Connecting to TC Delay

I have had a 500GB TC for 12 months and use it to so my MacBook can access the internet - as well as the almost full harddrive. Internet is working fine, but when I open Finder and look to access the files on the TC it takes about 3 minutes to connect to the TC. This seems to be a new issue and I am unsure why!
Thanks for any help I can get!

Are you talking about viewing a Time Machine sparsebundle? Or just a plain file in a folder?

Similar Messages

Camera connection kit - useless delay Again

Well, the camera connection kit said 2-3 weeks ship 4 weeks ago, now it says 3-4 weeks, looks like I will be returning 5 of my brand new factory sealed iPads since apple can't seem to get it together, and when the few do come into a retail location, the employees buy them up and resell them.

Glen Handshu wrote:
Well, the camera connection kit said 2-3 weeks ship 4 weeks ago, now it says 3-4 weeks, looks like I will be returning 5 of my brand new factory sealed iPads since apple can't seem to get it together, and when the few do come into a retail location, the employees buy them up and resell them.
You know that the projection isn't an estimate of when they'll be readily available but an estimate of when you will receive yours if you order now. You don't have to wait for it to get to zero to order.
In other words... If you would have ordered 4 weeks ago you would have them already.

IPad (especially iPad 2) issue with WiFi connection 1-minute delay after sleep or new connection

This is a tip and not a question.
I had a customer who was complaining that their iPad 2 would take about 1 minute before WiFi would work after coming out of sleep. They are on 5580 controller with 802.11n APs. If they took it home, it didn't have this issue. They also tried with iPad 1 and it didn't seem to have this problem. It was happening every time on iPad 2, wait until it goes to seep, then wait about a minute, then press home button, unlock and try to launch safari, it won't connect and wifi icon in the top bar is missing, 1 minute later wifi icon reappears and safari works. I was also able to reproduce it on iPad 1 and iPad 2 when creating new wifi connection in the settings, wifi icon wouldn't appear for about a minute.
After some 5580 controller upgrades, trying different wireless settings, researching on google, and capturing with AirPcap, I finally figure it out.
Once it comes back out of sleep or once the connection is created, iPad actually associates to the APs just fine and gets an IP address. You are able to ping it during that first minute of "outage" (when wifi icon is missing), but you can't use any network apps like Safari from the iPad during that minute. It turns out that right after getting IP address, iPad sends out DNS query for www.apple.com and then tries some HTTP query on 184.24.93.15 (www.apple.com). I didn't bother investigating what it's trying to do with that HTTP query, but it looks like if that TCP session is not established, you can't use wireless for about a minute. And indeed, my customer's firewall blocks HTTP traffic that's not coming from proxies. Once they opened HTTP traffic to 184.24.93.15 on the firewall, it fixed the issue, the wifi icon now appears as soon as iPad 2 comes out of sleep and Safari works. (They use it for intranet only in case you are wondering)
Hope this helps.

I saw on another discussion thread to shut down the hot spot (in my case my HTC Thunderbolt) for 10 seconds and then restart it. It worked and my WiFi downloads seem to be as fast as before. Thanks Philly_Phan.

Trying to get broadband connected...

Hello,
I'm writing this in the hope that someone can help me. I placed an order for a combined TV, phone and broadband on 14th May and was given a connection date of 31st May between 8am and 1pm. I took the day off work and at 10 am 2 BT openreach vans parked outside my house. I went down to ask if either of them were there to connect me and they said neither of them was. A courier arrived at this point with all the equipment and I was advised to call and check on the engineer status. I called at 1pm to say nobody had arrived and they apologised, offered a £10 compensation and said that the IT system was down for the engineers so they couldn't access the log but guaranteed that an engineer would attend later that day before 5pm.
I called back at 5 as nobody had arrived and was told that the engineer had reported it as being unable to gain access due to customer not being present. I was absolutely livid at hearing this and demanded that an engineer attend that evening only to be told that they'd finished work for the weekend and Tue 4th June would be the earliest. I asked to submit a formal complaint and the manager that I spoke to in the technical department said that he would note my dissatisfaction and email my partner, whose name the account is in, with confirmation of what they were doing to resolve the issue as well as details of his name, department and position along with the same info on the other operators that I had spoken to. No such email was received but we did get a text to say that we would be connected on Thursday 6th June!
My partner called on Monday to ask why she'd not received the email and to check exactly when we were getting connected as we would again have to take time off work. She was told that the text was wrong and that it would indeed be Tue 4th June. She managed to arrange to work from home that day at the last minute and an engineer duly attended but only activated the phone line and, when asked about the internet, said it was "nothing to do with him".
I called BT that afternoon to clarify what was happening with the broadband and was told to not worry, that the service would go live within 12 hours of the engineer visit. I waited the 12 hours and called to check, only to be told that the service had been cancelled by someone in an administrative error and that it would be 2-3 weeks before we could expect connection. I was once again very angry at this news and asked to once again submit a formal complaint. I was told the complaints team was closed and would have to call back the following day.
On Wed 5th June, I called and asked for an explanation as to why the order had been cancelled. I received no explanation and asked to speak to the manager. They said that the manager was on another call and would call me back ASAP. I waited 45 mins and called back, they reiterated that a manager would be calling me ASAP. I waited another 45 mins and still no call. I called back again and spoke with a guy called Stephen in technical, who gave me his personal assurance that the service would be connected within 48 hours of the call. He said he was taking personal responsibility for the case and that I had no further need to contact them. I took him at his word and kept a check on the homehub router for changes.
On the Thursday 6th June, the 'broadband' light went from flashing orange to constant red which, according to the set-up guide, meant that the broadband was active but the username was incorrect. I called to check this with technical and was told that this was incorrect and that red just meant that the broadband line was inactive. He checked further and said the order was still showing as cancelled which again caused me to get a little angry over the repeated misinformation and having to make so many calls regarding the situation. I again asked to make a complaint and again was told the department was closed.
I called again on Friday 7th June, after 12 which meant the 48 hours had elapsed and therefore the operator, Stephen, had not held to his promise to personally oversee the case. I asked to be put through to cancellations, explained the situation for about the 15th time and asked for all the monies that we had paid BT so far to be refunded, along with the £45 that we had spent on BT public WiFi since the 14th May and also compensation to cover my loss of earnings in taking the day off on Friday 31st unnecessarily as well as the bills that we had run up on our mobiles contacting them regarding the situation. They apologised again and put me through to someone in the technical Dept that guaranteed me that they would speak with openreach and get someone out that day. They also took my mobile number and said they would call me back at 4pm with an update. 4pm came and went with no call back so I called once more and requested a refund and compensation. They said that the technical team were definitely acting on the situation and if I held on a little longer, they would make sure the lady I had spoken to would call me. Needless to say, I got no call.
I called again on Saturday 8th June and spoke with someone called Darren in customer retention who said he was sorry that I'd been treated so poorly and gave me a number to call direct on Monday morning to speak with someone regarding the matter. He said that they needed one more chance to put it right.
I called on Monday 10th June and spoke with a customer options Dept operator who said that the order was still showing as cancelled and that he would have to place a fresh order which would take 2-3 weeks. I had lost patience by this point and asked to be put through to cancellations, they listened to the story once more and put me through to another Dept where an operator reiterated that they could process the connection in 48 hours. I said that was no longer acceptable as I'd been assured twice the previous week of this and it hadn't transpired. He then said his manager might be able to get it done that day and put me through to him. His manager said that 2-3 working days was the quickest that it could be done.
I asked to go back to cancellations, reiterated the refund and compensation I expected and was told that I would have to speak with billing about it. I got put through to billing and the guy I spoke to took all the security details but refused to go further unless I told him the payment method used by my partner, saying that the bank name and the fact that it was a debit card wasn't enough. I took his number and got my partner to call but it just rings out at the number he gave us. I called back again and spoke with cancellations. The girl I spoke to there said that she would personally try and sort it out for me. She went off the phone to speak with the various departments and came back saying that the order was still open and that the service should be getting connected in the next 48 hours. She said that she'd call me tomorrow to check if it was connected and gave me a number fro openreach saying that usually it would only be BT operators that could speak to them but this was a public number and that someone might help me out.
I called openreach and the operator said that she dealt with fallen cable poles and holes in the street and that she had no way of helping me and advised me to speak to BT - sigh!
Here's what I think is reasonable - that someone at BT could speak with someone at openreach and, given that the engineers are just as responsible for the delay as the BT operators, arrange to get me connected either today or tommorow. If this can't be done, I think that I should reasonable expect BT to:
refund all the monies paid to them for the package and the up-front line rental
refund the £45 that we've spent on the public BT wifi that should have been free as we had signed a contract with them back on the 14th May
pay for the costs of our calls to them through our mobile providers
compensate me for loss of earnings for the day that I took off to wait on an openreach engineer who fraudulently claimed that I wasn't home
I think that, given the level of stress that this has put both me and my partner under (we both need to work from home and this has proven very difficult for us as we live in a rural area and have to rely on the public wifi otherwise), coupled with the amount of time that I've spent trying to sort it our, that this is the least we should expect.
One of the biggest issues with cancelling the order for me is that there are simply no alternatives in the area. For our postcode of PH15 2AA, I've been told by Talk Talk, SKY and Virgin Media that they can't provide the service as BT charge them £17 a month to utilise the infrastructure therefore they don't offer their services in my area. This would seem then, that BT have a monopoly on the broadban for the area which I understood to be illegal under UK trading legislation.
Does anyone on this forum have any advice at all for me or know of where I can find out alternative ISP's? Uswitch and all the other checkers show that there are a number of ISP's in the area but when I contact them directly they all say the same thing...
Please help - I'm starting to go a little crazy with all this! (I know that some people are reporting that they have waited weeks for connection but I simply can't accept that...)

Well, now we're back to square one - we spent another hour on the phone to BT yesterday and the best they could do was to restart the whole order process from scratch as the orders team had no record of an order ever being placed. I spent yet another frustrating, fractured 20 minutes initially trying to get some sense out of the Indian call centre and the guy that I spoke to in cancellations himself admitted that it was a nightmare trying to get a straight answer out of them. This follows another person in cancellations admitting that they got just as frustrated with the other departments being poorly organised and hard to communicate with. I'd just like to underline the fact that I have no problem with BT outsourcing their call centres to other countries and no problem with people from those countries being tasked with the admin of the order process or customer service. I previously had experience of using the Dutch technical team that ran Be Unlimited's service and they were fantastic - great communicators, well-organised and able to rectify my problem within hours.
The fact is that everyone that I've spoken to in either the orders department or technical department rattles out the same spiel that they must be reading off some card in front of them like a robot. They don't actually listen to what I'm telling them and they obviously have no form of administrative infrastructure that allows them to work efficiently. I have to go through the same process every time, explaining the whole story from the beginning and being given the same empty platitudes and promises every time by yet another office drone. The inter-departmental communications are non-existent and BT's whole systematic processes are abysmal. The whole corporation needs re-organising from the ground up and surely can't continue to be a profitable business for much longer if the volume of customer complaints and despairing posts on this very forum are anything to go by.
To reiterate:
Order placed 14th May, connection date 31st May - engineer to attend between 8 am and 1 pm
31st May, courier delivers hardware, engineers parked outside my house for 3 hours, neither of them assigned to the job, call BT after time window of visit expires and am assured an engineer will attend. Call back after 5 and told that the engineer claimed he couldn't gain entry and all engineers are finished for the day until Monday (despite an engineer attending my work which is located 5 doors down to fix our business broadband connection on a Saturday, less than 3 hours after I called). Make formal complaint and am assured engineer will attend on 4th June and internet will be connected same day
Engineer attends 4th June, claims broadband nothing to do with him, call BT and assured that service will activate later that day, service does not commence and am told the order appears to be cancelled when I call to check. Make formal complaint and am told someone will call me next day, so provide my number
5th June, no call so phone to check/complain - am told manager will call back ASAP. Wait 45 mins, no call. Call back, am reassured that someone will call. Wait 45 mins, no call. Call back again, speak to 'Steven' in orders who apologises and tells me he's going to personally oversee a fast-track of the order that will see it connected in 48 hours and that I have no further need to call them.
Call on 6th June after a change on the homehub router lights to check if this is the service being activated. Am told that the order is still showing as cancelled. Make another formal complaint and am assured that someone will call me back next day.
7th June, nobody calls and the 48-hour window expires. Call to check on status/complain and I'm told the order is still cancelled by orders dept. Ask to be put through to cancellations to get the service cancelled and get a refund, am told that order has not been cancelled. I'm put through to 'senior manager' in order department who guarantees connection that day and that she herself will call at 4pm to confirm. 4pm comes and goes - no call. Call BT to check/complain/cancel order - speak with cancellations who ask for more time and say they will make sure the woman from orders dept calls me. Wait for rest of night - no call.
8th June, phone and speak to Darren in cancellations, he asks that I give them one more chance to fix things and gives me the customer options direct number to call on Mon 10th June
Call BT on Mon 10th June, am told that the order has been cancelled and that they will have to place new order. Try to cancel and get refund, once again talked into giving them 48 hours to connect the service. Spend 4.5 hours on phone trying to get answer to why the service has been delayed/order cancelled. Start to receive random calls on landline, am told that this is the engineer at the junction box testing the line and that he's found a fault which is why the connection has been delayed. Told that service will definitely be activated within 48 hours. I'm also told that someone will call on 11th June with an update.
11th June - no call
Call BT on 12th June to check on connection, told again that order has been cancelled and really start to get angry now. Make another formal complaint and am told that specialist team has been assigned to investigate the case and they will call the next day to let me know what's happening.
13th June - no call. Call BT to check/complain/attempt to cancel and get stuck in the usual run-around with Indian call centre. Don't get anywhere but am one again assured that specialist team are on the case and they'll call me the next day but that they've finished for the day so I can't speak to them.
14th June - no call. Call BT to check/complain/attempt cancellation/make empty threats and am informed that they have no record of an order ever being placed. I freak out and get slightly abusive with operator. Get through to cancellations and speak with 'Steve'. He spends a long time talking to orders dept on my behalf and comes back to say that he will have to start order process from scratch all over again which will take 5 working days. Make another formal complaint. I ask him to check on previous complaint references, he does and says "yes, there's a note here for someone to call you.......today". I ask him what is the point of submitting formal complaints when they aren't even looked at and he tells me it's a 10-day process - I ask why the complaint that I registered on 31st May hasn't been dealt with as that's more than10 days and he has no answer.
Now if you can tell me that this is in any way a reasonable way to treat someone who is paying for you to provide a service then we live on different planets. There is no way that the customer care team can rectify this other than serious compensation which will have to be a **bleep** sight better than the 2 months free line rental that we've been offered so far. I have never had a worse experience as a customer anywhere, with any company. I've travelled in the 3rd world and even there, the utilities companies purvey a vastly superior service than this supposedly flagship company of British technology and communications. I asked an operator if he thought that it was ironic that a telecommunications company couldn't get it together to make a phone call to me after more than 10 promises to do so, unsurprisingly he didn't get it. BT stands for something but my brain lacks the energy to come up with an acronym that is suitably abusive.

Newly Occuring CSS SSL Issue in Chrome, FF10, IE9 with L5 rules; 3 second delay, loss of L5 stickyness

We recently started suffering an issue with our CSS11501S-K9 units not performing URL stickiness on our SSL wrapped L5 rules. I've spent dozens of manhours working on the problem, and have quite a bit of information to report, including a solution. There is a high probability that anybody who uses SSL to an L5 rule on a CSS unit will become affected by this problem over the next few weeks/months as users update their browsers with new SSL patches.
We hadn't made any changes to our config in months, and eliminated hardware problems by testing a second unit.
Here are the exact symptoms we saw:
Browsers affected: Firefox 10, Chrome, IE9, others (and some earlier versions of IE depending on patch levels)
Browsers not affected: FireFox 3.5, w3m 0.5.2, curl7.19.7
Impact 1: For SSL Rules backed by L5 rules, the initial response to the first request would be 3 seconds. Further requests on the same TCP connection would not be delayed
Impact 2: L5 rules being accessed via SSL would nolonger perform any URL based stickiness. Accessing the same rule skipping SSL, would work fine
I focused on the 3 second delay, since that was a new issue and was easier to debug than monitoring multiple servers to see if stickiness was broken. This is what I found when a client tries to connect to an SSL rule that ultimately is routed to a L5 HTTP rule:
1. Client/CSS perform initial TLS handshake, crypto cyphers determined (nearly instantly)
2. Client sends HTTP 1.1 request for resource (nearly instantly)
3. 3 seconds of no traffic in our out of the CSS related to this request
4. CSS opens an HTTP connection to backend webserver, backend webserver responds (nearly instantly)
5. The CSS seems to route to the backend server using the balance method (round-robin) instead of the advanced-balance method (url)
6. Response is sent to the client with the resource (nearly instantly)
7. Future requests sent from the browser on the same TCP connection have no delay, but the advanced-balance continues to be ignored
The 3 seconds is quite an exact figure (within a few milliseconds) and appears to be entirely happening inside of the CSS unit itself, since it does not connect to the backend server until after the 3 seconds elapse. 3 seconds smelled like some sort of internal timeout set in the CSS unit after it gives up waiting for something.
Looking at the packets from affected browsers I discovered that the GET /foobar HTTP/1.1 request was being broken into two separate TLSv1 application messages, the first was 24 bytes and the second was 400 bytes. Decrypting these messages I found the first message was a
G
and the second message was:
ET /foobar HTTP/1.1
This essentially splits the initial request the client is sending into two pieces. This confuses wireshark so much, it doesn't decode this as a HTTP request, and just decodes it as "continuation or non-HTTP traffic".
On the working browsers I saw only one TLSv1 application message, decrypting it I saw:
GET /foobar HTTP/1.1
(obviously I'm simplifying the contents of the request, there were lots of headers and stuff)
I am aware that the CSS can't handle L5 rules appropriately if they get fragmented, so I suspected this was the problem. I pulled a packet trace from a few years ago, and at that time confirmed we never saw a double TLSv1 application messages before.
A number of openssl vulnerabilities were recently fixed: http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-1357-1
and browsers may have been recently updated to fix some of these issues, changing the way they encode their traffic.
Solution:
Our ssl config looked something like this:
ssl-proxy-list SSL_ACCEL
ssl-server 10 vip address XX.XX.XX.XX
ssl-server 10 rsakey XXXX
ssl-server 10 cipher rsa-with-3des-ede-cbc-sha XX.XX.XX.XX 80
ssl-server 10 cipher rsa-with-rc4-128-sha XX.XX.XX.XX 80
ssl-server 10 cipher rsa-with-rc4-128-md5 XX.XX.XX.XX 80
ssl-server 10 unclean-shutdown
ssl-server 10 rsacert XXXXXX
Removing:
ssl-server 10 cipher rsa-with-3des-ede-cbc-sha XX.XX.XX.XX 80
Solves the problem. After that's removed, the browsers will nolonger fragment the first character of their request into a separate TLSv1 message. The 3 second delay goes away, and L5 stickiness is fixed. The "CBC" in the cyper refers to Cypher-Block-Chaining (a great article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher-block_chaining), and breaking the payload into multiple packages may have been an attempt to initialize the IV for encryption -- although I'm really just guessing, I stopped researching once I verified this solution was acceptable.
This issue became serious enough for us to notice first on Monday Feb 13th 2012. We believe a number of our large customers distributed workstation updates over the weekend. The customers affected were using IE7, although my personal IE7 test workstation did not appear to be affected. It's quite possible our customers were going through an SSL proxy. I suspect as more people upgrade their browsers, this will become a more serious issue for CSS users, and I hope this saves somebody a huge headache and problems with their production environment.
-Joe

Hi Joe,
That's a very good analysis you did.
As you already suspected, the issue comes from the TLS record fragmentation feature that was introduced in the latest browser versions to overcome a SSL vulnerability (http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/864643). Unfortunately, similar issues are happening with multiple products.
For CSS, the bug tracking this issue is CSCtx68270. The development team is actively working on a fix for it, which should be available (in an interim software release, so to get it you wil have to go through TAC) in the next couple of weeks
In the meantime, as workaround, you can configure the CSS to use only RC4 cyphers (which is what you were suggesting also). These are not affected by the vulnerability, so, browsers don't apply the record fragmentation when they are in use. This workaround has been tested by several customers already, and the results seem to be very positive.
Regards
Daniel

How to share internet-connection over vpn

Hallo,
first, sorry for my bad english...
i have a mac mini 2011 with os x mavericks and os x server.
i use a vpn connection for my mobile clients. these clients need to connect to the internet with the same connection as the server.
how do i share the connection for my vpn clients?
thx
cgwaldt

Mr. cgwaldt:
I just ran some tests and confirmed the method. To mask your ip address via your vpn do the following.
1. Create a vpn connection to your server.
2. Use Finder to start your ScreenSharing.app. This app is located at /System/Library/CoreServices/ScreenShare
3. When you start the app, it will ask you for the ip address of the network computer. Enter the ip address of your server.
4. Log in with a registered account on that server.
5. Do all your work through the shared screen.
I have taken a screen shot. You will see two browsers in the screen shot. One is open on my local computer, and the other is open on the ShareScreen app. The one in the ShareScreen app shows the static IP address of my office. The one that is on my local machine shows the dynamic IP address provided by my mobile internet provider. Note, my advice in a previous post was not entirely correct; I am forcing all traffic through the VPN tunnel in this picture, and I expected my local machine to have the static ip address that is the same as the one in the ShareScreen app. Even with all network traffic going back to my home server, I run into the problem that you spoke of, but the solution is to use that connection to work from a home computer, and then the problem is solved.
Any work you do on your server using the ShareScreen app will use internet packets marked with your static IP address. The connection was not nearly as slow as I had thought it would be. There is a delay between the typing of text and the appearing of the text on the screen, but if you are good at typing, this should not slow you down.
In this example, the webpage that is showing 173.198.104.130 would be the one that you would use for your billing. That IP address is the static IP of my office, which is where the "Mavericks1" computer is located.
For this test, I used a mobile hotspot on an Android Ice Cream Sandwhich operating system running on an HTC Rizound celular phone. The connection speed is mediocre, and the delay was not bad. If you are working in a hotel or have access to a much better wireless connection, then the delay will probably be minimal at best.
I hope this helps.
-Jared

It continousely connects while playing Kingdoms of Camelot. how can i stop it?

while playing the game, it keeps saying "connecting" ,sometimes causing delays in my game.

Interrupted or Reset Connection
* https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Error%20loading%20web%20sites#w_interrupted-or-reset-connection
Check and tell if its working.

JDBC Connection taking way too long

Hi,
I have an odd problem which has just started to happen. I am creating a very simple JDBC connection to the MS SQL Server database using the Microsoft JDBC driver. This has always worked for me in the past and has never caused any problems. Now, however, creating a connection to my database is taking about 20 seconds! This is usually a sub-second operation. I have tried to narrow down the cause, but everything I have tried has failed. Here are all the things I have tried so far:
1. Using a different JDBC driver (several, including the ODBC bridge)
2. Create a test app which just has my connection code and run this from different machines on the network under different JDKs
3. Re-installed by SQL Server database
4. Connected using IP address rather than machine name (in case it was a DNS issue of some sort)
5. Connected using different login accounts
6. Vertified connectivity using telnet (port 1433)
7. Verified connectivity via ODBC in an ASP page
If I telnet to the SQL Server service I can connection without any delay. I can also connect immediately using an ODBC connection via an ASP page, so I don't think it's a problem with my database. I just seems that connectivity from Java land of woefully slow. I have never had this problem before, it's only started happening recently. The only thing that has changed recently is that I signed up for a new ADSL provider, but I can't see how this could have any bearing as all the machines are internal and connected by a 100Mbps router!
Here's the code I am using to test...
long current = System.currentTimeMillis();
Class.forName("com.microsoft.jdbc.sqlserver.SQLServerDriver").newInstance();
Connection connection = DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:microsoft:sqlserver://<server-ip>:1433;User=<usr>;Password=<pwd>", null);
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - current);
connection.close();This gives me times of about 20 seconds.
Help!

You are right.. but the fact that:
a) I can telnet and connect instantly
b) The jdbc-odbc bridge connects immediately
.. tells me that the network is ok.. at least for native functions. The only consistency I can find is that native (windows) functions connect without any issue, but pure Java functions experience problems. It may well be an issue with my network, but it seems that the issue is isolated to the Java environment (guessing here).
I tested this theory by simply opening a socket connection from Java, but has not problems (connected immediately).
I tried switching on the debug messages in the DriverManager (DriverManager.setLogWriter(writer))... this didn't tell me anything.
... The ONLY thing I can think of trying is disconnecting from my ADSL router and trying a simple cross-over cable from one machine to the other.
Thanks for your help though.

Win 7 client waits a long time at "initializing remote connection" when connecting to RDS Collection through Connection Broker

I have fully patched windows 7 clients with the RDP 8.0 client (Shell Version 6.2.9200) that take over a minute to connect to an RDS session host through a connection broker.
All servers are 2012 R2.
On the RDS Session Host it eventually gets connected to I get this warning
ID 20499
Remote Desktop Services has taken too long to load the user configuration from server \\myserver for user myuser
edit:
My windows 8.1 machine running RDP 8.1 in the same environment connects with no delay. That session connection also gets the warning ID 20499 so that seems to be another issue

Hi,
Did you check with other user account, does it gives same issue?
May be the issue caused by some network related. For that you can set the Auto tuning level. For this refer
this link
which will help to provide you more guide. You can try some command on client system (Quoted from Link).
Run a command prompt (cmd.exe) as an Administrator
Disable the autotunning feature
netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
If you want to re-enable it:
netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=normal
In some cases you may need to use this command in addition to the above, but I didn't have to:
netsh interface tcp set global rss=disabled
Run this command for faster Network
netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=highlyrestricted
For more troubleshooting related to network issue, you can refer to “HSN for Windows Server 2012”. Also you can refer “Troubleshooting
Slow Logons”.
Hope it helps!
Thanks.
We
are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this
interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time.
Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.

Uccx call delay

Hi, We are running uccx server MCS-7835-H2-CCX1 , and uccx 2003.1.2SQL-2K 5.0.2 . now there is a call delay issue. when the agent in this queue is avialbe, the call which has been waiting in the queue cannot be transfered to the avialbe agent straightly , it will be delaied around 1.5-2 minutes to get the call to the agent. this problem does not happen before , so the script should be ok. also the configuration looks ok as well. could someone give me some clue regarding on this problem ? thanks a lot

Can you post the UCCX and CUCM versions?
Also, you can try a test script that has the minimum steps required to send an ACD call to an Agent. This will rule out your script and focus your troubleshooting on the CTI environment.
startacceptselect resoource connected end queued delay 43200end

Safari 8 crash / freeze due to failed HTTPS handshaking

Since last month some networking devices in my office are malfunction. The IT staffs spend weeks diagnosing these devices, but still can't determine the source of problem. So we have to put up with the unstable internet connection for a while. I don't know why, but all the normal HTTP request seemed OK (though slow), while partial of HTTPS connections suffer from extremely long latency (up to several minutes). As an engineer, I understand this situation and I can stand for the slow connection. But the problem is, Safari 8.0 (Yosemite) is completely unusable in this environment.
A typical syndrome is: when I visit some webpages that contain HTTPS resources (Javascripts or images, such as the avatar icon of some forum,) Safari will load only part of the page, and go freeze. Mouse cursor will turn into spinning beach ball and every element on the page is not functional; text can't be selected, form can't be focused, links can't be clicked, and even page rendering is stopped: pictures and texts are cut-off in the half, and the screen will not repaint when scrolling. If there are other tabs opened, switching to other tab will flush the whole tab content into blank, and the original content of those tab will not be repainted either. Every interactive move will get no response, including the attempt to close the stalled tab. Safari will only come back to life after the HTTPS session expires, which would take minutes before it times out. And in some rare case, the stalled HTTPS session will crash the whole web content process of that tab. The tab (or window) will just disappear by itself.
The situation goes really really bad, because every modern web page will utilize some sort of HTTPS resource. Facebook buttons, avatar icons, login forms, they are everywhere. Even stackexchange.com is filled with such elements. Of course the slow connection is not limited to Safari; Google Chrome and even CURL command also suffer from long latency of HTTPS connection. However, Chrome and CURL may go renegotiation during SSL handshaking, and eventually construct connection after a delay. But Safari seems not capable to do this. If HTTPS connection is not established in a few seconds, the session will fail, and it will block all other UI events, until the session expires. I've no idea how Safari 8 deals with TCP connection, but these symptoms remind me the old-school "blocking mode" of socket implementation, which I've never used again after I learned select(), poll() and kqueue.
If there is any tip of fix to mitigate the situation will be appreciated. I do hope some "defaults write" command will tweak the behavior of Safari dealing with HTTPS, or "sudo rm" some outdated database will do the magic. But please save your time and don't advise me to "Clear the History and Web Data". I've already done that, and it's not working at all. I've even setup a new user account and repeated all the test with the new account.

I worked around the issue myself by manually commenting the offending assertions out in src/core/job.c, so this is an upstream bug. I will report it at the systemd bug tracker.

Fax and Modem Over IP

Is it successful and reliable to deploy the fax and modem over IP in production? Does it stable enough to replace the PSTN connection?
Do delay and packet drops in the network affect so much for fax and modem traffic?
How about to implement fax and modem over IP via microwave link?

i have read in the article in the web. here is the link
http://www.soft-switch.org/foip.html
1) Can you comment about implementing POS modem over IP is not reliable and workable.
2) What the fine tune need to do most to successfully deploy the POS over IP?
3) We had using Linksys SPA2102 ATA for the POS machine to be connected to the CUCM. Is it recommended brand ATA for impementing the POS?
4) What is your experience implementing the POS modem? To CUCM or any Media gateway or IP PABX?

How to handle threading for TCP communication?

Hi,
I've a project to control two separate applications (C++ and LabView) and both of them are implemented as server. Another client program (C++) is used to control those application. The communication among them are implemented using TCP socket. The client program sends message to start or stop some tasks on the servers. The client program also sends time (hh:mm:ss) with the start and stop message to determine when to start or stop.
In C++ application (server): The application listens for connection and when gets one, it creates a communication thread to handle that and again listen for another connection. The communication thread handles message passing and when it receives start or stop message, it creates a timer thread with the received time to trigger a task at specified time. And after that it waits for message from the client. So, here, when thread (communication, timer) is needed, it is created.
In LabView (server): I've tried to create same thing as the C++ server. But, from LabView manual and others forum threads, I got that LabView is multithreading and it can be done using independent loop. So, I'd to create four loops in a diagram:
1. Listen for new connection
2. Handle communication for already received connection
3. Start timer
4. Stop timer
and they are run at the beginning of the execution and communication among them are managed using local variables. But, 2,3 and 4th loop can handle only one connection and it can handle another if the current is closed. But, the C++ application can handle more than one connection by creating thread when it is necessary but not at the beginning of the execution of the application.
Is there a better way to implement this in LabView?
Is it possible to handle multiple connections and create diagram node/block (like thread) dynamically like C++?
Thanks.
Using LabVIEW 2010, Visual C#, Visual C++ (2005, 2008, 2010)
Solved!
Go to Solution.

There are several ways to do this in modern LabVIEW and you should probably search the Example Finder for some TCP examples. The classic way is to transfer the connection refnum from the listen loop to a communication loop that adds it to an array of connection IDs and then continously iterates over this array to do the communication. It works since about LabVIEW 4.0 perfectly for me even for applications with HTTP based communication protocol. But you need to make sure of course that the communciation handling for one connection isn't delaying its work for some reasons as that would delay the handling of the other connections too, as they are really worked on sequentially. If you encounter an error, the connection ID is closed and removed from the array.
The other is that you create a VI that does your whole communication and terminates itself on an error or when getting the quit command. Make this VI to be reentrant and then launch it through VI server as reentrant instance, passing it the newly received connection refnum form the listen loop. Then use the Run method to let it start and operate like an independant thread.
For all of these you should be able to find an example in the Example Finder when searching for TCP.
Rolf Kalbermatter
CIT Engineering Netherlands
a division of Test & Measurement Solutions

2 months + to have the phone, ... in London???!

I first contacted BT on the 11th Aug to transfer our telephone line and have a broadband installed in our new flat. Nothing
extraordinary for an institution like BT, as we live in central London (W1) and we just moved a few blocks away…
Delay after delay, it took them more than 5 weeks to transfer the phone line to our flat (connection 17 Sept).
At that point, as the broadband was still not likely to be connected soon, we decided to cancel our request, and asked another provider (Vxxxxx) for the broadband connection.
Soon after, we realise the phone stopeed working (4th Oct). We called BT to declare a fault. The day after, I receive a SMS saying that my claim had been cancelled, although the phone was still not working. I called again, a technician was sent to our place (6th Oct), or that was what we both thought, except that he was sent to our old address, because, as we discovered then, the line had been transferred back to the old address, without any reason.
It seems that since then, any attempt to ask for a connection is somehow cancelled without any warning. We are given references and codes that we are told afterwards are not relevant to our problem (ex: Simultaneous Provide). Each time, we are told that the request made the day before was not dealt with properly and each time the connection date is delayed
another 2 or 3 weeks.
Ex: On Friday 7th, I am told the connection will be working on 13th Oct, but 3 days later, I am told this request didn’t go through again and that we have to book another date, but now, the earliest offered is 31st October!
As everything has gone worse since we cancelled the BT broadband to go with Vxxxxx, we have the strong feeling that BT is bullying us and trying to stop us from joining a competitor. As, Vxxxxx cannot make a broadband connection while the phone line is not working at the current address, we have been therefore completely cut out from any communication media
from home for 2 months now!
Complaint put a week ago on BT site, not a word in reply since then.
Can anybody help or should I just drop the case and run away from BT?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi This is a customer to customer self help forum the only BT presence here are the forum moderators
I suggest you contact the forum mods they should be able to get your problem sorted for you this is a link to them
http://bt.custhelp.com/app/contact_email/c/4951
they normally reply by email or phone directly to you within 72 hours
They are a UK based specialist team who have a good record at getting problems solved
If you want to say thanks for a helpful answer,please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side If the reply answers your question then please mark as ’Mark as Accepted Solution’

Safari is not robust against network and CPU/memory fluctuations

Safari 5 isn't robust against network fluctuations. I use an Apple router and I have a very consistent connection (which lets me keep a single TCP session open to the outside world for months at a time). Yet, when I restore a crashed Safari session with many pages, I'm told that Safari can't open the page because it can't establish a connection to the server. The server is there, but probably because Safari is using swap, the TCP connections are being delayed, and so Safari thinks that the server isn't there. I'd suggest a staggered reloading of pages from a previous session (this would also apply to the case where Safari loads a group of bookmarks). When Safari detects that it is using high proportions of CPU or memory, it can also suspect that a network connection is not working because the TCP session has timed out. In the case that slim resources are available (or conversely, when Safari anticipates higher resource requirements), the number of connections it attempts at the same time can be throttled. Also, when the server is presumed to be not responding (especially when it's known to work before!), then it can consider retrying a few seconds later. This is especially relevant in the situation of a recovery of a past Safari session (where the possibility of doubly loading a page is slim). Also, in the situation that a user actually has an unreliable network, a restore of the Safari session can turn all of the opened pages into pages that may not properly open in the next attempt. So they would in that case get a multitude of tabs that say that the page is unavailable. Then each of these would need to be reloaded in turn. Supposing Safari crashed, or the user quits Safari. Then would a subsequent attempt to reload that page work? What if the web page shown in the URL is not quite identical to the final page that is rendered? What about taking into account redirects or situations where data is once again POSTed to the web site? These situations could be tested to consider greater robustness. Also, a secondary copy of the Safari last session can be kept for backup. Especially when this (or another, perhaps unanticipated) situation comes up. The file doesn't consume too much space. There is also a possibility that Safari could crash in the process of recovering the session (if the same bug triggers the crash again), so there is a risk of the user's last session details being corrupted. Once before I've noticed a large set of completely blank tabs (presumably in place of what formerly consisted of legitimate pages that now do not load properly due to the lack of throttling or robustness of Safari session restoring). I'd also be interested in Safari keeping track of additional data, such as individual tab history, so that it is available for a restore. Even if Safari kept that in a file (but didn't yet make use of that information), then the information could still be available in some form for the advanced user to look through. That's lower priority compared to the other issues, however.

I am having a helluva time with Safari too, and I just upgraded to 6 GB RAM. I can help you in one aspect though. The "Sessions" extension for Safari saves all your past session information, including which windows containing which tabs were opened when each session ended, and restoring is a snap! It is sort of how the utility Jumpcut keeps a history of clipboard contents in case you clear it by mistake.
Message was edited by: SWLinPHX

Connecting to TC Delay

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for