Search Results

Search found 6361 results on 255 pages for 'speed up'.

Page 24/255 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • Hard drive write speed - finding a lighter antivirus?

    - by Shingetsu
    I recently have been getting a lot of system lag here (for example, the mouse and the display in general take about 15 seconds to react in the worst cases). After a lot of monitoring the resources, I found that the problem mainly happens when too much Disk I/O is being done. Three culprits have been identified: My browser had the highest write I/O with 35,000,000 I/O Write Bytes. Steam had the highest read I/O (when IDLE!!!) with 106,000,000 I/O Read Bytes. My antivirus (in both cases I will soon mention) was the runner up in both cases with: 30,000,000ish write and 80,000,000ish read. The first AV I had was Avast! which I had liked on my previous system. After noticing it taking so much I/O I switched to Panda (supposing it wouldn't use TOO much during idle phase). However it only used a bit less I/O. Just a lot less memory and cpu and somewhat more network. My browser at the moment is Maxthon 3 (which I like a lot). Before this I was running chrome which had similar data and much higher cpu when running in the background was enabled. I'm not going to be running steam all the time and there aren't many alternatives to it. I like my browser very much, but I AM willing to switch if there's an obvious problem (I'm in programming, however I'm not a very good sysadmin, especially not when it comes to windows). Finally, my system almost stops lagging when I turn off the antivirus (and preferably steam) (some remains but once in every 5-6 hours for a few seconds so it isn't a big problem). My question (has a few parts): Is it possible to configure steam to lower it's I/O usage? (and maybe network while we're at it?) Which antivirus (very preferably free) uses lowest I/O while idle (I leave PC alone during active scans so that isn't a problem). Is there an obvious problem with my current browser and, if so, is there a way to fix it or should I switch and, if so, to what? (P.S. I've been on FFox for some time too). Info on system: Windows 7 (32 bit T_T, I am getting a new one in a few months but I want to keep using system during that time though). Hard Drive (main) is a Raid0. (Also have an external 1TB one which contains steam (and steam alone). As such it doesn't get used by much anything other than steam and isn't a very large problem. However steam still uses some I/O of registry) CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU [email protected] RAM: 6GB (3.25GB usable) (this and CPU have little effect as shown in next section) Additional info: Memory usage during problematic times: 44% CPU usage during problematic times: 35% Page File: main drive: system managed. 1TB drive: none. The current system I'm using is about 6 years old and is mainly a place holder while I await the new one in a few months. Final words: this is my 1st post on Super User (this question wouldn't feel right on Stack Overflow where I usually stay). If it doesn't have it's place here please tell me. If anything is wrong with it, same. Edit Technically I'm looking for a live thread detection program with minimal IO usage. I already have good active scan capability: Kaspersky (the free scanner uses the paid database) and MalwareBytes. Edit 2 Noticed another one, it seems that windows media player has been using stuff even when off! Turning it off and restarting now. If the problem is fixed I'll tell you guys. The reason I didn't notice it before was because I didn't have resource manager in front of me at the MOMENT of the problem. Now I did and it was at the very top of the list!

    Read the article

  • Redirect traffic to local address so iOS speedtest app measures LAN speed

    - by ivan_sig
    I have mounted a Speedtest Mini server on a local LAMP, so I can test my LAN speeds effortlessly just by opening the URL with a Flash enabled web browser, the thing is, I want my iOS and Android devices to test with the LAN server too, not with the WAN, as I'm trying to measure LAN-Only performance. Is there a way so I can redirect the traffic intended to an specific external IP (The one of the real server) to my local server?. I know the servers IP as a short Wireshark analysis gave me the data, but still searching for a way to make that redirect. I have Jailbreak and root on my devices, so playing with system files is not a problem. I've tried mounting a proxy and making redirects by the hosts file and domain names, but it looks like Ookla's app relies on IP address only.

    Read the article

  • RAID setup for maximizing data retention and read speed

    - by cat pants
    My goals are simple: maximize data retention safety, and maximize read speeds. My first instinct is to do a a three drive software RAID 1. I have only used fakeraid RAID 1 in the past and it was terrible (would have led to data loss actually if it weren't for backups) Would you say software raid 1 or a cheap actual hardware raid card? OS will be linux. Could I start with a two drive raid 1 and add a third drive on the fly? Can I hot swap? Can I pull one of the drives and throw it into a new machine and be able to read all the data? I do not want a situation where I have a raid card fail and have to try and find the same chipset in order to read my data (which i am assuming can happen) Please clarify any points on which it sounds like I have no idea what I am talking about, as I am admittedly inexperienced here. (My hardest lesson was fakeraid lol) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Up-to-date Comparison of High-Speed USB Flash Drives

    - by Zoredache
    I am looking for comparison of the performance of USB flash drives. I have found several older comparisons, but I am trying to find a more up-to-date comparisons that apply to the larger storage sizes (32-128GB). I can try looking up the specs of various drives, but vendors have been known to exaggerate, or use numbers that are on accurate in tests that do not reflect actual usage. I was hoping to find 3rd party site which had perform testing.

    Read the article

  • Can my PC run Need for Speed Shift

    - by John
    Here are my PC's specs: Operating System MS Windows 7 32-bit CPU Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T8100 @ 2.10GHz Penryn 45nm Technology RAM 3.0GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 332MHz 5-5-5-15 Motherboard Sony Corporation VAIO (N/A) Graphics Nvidia Defaul @ 1280x800 256MB GeForce 8400M GT (Sony) Hard Drives 250GB Hitachi Hitachi HTS542525K9SA00 ATA Device (IDE) Optical Drives Optiarc DVD RW AD-7560A ATA Device Audio High Definition Audio Device

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 File Transfer Speed over Gigabit is slow

    - by Adam Haile
    I've got windows 7 pro running on my file server and my main desktop. Each has a gigabit network connection and I'm connected to a gigabit switch. However, when trying to copy some large files, it's running pretty slow at a measly 12-15 MB/s The data is coming from a 7200RPM SATA drive (which I think should be good for almost 150MB/s) and going to a Drobo on the server connected via FireWire 800, so I can't think of any bottlenecks I might have in the hardware. But TeraCopy still says it's only going at 12-15 MB/s What else could be wrong here?

    Read the article

  • Copy past speed very slow for a large number of files on Windows [closed]

    - by Arno2501
    I've run the following test I've created a folder containing 15'000 files of 400 bytes using this batch : @ECHO off SET times=15000 FOR /L %%i IN (1,1,%times%) DO ( fsutil file createnew filename%%i.txt 400 ) then I copy past it on my Windows Computer using this command : robocopy LargeNumberOfFiles\ LargeNumberOfFiles2\ After it has completed I can see that the transfer rate was 915810 Bytes/sec this is less than 1 MB/s. It took me several seconds to copy 7 MBytes Please note that this is very slow. I've tried the same with a folder with a single file of 50 Mbytes and the transfer rate is 1219512195 Bytes/sec. (yeah GB/s) instantaneous. Why copying large number of files take so much time - ressources on a windows filesystem ? Please note that I've tried to do the same on a linux system which runs on the same computer in a virtual machine (vmware player) with ext3 filesystem. I use the cp command and the copy is instantaneous ! Please also note the following : no antivirus I've tested that behaviour on multiple windows computers (always ntfs) i always get comparable results (transfer rate under 1MB/s avg 7-8 seconds to copy 7 MBytes) I've tested on multiple linux ext3 system the copy is always instantaneous for that amount (15000 files of 400 bytes) The question is about understanding what makes windows filesystem so slow to copy large number of files compared to a linux one for instance.

    Read the article

  • Speed up connection to MySQL

    - by Leonick
    So here's one for you. Any idea on a way to shorten the time it takes to connect to a MySQL database? The reason I'm wondering is because I find that just connecting to the DB adds just over a second to the rendering of the page and that seems a bit long considering Apache and MySQL is running on the same machine and the mysqli_connect is connecting to localhost. It's just such a shame when the connection takes a second while any query I end up doing won't add any significant amount of time to the render/load time. Any ways to shorten the time it takes to open a connection?

    Read the article

  • Apache mod-pagespeed installation affects mod-spdy?

    - by tim peterson
    Recently my site (an https connection, running on an Amazon EC2 ubuntu apache2.2) has this issue where I need to load the page several times (3-4) before it will load normally without issue. It will then load normally as long as I keep loading pages regularly (every couple seconds). It will stall again if I don't load pages for a few minutes. It has nothing to do with my application because I don't have this problem with the exact same app codebase on my Apache installation on my laptop. The only things to my knowledge that I've changed is that I recently installed mod_spdy and then a few weeks later I installed mod_pagespeed, https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/mod. However, I have since turned mod_pagespeed off by setting its pagespeed.conf to mod_pagespeed off. Unfortunately, that didn't solve the problem. The line below is how every of last 10 lines of my error.log look: # tail -f /var/log/apache2/error.log ... [32728:32729:ERROR:mod_spdy.cc(162)] request->chunked == 1 in request GET / HTTP/1.1 [Sat Jun 02 04:50:08 2012] [warn] [client 50.136.93.153] [stream 5] [32728:32729:WARNING:http_to_spdy_filter.cc(113)] HttpToSpdyFilter is not the last filter in the chain: chunk any thoughts? thank you, tim

    Read the article

  • Page reload needed several times before loading normally

    - by tim peterson
    Sorry my question is so vague I just have no idea where to start in solving it and am quite a novice with servers. Recently my site (an https connection, running on an Amazon EC2 ubuntu apache2.2) has this issue where I need to load the page several times (3-4) before it will load normally without issue. It will then load normally as long as I keep loading pages regularly (every couple seconds). It will stall again if I don't load pages for a few minutes. It has nothing to do with my application because I don't have this problem with the exact same app codebase on my Apache installation on my laptop. The only thing to my knowledge that I changed is that I installed mod_pagespeed https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/mod. However, I have since turned it off by setting my pagespeed.conf to mod_pagespeed off. Unfortunately, that didn't solve the problem. I'm wondering general advice on how to troubleshoot this problem. For instance are there linux commands to check page loading peformance? Also, it looks like I have lots of new error.logs in my /var/log/apache2 directory which i believe weren't there a few months ago. lots of this : error.log RewriteLog.log.24.gz ssl_access.log.40.gz error.log.1 RewriteLog.log.25.gz ssl_access.log.41.gz error.log.10.gz RewriteLog.log.26.gz ssl_access.log.42.gz error.log.11.gz RewriteLog.log.27.gz any thoughts? thank you, tim

    Read the article

  • Linux Experts Riddle: Network output of 10MB/s on 10GB/s NIC

    - by user150324
    I have two CentOS 6 servers. I am trying to transfer files between them. Source server has 10GB/s NIC nd destination server has 1GB/s NIC. Regardless to the command used nor the protocol, the transfer speed is ~1 Mega byte per second. The goal is at least couple dozens MB per second. I have tried: rsync (also with various encryptions), scp, wget, aftp, nc. Here's some testing results with iperf: [root@serv ~]# iperf -c XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX -i 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 33180 connected with XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 1.30 MBytes 10.9 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 1.28 MBytes 10.7 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 1.34 MBytes 11.3 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 1.53 MBytes 12.8 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 1.65 MBytes 13.8 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 1.79 MBytes 15.0 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 1.95 MBytes 16.3 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 1.98 MBytes 16.6 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 1.91 MBytes 16.0 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 9.0-10.0 sec 2.05 MBytes 17.2 Mbits/sec [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.68 MBytes 14.0 Mbits/sec I guess HD is not the bottleneck here.

    Read the article

  • SSD/HDD not exceeding 120 MB/s

    - by skiwi
    SO here is the situation: First this was my old PC, it had a 2x 1TB RAID 0 and a Corsair Force 3 SSD in it. This were the old speeds, measured by HDTune Pro. 2x 1TB RAID 0: Corsair Force 3 SSD Then my dad got my PC and we had several issues, in the end turned out both RAID and SSD controller were malfunctioning causing BlueScreens on 100% load. Removed the RAID 0, but leaving the HDD's intact and bought an Samsung 840 EVO 120GB, though the Corsair SSD is still in the system, just not as sytem disk anymore. 1TB HDD (one of them): Corsair SSD: Samsung SSD: We did not assemble the PC ourselves, so answering some technical questions might be more difficult, though we will do our best. First thing we noticed is that the Samsung 840 EVO is no where reaching it's advertised speed, even an Samsung 840 250GB (non-EVO) is reaching 350 MB/s in my own PC. Then we noticed that both SSD's are capped at 120 MB/s exactly, not sure if this is being caused by HDTune Pro, but very unlikely. And even worse, the Corsair Forza 3 was running faster before the system got reassembled. Does anyone have any clue what is going on?

    Read the article

  • Slowdown upon router/modem setup change

    - by Ollie Saunders
    I’ve been using a Belkin FSD7632-4 modem router to connect to my TalkTalk provided ADSL internet connection for some time and been pretty happy with it. Recently, however, the connection has been failing and I decided to get a ASUS RT-N16 instead, which is also a much more capable router generally. The ASUS RT-N16 doesn’t come with a modem built-in so I purchased as Zoom modem as well. I’ve set them both up and am using them to post this message. But I’m a bit miffed to find that I get a significantly and consistently slower downstream rate from the new configuration than with the old Belkin. Belkin modem router: downstream: 3.45 mbps upstream: 0.73 mbps ASUS router + Zoom modem: downstream: 2.71 mbps upstream: 0.66 mbps Any ideas why this is? The really weird thing about this is that the Zoom supports ADSL2 and ADSL2+ but I don’t think the old Belkin does. At first I thought it might be due to the Zoom modem being limited to PPPoE instead of PPPoA, which my ISP supports, but then I tried using PPPoE with the Belkin and that still gave a high speed. I’m using VC-Mux encapsulation with both. VPI of 0 and VCI of 38. I pulled this data off the Zoom: Mode: ADSL2 Line Coding: Trellis On Status: No Defect Link Power State: L0 Downstream Upstream SNR Margin (dB): 12.3 11.8 Attenuation (dB): 43.0 24.9 Output Power (dBm): 12.9 0.0 Attainable Rate (Kbps): 3936 844 Rate (Kbps): 3194 840 MSGc (number of bytes in overhead channel message): 59 10 B (number of bytes in Mux Data Frame): 99 14 M (number of Mux Data Frames in FEC Data Frame): 2 16 T (Mux Data Frames over sync bytes): 1 8 R (number of check bytes in FEC Data Frame): 8 8 S (ratio of FEC over PMD Data Frame length): 1.9833 9.0594 L (number of bits in PMD Data Frame): 839 219 D (interleaver depth): 32 2 Delay (msec): 15 4 Super Frames: 15808 14078 Super Frame Errors: 0 4294967232 RS Words: 513778 111753 RS Correctable Errors: 126 4294967238 RS Uncorrectable Errors: 0 N/A HEC Errors: 0 4294967279 OCD Errors: 0 0 LCD Errors: 0 0 Total Cells: 1920175 237597 Data Cells: 205993 392 Bit Errors: 0 0 Total ES: 0 0 Total SES: 0 0 Total UAS: 34 0

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 boot animation slows down startup by default?

    - by kngofwrld
    I just upgraded my HDD to an SSD drive. I am running a completely fresh install and enjoy the short boot time. I tweaked the startup to be as fast as I could by removing unneeded apps and such. Nor am I running a solid desktop background (which causes a 30-sec startup delay). I have a 2.1ghz 64 bit laptop with 4 gigs of ram, so it's not a liquid-cooled speed monster, but I checked some super high end PC boot vids on YouTube and noticed that they startup in almost the same time as my machine. I also noticed that the glowing Windows 7 animation plays all the way no matter how fast the PC is. I turned off the animation, and the startup time is unchanged. I turned on verbose startup info and noticed that it runs until the very end, where it looks like it just sits there for no reason waiting for something to happen for a few seconds. So now I think that the Windows 7 startup animation has a timer built into it that forces the computer to wait for no other reason than to play the full animation. Super-fast XP boot vids on YouTube seem to start much faster (and not just because they "have less to load"). Am I imagining things? My question is: How can I turn off not just the animation, but the timer for the animation. Here is a vid that tipped me off, I have no relation to the poster. (warning: soundtrack might be loud) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5LkX3xejJ4

    Read the article

  • Benchmark Linq2SQL, Subsonic2, Subsonic3 - Any other ideas to make them faster ?

    - by Aristos
    I am working with Subsonic 2 more than 3 years now... After Linq appears and then Subsonic 3, I start thinking about moving to the new Linq futures that are connected to sql. I must say that I start move and port my subsonic 2 with SubSonic 3, and very soon I discover that the speed was so slow thats I didn't believe it - and starts all that tests. Then I test Linq2Sql and see also a delay - compare it with Subsonic 2. My question here is, especial for the linq2sql, and the up-coming dotnet version 4, what else can I do to speed it up ? What else on linq2sql settings, or classes, not on this code that I have used for my messures I place here the project that I make the tests, also the screen shots of the results. How I make the tests - and the accurate of my measures. I use only for my question Google chrome, because its difficult for me to show here a lot of other measures that I have done with more complex programs. This is the most simple one, I just measure the Data Read. How can I prove that. I make a simple Thread.Sleep(10 seconds) and see if I see that 10 seconds on Google Chrome Measure, and yes I see it. here are more test with this Sleep thead to see whats actually Chrome gives. 10 seconds delay 100 ms delay Zero delay There is only a small 15ms thats get on messure, is so small compare it with the rest of my tests that I do not care about. So what I measure I measure just the data read via each method - did not count the data or database delay, or any disk read or anything like that. Later on the image with the result I show that no disk activity exist on the measures See this image to see what really I measure and if this is correct Why I chose this kind of test Its simple, it's real, and it's near my real problem that I found the delay of subsonic 3 in real program with real data. Now lets tests the dals Start by see this image I have 4-5 calls on every method, the one after the other. The results are. For a loop of 100 times, ask for 5 Rows, one not exist, approximatively.. Simple adonet:81ms SubSonic 2 :210ms linq2sql :1.70sec linq2sql using CompiledQuery.Compile :239ms Subsonic 3 :15.00sec (wow - extreme slow) The project http://www.planethost.gr/DalSpeedTests.rar Can any one confirm this benchmark, or make any optimizations to help me out ? Other tests Some one publish here this link http://ormbattle.net/ (and then remove it - don not know why) In this page you can find a really useful advanced tests for all, except subsonic 2 and subsonic 3 that I have here ! Optimizing What I really ask here is if some one can now any trick how to optimize the DALs, not by changing the test code, but by changing the code and the settings on each dal. For example... Optimizing Linq2SQL I start search how to optimize Linq2sql and found this article, and maybe more exist. Finally I make the tricks from that page to run, and optimize the code using them all. The speed was near 1.50sec from 1.70.... big improvement, but still slow. Then I found a different way - same idea article, and wow ! the speed is blow up. Using this trick with CompiledQuery.Compile, the time from 1.5sec is now 239ms. Here is the code for the precompiled... Func<DataClassesDataContext, int, IQueryable<Product>> compiledQuery = CompiledQuery.Compile((DataClassesDataContext meta, int IdToFind) => (from myData in meta.Products where myData.ProductID.Equals(IdToFind) select myData)); StringBuilder Test = new StringBuilder(); int[] MiaSeira = { 5, 6, 10, 100, 7 }; using (DataClassesDataContext context = new DataClassesDataContext()) { context.ObjectTrackingEnabled = false; for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { foreach (int EnaID in MiaSeira) { var oFindThat2P = compiledQuery(context, EnaID); foreach (Product One in oFindThat2P) { Test.Append("<br />"); Test.Append(One.ProductName); } } } } Optimizing SubSonic 3 and problems I make many performance profiling, and start change the one after the other and the speed is better but still too slow. I post them on subsonic group but they ignore the problem, they say that everything is fast... Here is some capture of my profiling and delay points inside subsonic source code I have end up that subsonic3 make more call on the structure of the database rather than on data itself. Needs to reconsider the hole way of asking for data, and follow the subsonic2 idea if this is possible. Try to make precompile to subsonic 3 like I did in linq2Sql but fail for the moment... Optimizing SubSonic 2 After I discover that subsonic 3 is extreme slow, I start my checks on subsonic 2 - that I have never done before believing that is fast. (and it is) So its come up with some points that can be faster. For example there are many loops like this ones that actually is slow because of string manipulation and compares inside the loop. I must say to you that this code called million of times ! on a period of few minutes ! of data asking from the program. On small amount of tables and small fields maybe this is not a big think for some people, but on large amount of tables, the delay is even more. So I decide and optimize the subsonic 2 by my self, by replacing the string compares, with number compares! Simple. I do that almost on every point that profiler say that is slow. I change also all small points that can be even a little faster, and disable some not so used thinks. The results, 5% faster on NorthWind database, near 20% faster on my database with 250 tables. That is count with 500ms less in 10 seconds process on northwind, 100ms faster on my database on 500ms process time. I do not have captures to show you for that because I have made them with different code, different time, and track them down on paper. Anyway this is my story and my question on all that, what else do you know to make them even faster... For this measures I have use Subsonic 2.2 optimized by me, Subsonic 3.0.0.3 a little optimized by me, and Dot.Net 3.5

    Read the article

  • Speed up UIPageViewController

    - by Jack Humphries
    I have a UIPageViewController with several pages. Each page is the same view controller, but the page number is kept track of and the correct page of a PDF is shown. The problem is that each PDF page needs to be loaded and drawn before the curl effect works (you slide your finger across the screen and nothing happens until loaded). Any ideas on how to speed this up or preload the next page? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • How to speed up Cygwin?

    - by tester
    I have been running drush scripts (for drupal) with cygwin on my relatively fast windows machine, but I still have to wait about a minute for any drush command (specifically drush cache clear to execute). I'm quite sure it has something to do with the speed of cygwin since my fellow developers (who are running linux) can run these scripts in about 5 seconds. Is there a way to make cygwin use more memory and/or cpu per terminal?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2008 - speed up Add Reference

    - by Mauricio Scheffer
    Is there any way to speed up the Add Reference dialog? For example, has anyone found any way to open it by default in the Recent or Browse tabs (which is what I use 90% of the time), to avoid the other tabs' slowness? All I have found is this blog post where a lot of people complain about this issue, but no solutions... Note that this is not a duplicate of 8440 as this is not a general question.

    Read the article

  • The speed of Ruby and Java.

    - by Simon
    In every benchmark that I found on the web it seems that Ruby is slow, much slower than Java. The Ruby folks just state that it doesn't matter. Could you give me any example that the speed of Ruby on Rails (and the Ruby itself) really doesn't matter?

    Read the article

  • CSS selectors : should I make my CSS easier to read or optimise the speed

    - by Laurent Bourgault-Roy
    As I was working on a small website, I decided to use the PageSpeed extension to check if their was some improvement I could do to make the site load faster. However I was quite surprise when it told me that my use of CSS selector was "inefficient". I was always told that you should keep the usage of the class attribute in the HTML to a minimum, but if I understand correctly what PageSpeed tell me, it's much more efficient for the browser to match directly against a class name. It make sense to me, but it also mean that I need to put more CSS classes in my HTML. It make my .css file harder to read. I usually tend to mark my CSS like this : #mainContent p.productDescription em.priceTag { ... } Which make it easy to read : I know this will affect the main content and that it affect something in a paragraph tag (so I wont start to put all sort of layout code in it) that describe a product and its something that need emphasis. However it seem I should rewrite it as .priceTag { ... } Which remove all context information about the style. And if I want to use differently formatted price tag (for example, one in a list on the sidebar and one in a paragraph), I need to use something like that .paragraphPriceTag { ... } .listPriceTag { ... } Which really annoy me since I seem to duplicate the semantic of the HTML in my classes. And that mean I can't put common style in an unqualified .priceTag { ... } and thus I need to replicate the style in both CSS rule, making it harder to make change. (Altough for that I could use multiple class selector, but IE6 dont support them) I believe making code harder to read for the sake of speed has never been really considered a very good practice . Except where it is critical, of course. This is why people use PHP/Ruby/C# etc. instead of C/assembly to code their site. It's easier to write and debug. So I was wondering if I should stick with few CSS classes and complex selector or if I should go the optimisation route and remove my fancy CSS selectors for the sake of speed? Does PageSpeed make over the top recommandation? On most modern computer, will it even make a difference?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >