Search Results

Search found 6231 results on 250 pages for 'slow diver'.

Page 34/250 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

  • FreeBSD slow transfers - RFC 1323 scaling issue?

    - by Trey
    I think I may be having an issue with window scaling (RFC 1323) and am hoping that someone can enlighten me on what's going on. Server: FreeBSD 9, apache22, serving a static 100MB zip file. 192.168.18.30 Client: Mac OS X 10.6, Firefox 192.168.17.47 Network: Only a switch between them - the subnet is 192.168.16/22 (In this test, I also have dummynet filtering simulating an 80ms ping time on all IP traffic. I've seen nearly identical traces with a "real" setup, with real internet traffic/latency also) Questions: Does this look normal? Is packet #2 specifying a window size of 65535 and a scale of 512? Is packet #5 then shrinking the window size so it can use the 512 scale and still keep the overall calculated window size near 64K? Why is the window scale so high? Here are the first 6 packets from wireshark. For packets 5 and 6 I've included the details showing the window size and scaling factor being used for the data transfer. Code: No. Time Source Destination Protocol Length Info 108 6.699922 192.168.17.47 192.168.18.30 TCP 78 49190 http [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=8 TSval=945617489 TSecr=0 SACK_PERM=1 115 6.781971 192.168.18.30 192.168.17.47 TCP 74 http 49190 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=512 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=2617517338 TSecr=945617489 116 6.782218 192.168.17.47 192.168.18.30 TCP 66 49190 http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=524280 Len=0 TSval=945617490 TSecr=2617517338 117 6.782220 192.168.17.47 192.168.18.30 HTTP 490 GET /utils/speedtest/large.file.zip HTTP/1.1 118 6.867070 192.168.18.30 192.168.17.47 TCP 375 [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU] Details: Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: http (80), Dst Port: 49190 (49190), Seq: 1, Ack: 425, Len: 309 Source port: http (80) Destination port: 49190 (49190) [Stream index: 4] Sequence number: 1 (relative sequence number) [Next sequence number: 310 (relative sequence number)] Acknowledgement number: 425 (relative ack number) Header length: 32 bytes Flags: 0x018 (PSH, ACK) Window size value: 130 [Calculated window size: 66560] [Window size scaling factor: 512] Checksum: 0xd182 [validation disabled] Options: (12 bytes) No-Operation (NOP) No-Operation (NOP) Timestamps: TSval 2617517423, TSecr 945617490 [SEQ/ACK analysis] TCP segment data (309 bytes) Note: originally posted http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=32552

    Read the article

  • Slow IE8 Start-up due to LDAP DNS queries

    - by MikeJ-UK
    Recently (in the last few days), my installation of IE8 has been taking 15 to 20 seconds to load my home page. Specifically, the sequence of events (as reported by WireShark) is:- Browser issues a DNS A query to resolve the home page server's IP address. Browser then spends the next 15-20 seconds broadcasting DNS SRV _LDAP._TCP queries, (roughly on a 2 second tick) to which it receives no answer (we have no LDAP servers). Browser re-issues the DNS A query and resolves the server's IP address again. Finally, the browser issues an HTTP GET for the home page. Does anyone know why this is happening? Possibly related to this question EDIT: @Massimo, LDAP query is :- Domain Name System (query) Transaction ID: 0x11c5 Flags: 0x0100 (Standard query) Questions: 1 Answer RRS: 0 Authority RRS: 0 Additional RRS: 0 Queries _LDAP._TCP: type SRV, class IN Name: _LDAP._TCP Type: SRV (Service location) Class: IN (0x0001)

    Read the article

  • Random Slow Response

    - by ARehman
    We have an ASP.NET MVC 1.0 application running on Windows Server 2008 – Standard (32 –bit), Dual Core Xeon (3.0 GHz), 2 G.B R.A.M. Most of the times application renders response in 3-4 seconds, but sometimes users get very late response and delay is up to 40 seconds or more than a minute. It happens in following way: User browsed a page, idle for 5, 10 or 15 minutes, tried to browse same page or some other. Now, there is a chance that he will see late response whereas the app pool is still up and running. This can happen with any arbitrary page. We have tried followings/observations. Moved the application to stand alone web server App Pool idle shutdown time is 60 minutes. There are no abrupt shut downs/restarts. CPU or memory doesn’t spike. No delays in SQL queries. Modified App Pool setting to run in classic-mode. It didn’t help. Plugged-in custom module to log all those requests which took more than 5 seconds to complete. It didn’t pick any request of interest. Enabled ‘Failed Request Tracing’ to log all those requests which take 20 or more seconds to complete. It didn’t log anything. Event Viewer, HTTPER log, W3SVC logs or WAS logs don’t indicate anything. HTTPERR only has ‘_ _ Timer_ConnectionIdle _ _’ entries. There is not much traffic to server. This can happen also if only two users are active. Next we captured TCP/IP terrific on both a user and server end with Wireshark and below are details in brief of this slowness: Browser sends a request for ~/User/Home/ (GET Request) by setting up a receiving end point using port 'wlbs(port-2504)'. I'm not sure if this could be a problem in some way that browser didn't hand-shake with the server first and assumed that last connection is still open, whereas, I browsed the same page 4 minutes ago and didn't perform any activity with site after that. If I see the HTTPERR log, it indicates that it has ‘_ _ Timer_ConnectionIdle _ _ _’ entry for my last activity with server. Browser (I was using Chrome) waits for any response from the server, doesn’t find any then starts retransmitting the same request using same end point after incrementing wait intervals, e.g. after 8, 18, 29, 40, 62, and 92 seconds. All these GET requests were received by server as well. But, server didn’t send any packet to client. Browser didn't see any response on the end point it set up in point 1, it opened a new end point 'optiwave-lm (port-2524)', did a hand shake with the server and transmitted the same request again. Server received, processed it, and returned successful response. What happened to earlier 6-7 requests? Whether they were passed on to HTTP.SYS or not? Why Failed Request Tracing not logged anything, we didn't find any clue yet. Server served the same page successfully just 4 minutes ago. Looking forward for more suggestions/solutions. -- Thanks

    Read the article

  • One network, two macbooks, one is fast and the other is slow

    - by Brendan
    I really need help for my friend. I know next to nothing about computers. My roommate and I both have macbook pros from the same year running OS X, are both connecting wirelessly to the same xfinity wifi, and while mine runs perfectly fine, my roommate complains that his works very slowly and times out every few seconds. I can't seem to figure out why this is. He is trying to get me to switch internet providers because he is convinced that it is their problem, but this cannot possibly be the issue since it works great on mine. He has an xbox hooked up to the wifi that he says also works poorly. I really can't see switching providers given that I am experiencing absolutely zero problems. How can I help my friend?

    Read the article

  • Netgear FVX538v2 slow whene connected to Canoga Perkins N525 ETSU

    - by Doomloard
    First of all thank you in advance for helping me. my issue is the old network admin found a problem whene he connected the firewall and the ETSU together the through put went down to less than 1 mega bit a second. his fix was to add a dlink router between the firewall and the etsu which speed it up to 5 mega bits a second. now my boss wants a more clean and proper solution if possible. i have check all the settings in the netgear it dose not seem to be a setting issue. if anyone can help that would be great.

    Read the article

  • .NET Framework 4.0 installation is very slow

    - by Dimitri C.
    On my Windows Vista, it takes a full 12 minutes to install the .NET Framework 4.0. a) Is this normal? b) If not, can something be done about it? The reason I'm concerned about the speed is because it slows down the testing of our product installer considerably. Testing an installer is time consuming already, but this new .NET Framework installer makes it almost undoable. Detail: I did the test on a clean Vista inside a VirtualBox virtual machine. This setup does not show any performance issues in other situations. I tried both dotNetFx40_Full_x86_x64.exe and dotNetFx40_Client_x86_x64.exe. They both take approximately the same time to install.

    Read the article

  • NTFS write speed really slow (<15MB/s) on Ubuntu

    - by Zulakis
    When copying large files or testing writespeed with dd, the max writespeed I can get is about 12-15MB/s on drives using the NTFS filesystem. I tested multiple drives (all connected using SATA) which all got writespeeds of 100MB/s+ on Windows or when formatted with ext4, so it's not an alignment or drive issue. top shows high cpu usage for the mount.ntfs process. AMD dual core processor (2.2 GHz) Kernel version: 3.5.0-23-generic Ubuntu 12.04 ntfs-3g version: both 2012.1.15AR.1 (Ubuntu default version) and 2013.1.13AR.2 How can I fix the writespeed?

    Read the article

  • ASA Slow IPSec Performance with Inconsistent Window Size

    - by Brent
    I have a IPSec link between two sites over ASA 5520s running 8.4(3) and I am getting extremely poor performance when traffic passes over the IPSec VPN. CPU on the devices is ~13%, Memory at 408 MB, and active VPN sessions 2. The load on both of the the devices is particularly low. Latency between the two sites is ~40ms. Screenshot of wireshark file transfer between the two hosts over the firewall IPSec VPN performing at 10MBPS. Note the changing window size. http://imgur.com/wGTB8Cr Screenshot of wireshark file transfer between the two hosts over the firewall not going over IPSec performing at 55MBPS. Constant window size. http://imgur.com/EU23W1e I'm showing an inconsistent window size when transferring over the IPSec VPN ranging in 46,796 to 65535. When performing at 55+MBPS, the window size is consistently 65,535. Does this show a problem in my configuration of the IPSec VPN in the ASA or a Layer1/2 issue? Using ping xxxxxx -f -l I finally get a non-fragment at 1418 bytes so 1418+28 for IP/ICMP headers = 1446. I know that I have 1500 set on the ASA and Ethernet. I do have "Force Maximum segment size for TCP proxy connection to be" "1380" bytes set under Configuration Advanced TCP Options on the ASA. Using IPERF, I am getting a "TCP Window Full" every few seconds and ~3 MBPS performance. http://imgur.com/elRlMpY Show Run on the ASA http://pastebin.com/uKM4Jh76 Show cry accelerator stats http://pastebin.com/xQahnqK3

    Read the article

  • Slow wifi from Windows Server 2003 virtualized in XenServer

    - by John Clayton
    I'm a brand spanking new user of OS X, coming from a lifetime of Windows use. I've been setting up my new Macbook Pro and have run into a very unusual problem. Over wifi, I am unable to copy files to or from my Windows Home Server. The problem seems to exist only over wifi, and only to WHS. Here are the details of my setup: 2010 Macbook Pro (Core i7), OS X 10.6.3 Windows Home Server PP3 (virtualized in XenServer 5.5) Windows 7 Ultimate x64 desktop Windows 7 Ultimate x64 in Boot Camp D-Link DIR-655 wireless N router Here is what I've done to narrow down the problem: Files copy fine from WHS to OS X when using gigabit ethernet Files copy fine from desktop to OS X when using gigabit ethernet Files fail to copy from WHS to OS X when using wifi (error -51) Files copy fine from desktop to OS X when using wifi Files copy fine from WHS to Boot Camp when using wifi Files copy fine from desktop to Boot Camp when using wifi From what I can tell, it seems to be some sort of issue between OS X and WHS, but I can't for the life of me see what would be different between shares on WHS and my desktop. They are both connected using smb://ADDRESS (I've tried both by IP and name). I can browse the shares on the WHS, but copying to OS X fails. I originally found the issue while installing VS2010 off an ISO from WHS, mounted to a Windows 7 VM using VMware Fusion. During the installation the VM was unusable - even the clock got behind the host be about 8 minutes. Once I plugged in the ethernet and disabled the wifi things picked up and finished quickly. The Fusion 3.1 RC is the only I think of that I installed that may have messed with the wifi driver. I've also tried resetting the wifi router, and have changed it from being G & N to N-only. Under Boot Camp I get similar speeds as my wife's N laptop. Any ideas? Thanks! Update: The issue has been further narrowed down to Windows Server 2003, which Windows Home Server is based on, running in XenServer with the XenServer tools installed.

    Read the article

  • Firefox is very slow when establish SSL sessions

    - by yanglei
    Using wireshark, I discovered that Firefox v3.0 gets stuck every time before "client key exchange, change cipher spec" stage when establishing a SSL session. Specifically, it takes 0.8~1.8 second before Firefox send "Client Key Exchange" request. This is unacceptable since our application is HTTPS only. I tested this on IE6 and IE8, both works well. Any clues? [Update] Finally, I found the reason of 1 ~ 2 seconds stuck by displaying all captured packets in Wireshark. After the "server hello" stage, Firefox makes a request to ocsp.verisign.com combined with an additional DNS lookup for that domain. Firefox must wait the revocation status from OCSP before entering the next stage of SSL. Depends on whether DNS cache is in effect, this process takes 1 ~ 2 seconds. A interesting observation is that the IP packet contains "client key exchange" has a high possibility to get lost and thus a TCP retransmission is necessary. When this happens, the process can take 3 seconds at worst. I'm not sure if this is a coincidence or a bug. Anyway, here is the result from Wireshark: (delta-time) 0.369296 src-ip dst-ip TCP [ACK] Seq=161 Ack=2741 Win=65340 Len=0 2.538835 src-ip dst-ip TLSv1 Client Key Exchange, Change Cipher Spec, Finished 2.987034 src-ip dst-ip TLSv1 [TCP Retransmission] Client Key Exchange, Change Cipher Spec, Finished The difference between Firefox and IE is this: Firefox 3 enables OCSP checking by default where as IE only supports it. So, there is no problem with both IE6 and IE8. This is indeed a "certificate revoke" problem. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why is Apple System Image Utility so slow?

    - by Jon Rhoades
    I'm using Apple System Image Utility (SIU) on Snow Leopard 10.6.2 and I am rather disturbed it takes over Three hours to make a Netrestore or Netboot image. I'm using as the donor machine a brand new iMac and as the imaging machine a brand new iMac connected using target disk mode & Firewire 800. The hard drive size and subsequent image is about 8GB. To restore the image over the network takes about 4 minutes. Given that Norton Ghost will take an image in about 5 minutes (or less on newer machines) over USB2, why is the Mac over an order of magnitude slower?

    Read the article

  • Why is Wifi data transfer is slow?

    - by Ali Azam Rana
    I have a wifi router which was attached with my modem, and the pc was connected to the wifi router through an ethernet cable. Yesterday I moved my modem and router to another room and connected my PC with wifi through an external wifi usb dongle (tp-link tl-w722n). I noticed that the file transfer speed from my cell to PC via wifi is greatly affected. I am not clear why is this happening because although PC is now connected through wifi but the dongle supports more than 54Mbps which is still enough.

    Read the article

  • Win 2008 R2 - copying TO disk is very slow, copying FROM is more or less okay

    - by avs099
    I have Windows 2008 R2 SP1 with 4 identical SATA disks (Seagate Barracude 7200) in RAID 5 array. It has 4Gb of memory; all recent updates are installed. Problem: when I copy large file from one folder to another, I get about 10MB/s average speed. When I read this file from network share via 1Gbps connection - I get about 25-30 MB/s. Both numbers seems to be low for me - but specifically I'm very frustrated with low write speed. there is no antivirus, no hyper-v, it's just a fileserver - i when i do my tests nobody else reads/write from it (we have only 4 people in a team, so I'm sure). Not sure if that matters, but there is only 1 logic disk "C" with all available space (1400 GB). I'm not an admin at all, so I have no idea where to look and what other information to provide. I did run performance monitor with "% idle time", "avg bytes read", "avg byte write" - here is the screenshot: I'm not sure why there are such obvious spikes. Any idea? Please let me know if you need me to provide more information - what counters should I check, etc. I'm very eager to get this solved. Thank you. UPDATE: we have another Windows 2008 R2 SP1 server with 2 RAID1 arrays - one is disk C (where windows is installed, another one is disk E). It is running Hyper-V and does not have antivirus. I noticed the following behavior when I copy large file (few GBs): C - C: about 50MB/sec C - E: about 55MB/sec E - E: 8MB/sec!!! E - C: 8MB/sec!!! what could cause this?? E drive is RAID1 array from same Seagate Barracuda 1TB drives..

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • HAproxy with MySQL Master-Master Replication incredibly slow

    - by Yayap
    I have two MySQL servers in multi-master mode, with an HAproxy machine for simple load balancing/redundancy. When I am connected to one of the servers directly and try to update about 100,000 entries, it is completed including replication in about half a minute. When connecting through the proxy it takes usually over three whole minutes. Is it normal to have that type of latency? Is something amiss with my proxy configuration (included below)? This is getting really frustrating as I assumed the proxy would do some sort of load balancing, or at least have little to no overhead. #--------------------------------------------------------------------- # Example configuration for a possible web application. See the # full configuration options online. # # http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.4/doc/configuration.txt # #--------------------------------------------------------------------- #--------------------------------------------------------------------- # Global settings #--------------------------------------------------------------------- global # to have these messages end up in /var/log/haproxy.log you will # need to: # # 1) configure syslog to accept network log events. This is done # by adding the '-r' option to the SYSLOGD_OPTIONS in # /etc/sysconfig/syslog # # 2) configure local2 events to go to the /var/log/haproxy.log # file. A line like the following can be added to # /etc/sysconfig/syslog # # local2.* /var/log/haproxy.log # log 127.0.0.1 local2 # chroot /var/lib/haproxy # pidfile /var/run/haproxy.pid maxconn 4096 user haproxy group haproxy daemon #debug #quiet # turn on stats unix socket stats socket /var/lib/haproxy/stats #--------------------------------------------------------------------- # common defaults that all the 'listen' and 'backend' sections will # use if not designated in their block #--------------------------------------------------------------------- defaults mode tcp log global #option tcplog option dontlognull option tcp-smart-accept option tcp-smart-connect #option http-server-close #option forwardfor except 127.0.0.0/8 #option redispatch retries 3 #timeout http-request 10s #timeout queue 1m timeout connect 400 timeout client 500 timeout server 300 #timeout http-keep-alive 10s #timeout check 10s maxconn 2000 listen mysql-cluster 0.0.0.0:3306 mode tcp balance roundrobin option tcpka option httpchk server db01 192.168.15.118:3306 weight 1 inter 1s rise 1 fall 1 server db02 192.168.15.119:3306 weight 1 inter 1s rise 1 fall 1

    Read the article

  • Apache2 slow serving static while healthy

    - by user45339
    My Apache status looks like; 201 requests/sec - 98.8 kB/second - 504 B/request 85 requests currently being processed, 345 idle workers _____CCW_C_____C__C__C_R____C_WC_________C__C____CW__C__CCC_____ __C____W______C___C___CW__C_C______C__W_C__C_____CCC____C______R CC_C_______C___C____C______________C______C__C________________C_ ___________________C______________________C_______C___C_____C___ CC____C__C___R_____C_C_CC__________C___C___________R____C_C_C___ ______C______W_W__W___C____________________C__WCC__R__R_C_______ R__RC________________________C___R____W__C____.................. .................................................... Server load is average 2 on a 4 core machine. IO utilization is 10-15% and doesn't have many jumps over 70%. Machine has almost 4 gb free and uses 0 swap. The site on the machine is a PHP site. All PHP code is optimized and fast mostly when it gets accessed, however sometimes requests get stuck. Stuck meaning; no response for at least 10 sec. We debugged the PHP code, but it is quite optimal and fast. We spend a lot of time on it until we decided to test the requesting of: <html><body>test</body></html> test.html page. This static resource also gets 'stuck' in the same manner the php pages get 'stuck'. How is the possible given the health of the system? I tested the network, but, when the PHP shows 'slowness' in the site monitoring, the html test files also take (far longer) than 10 sec to load using; time lynx -dump http://127.0.0.1/test.html We are kind of desperate to solve this problem, but we cannot seem to tackle it.

    Read the article

  • Very slow disk performance on Dell PowerEdge 2950 w/ PERC 6/i running RAID 10

    - by vocoder
    I recently set up a server running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on a Dell PowerEdge 2950 server - it has 6 500 gb 7200RPM SATA drives setup in a RAID 10 config. I am seeing extremely poor disk performance - the RAID array reports all disks are normal and using MegaCLI, it looks like the BBU is fine. hdparm -tT /dev/sda reports: Timing cached reads: 90 MB in 2.05 seconds = 43.96 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 24 MB in 3.11 seconds = 7.72 MB/sec So as you can see, it takes forever to something as simple as an apt-get upgrade and even logging into the server. How do I go about troubleshooting what is causing this? I upgraded the firmware on the PERC 6i RAID controller to the latest, but didn't see any improvements.

    Read the article

  • Internet very slow when upgrading to Ubuntu 9.10

    - by roojoo
    I was running Ubuntu 8.x on my desktop and everything worked fine. Im using wired internet and it worked perfectly, pages loaded pretty fast. However, when I decided to upgrade to 9.10 the upgrade failed at some point, however I was left with what appeared to be Ubuntu 9.10. Since then the internet has been weird. When I go to a website it takes at least 10 seconds for the page to display, however if Im on a site and navigate to other pages on the website it loads quickly. This never happened prior to the upgrade. I thought this may be due to the upgrade not installing correctly so I did a fresh install of Xubuntu 9.10 but the problems are still the same. Im writing this on a Vista machine over the wireless network and internet is fine. Does anyone have any ideas of the issue? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu server very slow out of the blue sky (Rails, passenger, nginx)

    - by snitko
    I run Ubuntu server 8.04 on Linode with multiple Rails apps under Passenger + nginx. Today I've noticed it takes quite a lot of time to load a page (5-10 secs). And it's not only websites, ssh seems to be affected too. Having no clue why this may be happening, I started to check different things. I checked how the log files are rotated, I checked if there's enough free disk space and memory. I also checked IO rate, here's the output: $ iostat avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.57 0.16 99.07 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn xvda 2.25 39.50 16.08 147042 59856 xvdb 0.00 0.05 0.00 192 0 xvdc 2.20 25.93 24.93 96530 92808 xvdd 0.01 0.12 0.00 434 16 xvde 0.04 0.23 0.35 858 1304 xvdf 0.37 0.31 4.12 1162 15352 Rebooting didn't help either. Any ideas where should I be looking?

    Read the article

  • ubuntu server 10 - slow and can't remove desktop environment

    - by Alex
    i'm running ubuntu server 10.10 with the desktop environment. simple page requests are taking over 5 seconds even when connecting to the server through our local network. i believe this is partially related to having the desktop environment installed, as the server worked faster (but not as fast as it should considering that it's on the local network), but tasksel fails every time (aptitude failed 100). my knowledge of networking and linux in general is limited. would really appreciate ideas on how i can troubleshoot this problem. oh also, in the system monitor, one of the processors is almost always around 100%. i doubt this is normal too....

    Read the article

  • Slow performance over network (Ubuntu)

    - by Filipe Santos
    i did setup this NodeJs TCP Server and tested it with a message flooder. Just to see how the performance of the server is. While the message throughput is great if i run the server and the message flooder on the same computer (ubuntu), the throughput dramaticaly decreases if i start the server on computer1(ubuntu1) and the message flooder on computer2(also ubuntu). Both PC are on the same network. In fact, they are directly connected to each other. I started searching the internet for reasons and i suppose i need to tune TCP on both Ubuntu-pcs but until now i haven't been successfull at all. Has anyone experienced such problems, or could someone help me out? Thanks Here the flooding code: var net=require('net') var client = net.createConnection(5000, "10.0.0.2") client.addListener("connect", function(){ for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { client.write("message "); } })

    Read the article

  • Extremely slow internet-connection?

    - by Martti Laine
    Hello Few days ago I opened my computer as I always do after school, and got pretty amazed about my 1.27kb/s download-speed. It has continued for few days already. We have a wireless network, which is used by 3 computers. Normally I've gotten 200kb/s (I think we have a 2mb-connection) but now it just suddenly slowed down. My friends have the same service-provider, but no problem. So, is there any kind of program, which would show me all the programs using connection and how much. It must be a program open which just takes all speed off. Any help is appreciated, Martti Laine

    Read the article

  • How to debug slow queries in Django+Postgres

    - by lacker
    My database queries from Django are starting to take 1-2 seconds and I'm having trouble figuring out why. Not too big a site, about 1-2 requests per second (that hit Django; static files are just served from nginx.) The thing that confuses me is, I can replicate the slowness in the Django shell using debug mode. But when I issue the exact same queries at an sql prompt they are fast. It takes about a second for a query to return, but when I check connection.queries it reports the time as under 10 ms. Here's an example (from the Django shell): >>> p = PlayerData.objects.get(uid="100000521952372") >>> a = time.time(); p.save(); print time.time() - a 1.96812295914 >>> for d in connection.queries: print d["time"] ... 0.002 0.000 0.000 How can I figure out where this extra time is being spent? I'm using Apache+mod_wsgi in daemon mode, but this happens with just the django shell as well, so I figure it is not apache-related.

    Read the article

  • Network card very slow, only on Windows

    - by J Penguin
    This only happens to 1 of my machine, and only when booting into Windows 7. No matter what network card I put in, Windows would default its mode to 10Mbps full duplex. Transfer speed is approximately 1 MB/s. If I set it to 100Mbps, the transfer drops to 100-200K/s. If I set it to 1000Mbps, the connection is lost completely. I've tried swapping in different cards, both PCI-E and PCI. I'v etried update the windows, I've tried reinstalling the drivers... On this very same machine, if I boot into Fedora, it can use the card at its full capacity 1000Mbps transfering 80+ MB/s And all the cards work just fine when plugging into other machines on the same network. I'm very curious. What could be the reason for this? The only different software that this machine has is virtual box with a VPN emulator, but disabling that VPN doesn't seem to do anything. I would like to get this fixed, hopefully, without reinstalling windows _< Will that be possible?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >