Search Results

Search found 6207 results on 249 pages for 'slow'.

Page 11/249 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

• Slow tranfer to external USB3 hard drive

  - by JMP

  Trying to backup data from hard drive before reloading windows following some issue with its load. Having trouble with the file transfer to a USB3/2 external hard drive NTFS. Getting transfer speed of about 116.7kB/sec. In other words its taking about 5 hours to tranfer 1.4GB. I've got about 80GB to go. So the transfer is going to take 11days. Seems a little on the slow side. Am I missing something? Is there a way to make this faster. No issue with the external drive tranferring this amount in windows. But don't have that option at the moment.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 Beta 2 takes over 2 minutes to boot up! [closed]

  - by oshirowanen

  Possible Duplicate: There's an issue with an Alpha/Beta Release of Ubuntu, what should I do? I've installed Ubuntu 12.04 Beta 2 for testing purposes. When I power on the computer now, I get the following message beneath the ubuntu logo: Waiting for network configuration About a minute later I get this message: Waiting up to 60 more seconds for network configuration About a minute later I get this message: Booting system without full network configuation About 10 seconds later I get the ubuntu login screen. Why is this happening?

  Read the article

• Bullet Time in Real Life: Impacts Slowed Down with High Speed Cameras

  - by Jason Fitzpatrick

  Combine a little shooting range fun with a camera capable of shooting a million frames per second and you’ve got yourself the basis of pretty hypnotizing video. In the video above various rifle and handgun rounds are fired at a variety of materials–sheet metal, plate metal, gelatin–and captured in a halo of fragments and splatters. Have an equally enthralling high speed video to share? Throw a link in the comments! [via Mashable] How To Be Your Own Personal Clone Army (With a Little Photoshop) How To Properly Scan a Photograph (And Get An Even Better Image) The HTG Guide to Hiding Your Data in a TrueCrypt Hidden Volume

  Read the article

• Why do webpages take longer to loo in ubuntu 12.04 than Windows 7

  - by Emil Abraham

  For example, when I click on a Facebook picture, the picture remains pixelated for about 30 seconds, then starts to clear up. Or when I watch YouTube videos, I can't watch them on HD without running into buffer issues. Windows 7 is just much snappier. It might be an issue with the graphics card. Dualbooting Windows 7 64bit & Ubuntu 12.04 64 bit Specs: CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM CPU @ 2.00GHz × 8 RAM: 8GB DDR3 HDD: 50 GB to Ubuntu & Remaining 1.5 TB to Windows The interesting part: Graphics Card: On System Settings in Ubuntu: Intel® Sandybridge Mobile Graphics Card: What it should be: Radeon™ HD 7690M XT switchable graphics with 1024MB GDDR5 and up to 5093MB total graphics memory

  Read the article

• Logout/Shutdown taking very long, how to find the problem?

  - by user67928

  Some months now, it's taking very long to logout/shutdown/reboot my ubuntu box. it doesn't happen with a fresh profile it still takes ages even when i close all running programs first (foreground programs) sometimes a couple of applications are closed before the waiting time (eg. chrome, music player) it happened with 11.10 and now 12.04 i did a fresh install of 12.04 but reinstalled all my programs and application settings/profiles (eg. chrome profile, music db, .bashrc etc.), still no solution it happens only when i use the gnome way of rebooting/shutting down/logging out when issuing "sudo reboot" in the terminal, there is no waiting time there is no process eating CPU time i have not found any evidence what is causing this whatsoever i'm using "gnome-fallback" (gnome classic 2D) what actions does gnome execute when clicking on eg. logout exactly? i want to trace these steps any help is appreciated very much!

  Read the article

• kubuntu 12.04 runs slowly

  - by randy

  i have a 3ghz amd 64 dual core am3 socket processor, asus mom board, 4GB ram, 8800GTS nividia video card with 500MB ram. installed kubuntu 12.04 and very laggy. select menu and 20 seconds later the menu pops up. i switched to classic menu and that seemed to help. what direction should i look first to get this running better? video perhaps? i had ubuntu 11.04 on this machine previously and had no problems with speed.

  Read the article

• Why do programs take more than 2 seconds to load on my Ubuntu 12.04?

  - by Gaige

  Here's a description of my build (simple) Processor: AMD Phenom II x6 1090t Ram: 16gb 1333 mhz Board: TA990FXE Video Card : HD 6870 HDD Ubuntu is installed on: 320gb caviar blue 7200rpm That should be sufficient enough to diagnose this. Yes I did install the AMD video drivers recommended by Ubuntu. Programs take 2+ seconds to load, and I really don't tolerate that...Windows 7 loads programs as fast as my hdd allows Unless this is how Ubuntu is meant to work...then I'll just go back to Debian command-line.

  Read the article

• Using the Android SDK on a Mac, Eclipse is really slow. How can I speed it up?

  - by morais

  I'm using Eclipse + the Android SDK on a Mac running Snow Leopard to develop Android apps. Thing is, Eclipse is really slow - like, it "beach balls" for a few seconds when changing tabs. Is there anything I can do to improve it's performance?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 13.04 running really slow and Hanging

  - by CAM

  Up till recently I have been running 13.04 on my laptop very happily. This morning however, I turned on my laptop to find it running really slow. Takes 5 min to load a program and even then the program freezes and I have had 3 system hangs this morning already. The Unity Desktop appears to run ok but programs do not. Things I have tried so far: Checking for Propitiatory graphics drivers - none shown available (I have bumblebee running already). Using the recovery boot options from Grub to repair broken packages. Recent changes - Updated computer, Installed some indicator applets which have worked fine for me before. System Specs: Asus U36s, Intel Core i5-2450M 2.5GHz, 4GB RAM, Nvidia Geforce 610M-1GB, Dual boot Win7 & Ubuntu 13.04 I'm a bit of a noob with Ubuntu but am happy enough running stuff in terminal if you will advise me on what to run. I'm just a bit stuck on what do to fix this without a reinstall. Thanks a lot for your help.

  Read the article

• What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment

  - by Andrew

  I used to coding in C# in a TDD style - write/or change a small chunk of code, re-compile in 10 seconds the whole solution, re-run the tests and again. Easy... That development methodology worked very well for me for a few years, until a last year when I had to go back to C++ coding and it really feels that my productivity has dramatically decreased since. The C++ as a language is not a problem - I had quite a lot fo C++ dev experience... but in the past. My productivity is still OK for a small projects, but it gets worse when with the increase of the project size and once compilation time hits 10+ minutes it gets really bad. And if I find the error I have to start compilation again, etc. That is just purely frustrating. Thus I concluded that in a small chunks (as before) is not acceptable - any recommendations how can I get myself into the old gone habit of coding for an hour or so, when reviewing the code manually (without relying on a fast C# compiler), and only recompiling/re-running unit tests once in a couple of hours. With a C# and TDD it was very easy to write a code in a evolutionary way - after a dozen of iterations whatever crap I started with was ending up in a good code, but it just does not work for me anymore (in a slow compilation environment). Would really appreciate your inputs and recos. p.s. not sure how to tag the question - anyone is welcome to re-tag the question appropriately. Cheers.

  Read the article

• Hardening network with sysctl settings made Wi-fi downloading speed extremely slow

  - by Rohit Bansal

  I just followed up following steps to harden network security The /etc/sysctl.conf file contain all the sysctl settings. Prevent source routing of incoming packets and log malformed IP's enter the following in a terminal window: sudo vi /etc/sysctl.conf Edit the `/etc/sysctl.conf` file and un-comment or add the following lines : # IP Spoofing protection net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter = 1 net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 1 # Ignore ICMP broadcast requests net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts = 1 # Disable source packet routing net.ipv4.conf.all.accept_source_route = 0 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_source_route = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.accept_source_route = 0 net.ipv6.conf.default.accept_source_route = 0 # Ignore send redirects net.ipv4.conf.all.send_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.send_redirects = 0 # Block SYN attacks net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 2048 net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries = 2 net.ipv4.tcp_syn_retries = 5 # Log Martians net.ipv4.conf.all.log_martians = 1 net.ipv4.icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses = 1 # Ignore ICMP redirects net.ipv4.conf.all.accept_redirects = 0 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.accept_redirects = 0 net.ipv6.conf.default.accept_redirects = 0 # Ignore Directed pings net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_all = 1 To reload sysctl with the latest changes, enter: sudo sysctl -p But, after applying the changes I found "Wi-fi" downloading speed and terminal downloading speed extremely slow (less than 1KB/s) however surfing speed through browser was good. But, using direct ethernet cable was giving a good speed. Then, I reverted back the above changes and things fall back in line once again.... Could you please let me know what possibly in above script is affecting such behaviour [and why] ? How could I still maintain hardening of network security without disturbing Wi-fi downloading speed ?

  Read the article

• The Cloud is STILL too slow!

  - by harry.foxwell(at)oracle.com

  If you've been in the computing industry sufficiently long enough to remember dialup modems and other "ancient" technologies, you might be tempted to marvel at today's wonderfully powerful multicore PCs, ginormous disks, and blazingly fast networks.  Wow, you're in Internet Nirvana, right!  Well, no, not by a long shot.Considering the exponentially growing expectations of what the Web, that is, "the Cloud", is supposed to provide, today's Web/Cloud services are still way too slow.Already we are seeing cloud-enabled consumer devices that are stressing even the most advanced public network services.  Like the iPad and its competitors, ever more powerful smart-phones, and an imminent hoard of special purpose gadgets such as the proposed "cloud camera" (see http://gdgt.com/discuss/it-time-cloud-camera-found-out-cnr/ ).And at the same time that the number and type of cloud services are growing, user tolerance for even the slightest of download delays is rapidly decreasing.  Ten years ago Web developers followed the "8-Second Rule", (average time a typical Web user would tolerate for a page to download and render).  Not anymore; now it's less than 3 seconds, and only a bit longer for mobile devices (see http://www.technologyreview.com/files/54902/GoogleSpeed_charts.pdf).  How spoiled we've become!Google, among others, recognizes this problem and is working to encourage the development of a faster Web (see http://www.technologyreview.com/web/32338/). They, along with their competitors and ISPs, will have to encourage and support significantly better Web performance in order to provide the types of services envisioned for the Cloud.  How will they do this? Through the development of faster components, better use of caching technologies, and the really tough one - exploiting parallelism. Not that parallel technologies like multicore processors are hard to build...we already have them.  It's just that we're not that good yet at using them effectively.  And if we don't get better, users will abandon cloud-based services...in less than 3 seconds.

  Read the article

• Slow dvd burning/reading speeds: how to solve

  - by wouter205

  I have a problem on which I'm struggling since i started using linux a year ago on my desktop, but still haven't found a solution for it. When reading or burning a dvd, the speeds are very slow (mostly under 1x) whilst I did selected the fastest speed in k3b. As such, it takes up to 40-50 minutes to burn one dvd! I read about enabling dma this post but it didn't help. This is the output for dmesg | grep -i dma > [ 0.000000] DMA 0x00000010 -> 0x00001000 [ 0.000000] DMA32 0x00001000 -> 0x00100000 [ 0.000000] DMA zone: 56 pages used for memmap [ 0.000000] DMA zone: 5 pages reserved [ 0.000000] DMA zone: 3921 pages, LIFO batch:0 [ 0.000000] DMA32 zone: 3527 pages used for memmap [ 0.000000] DMA32 zone: 254441 pages, LIFO batch:31 [ 0.000000] Policy zone: DMA32 [ 0.120356] pnp 00:01: [dma 4] [ 0.120968] pnp 00:05: [dma 2] [ 0.121421] pnp 00:06: [dma 3] [ 0.122617] pnp 00:0b: [dma 0 disabled] [ 0.852321] ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xec00 ctl 0xe480 bmdma 0xe000 irq 19 [ 0.852325] ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xe400 ctl 0xe080 bmdma 0xe008 irq 19 [ 0.861633] ata3: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x1f0 ctl 0x3f6 bmdma 0xff00 irq 14 [ 0.861636] ata4: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x170 ctl 0x376 bmdma 0xff08 irq 15 [ 1.329411] ata1.00: ATA-7: Maxtor 6V250F0, VA111630, max UDMA/133 [ 1.345418] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133 [ 1.820606] ata4.00: ATAPI: PHILIPS DVDR1660P1, P1.3, max UDMA/33 [ 1.820610] ata4.00: WARNING: ATAPI DMA disabled for reliability issues. It can be enabled [ 1.820613] ata4.00: WARNING: via pata_ali.atapi_dma modparam or corresponding sysfs node. [ 1.836681] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/33 [ 12.296600] parport0: PC-style at 0x378 (0x778), irq 7, dma 3 [PCSPP,TRISTATE,COMPAT,EPP,ECP,DMA] reading the third and fourth last line, I assume there is indeed a problem with dma? edit: this question still is not solved. Could anyone come up with an other solution please? Thanks

  Read the article

• Network really slow with TL-WN951N wireless card

  - by Sam

  I literally just installed ubuntu and it seems to be working great except the network is deadly slow. I'm running a TL-WN951N wireless card which can download at about 600-700 KB/s in windows but in Ubuntu the max speed it seems to get is around 5KB/s. I guess I should note that my WAP is only wireless-G but like I said, I can get much better speeds in Windows. I'm testing the speeds by downloading files from here: http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/test/ Anyone have any idea? I saw some people recommend downloading drivers and compiling them myself but I'm really really new to all of this so would appreciate someone babying me through it so I don't brick my computer! Here are the results of lspci -v: 04:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02) Subsystem: Giga-byte Technology GA-EP45-DS5 Motherboard Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 44 I/O ports at c000 [size=256] Memory at e9110000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=4K] Memory at e9100000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=64K] [virtual] Expansion ROM at e9120000 [disabled] [size=64K] Capabilities: <access denied> Kernel driver in use: r8169 Kernel modules: r8169 05:02.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR5008 Wireless Network Adapter (rev 01) Subsystem: Atheros Communications Inc. Device 3071 Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 168, IRQ 18 Memory at e9200000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=64K] Capabilities: <access denied> Kernel driver in use: ath9k Kernel modules: ath9k

  Read the article

• forward motion car physics - gradual slow

  - by spartan2417

  Im having trouble creating realistic car movements in xna 4. Right now i have a car going forward and hitting a terminal velocity which is fine but when i release the up key i need to the car to slow down gradually and then come to a stop. Im pretty sure this is easy code but i cant seem to get it to work the code - update if (Keyboard.GetState().IsKeyDown(Keys.Up)) { double elapsedTime = gameTime.ElapsedGameTime.Milliseconds; CalcTotalForce(); Acceleration = Vector2.Divide(CalcTotalForce(), MASS); Velocity = Vector2.Add(Velocity, Vector2.Multiply(Acceleration, (float)(elapsedTime))); Position = Vector2.Add(Position, Vector2.Multiply(Velocity, (float)(elapsedTime))); } added functions public Vector2 CalcTraction() { //Traction force = vector direction * engine force return Vector2.Multiply(forwardDirection, ENGINE_FORCE); } public Vector2 CalcDrag() { //Drag force = constdrag * velocity * speed return Vector2.Multiply(Vector2.Multiply(Velocity, DRAG_CONST), Velocity.Y); } public Vector2 CalcRoll() { //roll force = const roll * velocity return Vector2.Multiply(Velocity, ROLL_CONST); } public Vector2 CalcTotalForce() { //total force = traction + (-drag) + (-rolling) return Vector2.Add(CalcTraction(), Vector2.Add(-CalcDrag(), -CalcRoll())); } anyone have any ideas?

  Read the article

• Why is my query soooooo slow?

  - by geekrutherford

  A stored procedure used in our production environment recently became so slow it cause the calling web service to begin timing out. When running the stored procedure in Query Analyzer it took nearly 3 minutes to complete.   The stored procedure itself does little more than create a small bit of dynamic SQL which calls a view with a where clause at the end.   At first the thought was that the query used within the view needed to be optimized. The query is quite long and therefore easy to jump to this conclusion.   Fortunately, after bringing the issue to the attention of a coworker they asked "is there a where clause, and if so, is there an index on the column(s) in it?" I had no idea and quickly said as much. A quick check on the table/column utilized in the where clause indicated indeed there was no index.   Before adding the index, and after admitting I am no SQL wiz, I checked the internet for info on the difference between clustered and non-clustered indexes. I found the following site quite helpful OdeToCode. After adding the non-clustered index on the column, the query that used to take nearly 3 minutes now takes 10 seconds! Ah, if only I'd thought to do this ahead of time!

  Read the article

• Am I programming too slow?

  - by Jonn

  I've only been a year in the industry and I've had some problems making estimates for specific tasks. Before you close this, yes, I've already read this: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/648/how-to-respond-when-you-are-asked-for-an-estimate and that's about the same problem I'm having. But I'm looking for a more specific gauge of experiences, something quantifiable or probably other programmer's average performances which I should aim for and base my estimates. The answers range from weeks, and I was looking more for an answer on the level of a task assigned for a day or so. (Note that this doesn't include submitting for QA or documentations, just the actual development time from writing tests if I used TDD, to making the page, before having it submitted to testing) My current rate right now is as follows (on ASP.NET webforms): Right now, I'm able to develop a simple data entry page with a grid listing (no complex logic, just Creating and Reading) on an already built architecture, given one full day's (8 hours) time. Adding complex functionality, and Update and Delete pages add another full day to the task. If I have to start the page from scratch (no solution, no existing website) it takes me another full day. (Not always) but if I encounter something new or haven't done yet it takes me another full day. Whenever I make an estimate that's longer than the expected I feel that others think that I'm lagging a lot behind everyone else. I'm just concerned as there have been expectations that when it's just one page it should take me no more than a full day. Yes, there definitely is more room for improvement. There always is. I have a lot to learn. But I would like to know if my current rate is way too slow, just average, or average for someone no longer than a year in the industry.

  Read the article

• Why is apt-cache so slow?

  - by Damn Terminal

  After upgrade to Trusty (14.04) from Saucy (13.10), all apt operations are very slow. Even those that do not include downloading anything, or connecting to any servers. For example, displaying the apt policy # time apt-cache policy [...] real 0m8.951s user 0m5.069s sys 0m3.861s takes almost ten seconds! Mostly a weird lag right after issuing the command. And it's the same even if I issue the same command again. On another system it doesn't take a tenth of a second real 0m0.096s user 0m0.070s sys 0m0.023s The other system is a little beefier but there was no noticeable difference before the upgrade. It's the same with apt-get, anything apt-related. How do I find out the source of this lag and fix it? Additional info: # cat /etc/nsswitch.conf # /etc/nsswitch.conf # # Example configuration of GNU Name Service Switch functionality. # If you have the `glibc-doc-reference' and `info' packages installed, try: # `info libc "Name Service Switch"' for information about this file. passwd: compat group: compat shadow: compat hosts: files dns networks: files protocols: db files services: db files ethers: db files rpc: db files netgroup: nis BTW is my understanding of how apt-cache works correct? It doesn't make any network connections when I run apt-cache policy, right? In case I'm wrong and it matters, here are my sources https://gist.github.com/anonymous/02920270ff68e23fc3ec

  Read the article

• SSD I/O extremely slow installing/booting Ubuntu 12.04

  - by Menda

  These are some useful specs: Macbook Pro 7,1 OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 2,5" SATA SSD (120 GB). Has SandForce driver. Ubuntu 12.04 Desktop 32 bits. One 18 GB partition for GNU/Linux and 1.5 GB for SWAP. MD5 for the Ubuntu install CD is OK. I tried to install Ubuntu. It seems that everything is recognized, but there's a big problem: read and writes to the SSD are extremely slow. For example, the install process, which shouldn't take more than 20 minutes, it takes 7 hours. Then, booting up the computer takes about 20 minutes. I checked and the problem is definitely the SSD. Every access to any file is like 10 times slower than normal. I have tried to format the partition as Ext4 and Ext3 with the same problem. Trying to install other distros like Fedora 17, I have a similar problem. There's a "lag" with the SSD, but not so accused as in Ubuntu. Surprisingly, Debian 6.0 installs and works without any problem. Mac OS works pretty good as well in the other partition, so I discard it's an SSD problem. Thanks for your help!

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 Very slow especially with Android Studio

  - by Dew

  I have an old laptop with the following specification: Memory: 485 MiB, Processor: Genuine intel CPU T2300 @ 1.66 GHz ×2, OS Type: 32 bit, Disk: 78.1 GB, I installed on it Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and I noticed that the overall system is very slow in responding. I tried to search about that in the internet and I found some articles talking about how to make Ubuntu 12.04 LTS run fast I applied all what they said including download LXDE desktop environment and then nothing different in the system response time. Then I need to develop some android applications so, I download Android Studio (Beta) 0.8.6. The problem became worse than before whenever I tried to open the Android Studio the screen is frozen for some minutes then it took time to download the projects and initialize the work space also, when I tried to move the cursor he is move very slowly. When I tried to run my first application on the AVD it took three hours and still not run yet. I delete the Android Studio and install it again several times, I was trying to solve the problem but still nothing change. Please if you have any suggestions that may help me make my laptop and Android Studio work faster I will appreciate it for you. Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Why is my USB data transfer so slow?

  - by Dave M G

  Whenever I do any kind of file transfer using USB, whether to a USB stick, or with my Android phone, or anything else, it is ridiculously slow. It says 59.8 KB/sec, which would be an awesome speed if this were 1991 and I was using a modem to dial up to my local BBS. Surely USB technology is better than that...? 37 seconds to move less data than the equivelent of 1 MP3 file? Also, regardless of what it says about speed and time, the reality is much, much slower. I routinely see it say something like "37 seconds left" and have to wait for minutes. Sometimes, if I want to move large amounts of files, it can say it will take 8 hours or more. Is this normal? My computer may not be the most awesome on the market, and about a year old, but it's an i5 with 4GB RAM and modern components, so surely this isn't the hardware's fault. What can I do to get better USB data transfer performance? Also, I did look at this question, but my newbie eyes don't see anything that look like an actual solution, just a lot of discussion about what transfer rates could or should be. Update: As requested in the comments, I've generated a whole bunch of output from the command line, and put it on Ubuntu Pastebin. Please see it here.

  Read the article

• Very slow wireless connection (unrelated to power management) using Netgear N150 WNA1100 in 12.04

  - by vgaldikas

  I am using a Netgear N150 WNA1100 USB Adapter. The network driver is: ath9k_htc. When I use Ubuntu 12.04 my wireless connection is much slower than when I use the WNA1100 with my Windows 7 installation on the same machine. I have been researching this and the most common reason for this seems to be related to power management. However for me this is off by default. I had entered a bunch of different commands and, at one stage, I got it to work at full power. But then I rebooted the machine and it went back to slow again. After entering the different commands I was afraid that I may have messed something up, so I performed a fresh install of Ubuntu. I still have the same problem. My wireless connection is still much slower when using Ubuntu than when using Windows 7. I am not sure what other info could help... EDIT: Ok, I have made live usb from the iso file I used to install Ubuntu on this pc, and ran it on my laptop. Still the same problem. However la[top works grand on cable. I suppose this means that my wireless adapter or network driver can be eliminated as root of the problem.. So maybe to do with router itself? I use ZyXEL P-660HW-D1

  Read the article

• Handler_read_rnd is too high (more than 2GB)

  - by pnm123

  Hello, I am running an advertising program and there are some SELECT, UPDATE and DELETE queries when showing ads. Sometimes, displaying ads is fast but sometimes it is too slow. At this time, it is slow and Handler_read_rnd and Handler_read_rnd_next is as mentioned below. Handler_read_rnd 2,844.68 M Handler_read_rnd_next 2,945.63 M How can I speed-up displaying ads (decreasing Handler_read_rnd and Handler_read_rnd_next) Thank you, pnm123 PS: Currently there are 7,068,528 rows on the advertising program's database.

  Read the article

• XNA running slow when making a texture

  - by Anthony

  I'm using XNA to test an image analysis algorithm for a robot. I made a simple 3D world that has a grass, a robot, and white lines (that are represent the course). The image analysis algorithm is a modification of the Hough line detection algorithm. I have the game render 2 camera views to a render target in memory. One camera is a top down view of the robot going around the course, and the second camera is the view from the robot's perspective as it moves along. I take the rendertarget of the robot camera and convert it to a Color[,] so that I can do image analysis on it. private Color[,] TextureTo2DArray(Texture2D texture, Color[] colors1D, Color[,] colors2D) { texture.GetData(colors1D); for (int x = 0; x < texture.Width; x++) { for (int y = 0; y < texture.Height; y++) { colors2D[x, y] = colors1D[x + (y * texture.Width)]; } } return colors2D; } I want to overlay the results of the image analysis on the robot camera view. The first part of the image analysis is finding the white pixels. When I find the white pixels I create a bool[,] array showing which pixels were white and which were black. Then I want to convert it back into a texture so that I can overlay on the robot view. When I try to create the new texture showing which ones pixels were white, then the game goes super slow (around 10 hz). Can you give me some pointers as to what to do to make the game go faster. If I comment out this algorithm, then it goes back up to 60 hz. private Texture2D GenerateTexturesFromBoolArray(bool[,] boolArray,Color[] colorMap, Texture2D textureToModify) { for(int i =0;i < screenWidth;i++) { for(int j =0;j<screenHeight;j++) { if (boolArray[i, j] == true) { colorMap[i+(j*screenWidth)] = Color.Red; } else { colorMap[i + (j * screenWidth)] = Color.Transparent; } } } textureToModify.SetData<Color>(colorMap); return textureToModify; } Each Time I run draw, I must set the texture to null, so that I can modify it. public override void Draw(GameTime gameTime) { Vector2 topRightVector = ((SimulationMain)Game).spriteRectangleManager.topRightVector; Vector2 scaleFactor = ((SimulationMain)Game).config.scaleFactorScreenSizeToWindow; this.spriteBatch.Begin(); // Start the 2D drawing this.spriteBatch.Draw(this.textureFindWhite, topRightVector, null, Color.White, 0, Vector2.Zero, scaleFactor, SpriteEffects.None, 0); this.spriteBatch.End(); // Stop drawing. GraphicsDevice.Textures[0] = null; } Thanks for the help, Anthony G.

  Read the article

• Is my computer slow due to lack of swap

  - by Kristian Jensen

  A few months ago, I installed Ubuntu 12.04 alongside with Windows 7 on my Asus EEE-PC 1015bx. It has a tendency of freezing and when trying to investigate I found that a swap partition of only 256 MB had been created. The Asus EEE-PC 1015bx is born with 1 GByte RAM only and it is not possible to add further or exchange the existing 1 GByte with a larger card. When looking at the system monitor, it looks like all swap is being utilized along with 70-75% of the RAM, even with very few applications running. Can the lack of much swap space be the reason for my computer running slowly and at times freezing? How can I add a swap partition? Or should I add a swap file instead? At the moment, I see two partitions when viewing the system monitor: one 28.6 GByte ext4 partition which must be the one containing Ubuntu and one 100 GByte fuseblk partition which I assume is the one holding Windows. It shows that I have 18.6 GByte free space on the ext4 partition. Can I "take a bite" from the ext4 partition and convert this into a swap partition? I was thinking something like 3 GBytes for swap considering my limited RAM. I hope that someone can guide me through. Thank you. 20th Oct 2012 - Further details Thank you for below answer which I find very useful. I am certainly considering switching to one of your suggested shells as I can see from the Internet that many have posted that these require much fewer resources than ubuntu. It seems to me that lubuntu is the perfect match for my very limited computer. I will have to wait a few days, though, as I am presently limited by a very slow and restricted Internet connection via satellite. But will lubuntu install as simply another shell replacing unity or will it replace ubuntu all together? Will the software that I have installed under ubuntu still be accessible in lubuntu? And can I return to ubuntu if required? Regarding the actual question of swap: When I run gparted, it shows me that there is one ntfs partition of 100 GBytes from where it boots and the before mentioned ext4 partition of 28.6 GBytes is not mentioned. Could it be that my ubuntu installation resides inside this 100 GBytes ntfs partiotion? And if so, can I take a bite of this for my swap partition? Realising that gparted is shown in Danish, I hope that you can make out what I mean. System monitoring shows below details: Once again I sincerely hope that you can help. Thank you.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >