) only allowing requests to IPs found in-front of the device, or do they work by 2) disallowing requests to IPs on the same subnet? 1) Would mean that Guest WiFi on an access point provides no benefit 2) Would mean that the Guest WiFi functionality can work even if the device is just an access point. Or maybe something else entirely?

  Read the article

• Windows 8.1 & manual removal of "Sentinel Runtime Drivers"

  - by uos??

  I'm trying to install Windows 8.1 (basic upgrade from Windows 8). It is complaining of Sentinel Runtime Drivers incompatibility. I've looked for it in my Programs & Features list, but it's not there by that name nor SafeNet (as related by google search) nor do I see any obvious candidates for it having been bundled with another listed application. I tried the "Sentinel Runtime Driver Cleanup" program from the SafeNet website. It ran but was ineffective, even after a reboot. Do you recognize this "Sentinel Runtime Drivers"? I ran MalwareBytes too, just in case, but it found nothing.

  Read the article

• SQL 2005 indexed queries slower than unindexed queries

  - by uos??

  Adding a seemingly perfectly index is having an unexpectedly adverse affect on a query performance... -- [Data] has a predictable structure and a simple clustered index of the primary key: ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Data] ADD PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [ID] ) -- My query, joins on itself looking for a certain kind of "overlapping" records SELECT DISTINCT [Data].ID AS [ID] FROM dbo.[Data] AS [Data] JOIN dbo.[Data] AS [Compared] ON [Data].[A] = [Compared].[A] AND [Data].[B] = [Compared].[B] AND [Data].[C] = [Compared].[C] AND ([Data].[D] = [Compared].[D] OR [Data].[E] = [Compared].[E]) AND [Data].[F] <> [Compared].[F] WHERE 1=1 AND [Data].[A] = @A AND @CS <= [Data].[C] AND [Data].[C] < @CE -- Between a range [Data] has about a quarter-million records so far, 10% to 50% of the data satisfies the where clause depending on @A, @CS, and @CE. As is, the query takes 1 second to return about 300 rows when querying 10%, and 30 seconds to return 3000 rows when querying 50% of the data. Curiously, the estimated/actual execution plan indicates two parallel Clustered Index Scans, but the clustered index is only of the ID, which isn't part of the conditions of the query, only the output. ?? If I add this hand-crafted [IDX_A_B_C_D_E_F] index which I fully expected to improve performance, the query slows down by a factor of 8 (8 seconds for 10% & 4 minutes for 50%). The estimated/actual execution plans show an Index Seek, which seems like the right thing to be doing, but why so slow?? CREATE UNIQUE INDEX [IDX_A_B_C_D_E_F] ON [dbo].[Data] ([A], [B], [C], [D], [E], [F]) INCLUDE ([ID], [X], [Y], [Z]); The Data Engine Tuning wizard suggests a similar index with no noticeable difference in performance from this one. Moving AND [Data].[F] <> [Compared].[F] from the join condition to the where clause makes no difference in performance. I need these and other indexes for other queries. I'm sure I could hint that the query should refer to the Clustered Index, since that's currently winning - but we all know it is not as optimized as it could be, and without a proper index, I can expect the performance will get much worse with additional data. What gives?

  Read the article

1