Internet Speed Through Time Capsule Much Slower than Direct Ethernet

My internet download and streaming speed is pitifully slow. I'm connected by an 802.11n wireless network based in my 1TB Time Capsule. I swear it used to be faster, and has been slowing down. When I'm connected directly to my cable modem via ethernet, I'm getting T1 speeds. But through the TC, I'm getting bad DSL speeds. I originally set up my network automatic defaults. I've tried setting static DNS settings (according to a discussion thread that seems to have worked for others), changing airport channels, rebooting, etc., and nothing helps.
I haven't located much about this problem in other discussions; any threads I have found are mainly unanswered. Am I missing something? Can anyone help?

Weejun wrote:
My internet download and streaming speed is pitifully slow. I'm connected by an 802.11n wireless network based in my 1TB Time Capsule. I swear it used to be faster, and has been slowing down. When I'm connected directly to my cable modem via ethernet, I'm getting T1 speeds. But through the TC, I'm getting bad DSL speeds.
That may be due to a weak WiFi signal. To provide a third data point, connect your MacBook Pro to the a LAN port of the Time Capsule with an Ethernet cable, turn off your Mac's AirPort circuitry, and rerun your speed tests. That will allow you to separate the effect of a wireless connection from the effect of the Time Capsule.
I'd also investigate the signal strength and noise of your wireless connection as described in this post:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2347845&start=1

Similar Messages

Slow download speed through Time Capsule

My download speed with my MacBook Pro directly connected to my modem is 24 Mbps, my download speed using Time Capsule as a wireless router .86 Mbps - Any ideas???

tcdouglas wrote:
My download speed with my MacBook Pro directly connected to my modem is 24 Mbps, my download speed using Time Capsule as a wireless router .86 Mbps - Any ideas???
Welcome to Apple's discussion groups.
I'd use the advice in this thread to investigate the signal and noise levels that your MacBook Pro sees:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2347845&start=1
If it sees a weak signal or a lot of noise, that could explain the speed problem.

Poor internet speed with time capsule or Airport extreme

I'm trying to find away to increase the throughput of my 1st generation tme capsule. i'm getting a 33% drop in speed over wireless compared to wired conncetions.
current setup
Virginmedia XXL broadband 100Mbit down 5Mbit up.
Modem standard virginmedia modem (not the superhub) connected to Apple time capsule (500Mb) @ 1000Mbit full duplex
time capsule reset to default and then configured to use 5Ghz band, channel 36 . (no other networks in the area using this band) tested using wifi scanner and istumbler
tested down/up speed using www.vmspeed.com
wired connection
105Mb/sec download 4.9Mb/sec upload
wireless connection
73.14Mb/sec download 4.7Mb/sec upload
i have tried testing with an airport extreme 3rd Gen with the same setup and get the same results.
Tested using a 2008 Macbook running Lion 10.7.3 and also tested using 2010 Macbook unibody running snow leopard 10.6.8. both laptops connecting to wireless network at 270Mb/sec and are both exhibiting the same drop in speed over wireless. only one laptop connected to the network at a time.
is thier a limit to the time capsule/airport extreme wireless throughput?

Further to Bob's comments..
A Gen1 TC will be using marvel wireless chip and your 2008 and 2010 Macbook will use atheros and/or broadcom cards.. Just open your system profiler and look for info on the airport. We find the mixture of wireless chipsets especially older draft N and later N products can give very varied results.
The very fact you are linking at 270 and not 300mbps shows some reduction from theoretical max speed.. and really to get over 100mbps with any wireless you need perfect setup.. matched wireless chips etc.
Do a test uploading and downloading a file to the TC to see if the LAN speed is better than internet speed.
In reality I think you are doing especially well.. we see loads of people complaining about slow internet here who are getting less than 10% of the speed they get direct when routed through the TC. And on most occasions the limit in speed is not really going to affect what you do, as the real links to the internet are not that fast.

Broadband Speed through Time Capsule or Airport Express.

Dear forum.
Question about broadbandspeeds via wireless. Does it has speed limitations in relation to cable.
I have a Timecapsule and 2 pcs. the Airport Express to extend the wireless network. I have cable my iMac via Time Capsule, and this can have max. download speed of 44000 kbit/s and upload at 40000 kbit/s. When I do a speed test via wireless on my 3 laptops (Windows) and iphone, so I do not get more than 18,000 kbit/s download and 18000 kbit/s upload. Is there anyone who can tell me if Time C. and Airport E. can be modified to run the same speed as cable or is that just a limitation here. I've been looking like crazy but could not find an answer here on.
Thank you in advance .
Henrik

Hello H Salk. Welcome to the Apple Discussions!
Enabling NAT on any Internet router, not just the AirPort & Time Capsule, will affect data transfer rates (in both directions) to devices connected either by wire or wireless to that router.

Sharing a modem internet connection through Time Capsule...?

Hi there, everyone. I'm hoping some of you can help me out with a networking issue. At my house, my only high-speed internet option is an Aircard of some sort (Sprint Sierra 595u, specifically), which (up until yesterday) i was sharing rather successfully in a wireless ad-hoc network consisting of my macbook pro, and 3 other windows machines. The computer with the modem is a Windows XP Home laptop.
Now, i realize the card cannot plug into the Time Capsule, and yes, i do know there are routers made specifically for this, but the Time Capsule would be great so i can have a backup device without hogging a USB port on my macbook.
at any rate, having done some research, it seems that the issue with using XP's Internet Sharing in addition to a separate router is that both are basically DNS servers (correct me please if i'm using incorrect terminology). I have read that i can do two things to bypass this problem: 1) disable DHCP on the Time Capsule, thereby making it an access point; or 2) put the "main" computer (with the modem on it) in a different subnet mask than the router and client computers.
I've been attempting option #2, but have had some troubles in the Airport Utility... one is that i cannot seem to find an option to set the Internet connection to a Static IP... also, when choosing a different subnet mask, what should i change it to? does it matter?
so, i realize this relies heavily on XP... sorry about that. any comments, recommendations, or words of wisdom would be most welcome.
Thanks and Happy Easter!

We don't know..
My pc can.. so I suspect you need something changed in the setup..
At the moment.. we have no info.. none.. nothing. Sorry but we cannot help remotely when the info is .. it don't work.
So.. what broadband do you have?
How is the TC setup? Router or bridge?
Is the pc connected by ethernet or wireless? If wireless please test with ethernet. Wireless is too problematic to be relied on.. at least to figure out the problem.
When you open a command window and type ipconfig /all please copy and paste the results here.
Then ping the TC address from command window. Does it respond?
Ping 8.8.8.8 Does it respond?

To run a piece of PL/SQL code, in TT is much slower than in ORACLE.

A piece of PL/SQL code , about 1500 lines, package is named rtmon_event, function in it is named rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT;
the PL/SQL code is run in ORACLE.
Now I want to get fast speed, I think of TT.
I rewrite the PL/SQL code by grammer in TT.
But the speed in TT is much slower than the speed in ORACLE.
In ORACLE, to run the PL/SQL code, it need 80 seconds; but In TT, to run the PL/SQL code, it need 183 seconds;
How can I resolve the problem?
Btw: there are some joins of 2 tables, or 3 tables in rtmon_event.rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT, and some complex DML in it.
The run method is :
declare
a number;
begin
a := rtmon_event.rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT ;
end;
Thanks a lot.

The easiest way to view a plan is to use ttIsql and issue the command:
explain SQL-statement;
For example:
explain select a.ol1, b.col2 from taba a, tab b where a.key = b.key;
See the documentation that 'hitgon' pointed you to to help you interpret the plans.
Chris

Slow reading speed on Time Capsule disk

I get terribly slow TC disk speed when measured with Black Magic tool using Wifi and even slower on Ethernet.
I get low speeds on Wifi but even lower speeds on Ethernet connection. See attached pics below.
Wifi:
My TC is on Wifi using N network and 5ghz and it seems the speed I get over the Wifi is reasonable. Based on Pondini blog, here are approximate speeds for USB, ethernet and Wifi:
http://pondini.org/TM/29.html
Pondini's figures don't seem to take into consideration a 5Ghz Wifi connection, which should be about 2x faster than 2.4ghz (144Mbps vs 300Mbps). So I am assuming the transfer would be around 20-40 GB per hour which was roughly what I experienced when doing testing using file transfers (and slightly below USB 2.0). TC will not operate on this maximum speed as there are other factors, such as overhead, internet connection and TC hardware itself.
It seems to be reasonable, it takes me about 4-6 hours to backup 100GB Time Machine backup. Is this amount of time normal? I assume yes.
Ethernet:
Recently I needed to restore a file from TimeMachine. I started to browse but the browsing using the TimeMachine app was horribly slow. So I thought using Ethernet cable instead of Wifi would make things better. No way. So I tested the speed of the hard drive using the Black Magic tool and below is what I get - the speed of Reading on Ethernet is much slower than Wifi.
If I interpret the numbers correctly, the Black Magic tool shows MB/s, in which case 11-15MB/s should be about 80-120 mbps, which is roughly the G speed on Wifi and roughly about 50% of the maximum speed of N network?
Are these calculations correct?
If these numbers are correct, the results are acceptable, as I would not expect the Time Capsule Hard Disk to reach the maximum speeds provided through the Ethernet or Wifi connection.
However, what concerns me is why is the reading speed through Ethernet so slow. It's only 3.5 MB/s.
Activity monitor is not much help, it's hard to figure out where is the issue.
My Setup:
MacBook 2012, Mavericks 10.9.4, Time Capsule 2012, Ethernet, Wifi N 5Ghz. No other machines or appliances active. Internet and network seems to operate fine, no issues.
This is ETHERNET:
THIS IS WIFI:

OSX:
Yes there are many issues with Mavericks, it almost feels like OSX 11.0 and not 10.9.5 from the bugginess. I can't speak for how the system is changing from inside but most of it doesn't affect me, so it's mostly the annoying things that pop up and the good things that just go away because Apple keep "dummy-fying" the OS.
I was considering downgrade to Snow Leopard couple of months back but it would not support the hardware. It wasn't so much editing the supported hardware list to installation but the drivers are missing for newer hardware in SL. I used to mess around with Windows but I am not ready to mess OSX yet. I still keep Snow Leopard on one of my machines and I always like to go back to it as it feels consistent and light.
Speed:
You found the reason.
1. Yes I turned off wireless and ethernet when testing one or the other.
2. Ethernet is 100baseTX and grayed out.. because..
3. I should have realized it's because I use USB ethernet Apple adapter. But given the USB has 480Mbs speed, after taking into account some overhead, the speed should still be higher than Wifi. Or maybe not.. I made assumption it should be fast enough so I didn't even consider that could be bottleneck on it's own.
TC:
If your TC is 2012 then it is Gen4.. .... recommend you downgrade the firmware to 7.6.1.....
Yes, I upgraded to latest firmware. Yes, it's TC Gen 4. By mistake, I didn't know there are issues. But soon I realized for instance Apple has removed the setting in Airport to force "N" radio for network only. To simplify things, you get now combined N, B, G whether you like it or now. Now things may interfere with your other networks and if you happen to use non-apple clients connecting to AirPort, you end up with hodge-podge N and B/G connectivity that slows down the network even more.
If Apple releases the BASH update, it probably needs to be upgraded anyways? I assume their software on Airport is also Unix / Linux flavour?

My Time Capsule suddenly slowed my wi-fi network speed. Any clue?

Don’t bother with my strange printer name login. I did something wrong in the past and I am not able to change it. Anyway, my problem seems to be more common than I thought. My wi-fi network suddenly lost speed. Directly connected to the cable modem I get full dow/uoload speeds but through Time Capsule I only get 20x lower download speed (strange but uoload is less affected).
Tried almost everything already: soft and hard resets, channel changes, firmware updates and nothing changes. I talked to the Apple support here in Brazil and seem to be lost on the problem. Any final solution for an apparently quite common problem? I am already considering to buy a new router…
Thx,
ECastro

Do yet another factory reset.. sorry!! But we need to start from a known baseline.
And tell us what version your TC is?? A1xxx from the rubber foot.
Setup wireless to meet SMB rules.. Wireless name is short, no spaces, pure alphanumeric.
Set a different name for 5ghz. Same rules.
Set TC name also to the rules.
So you have for example.. TC named TC
2.4gz named TC24ghz
5ghz named TC5ghz
Use WPA2 Personal secuirity with password that is 8-12 characters pure alphanumeric.
Update and put the TC back into the network in either bridge or router mode.. those are the only suitable modes.. and TC has to be set to create a wireless network.
Now connect a laptop to the 5ghz wireless signal from the same room as the TC and measure your speed.
Test again over ethernet if the wireless is slow.. if both are slow the TC is faulty or simply doesn't work correctly on your kind of broadband. This is now happening with fibre connections.. Apple have not updated the routing part of the firmware for ages.. and are ignoring the issue. Get a different brand router and bridge the TC for TM use only.

1st generation time capsule painfully slow

I've been dealing with this issue for some time now. I've searched all over the internet for a solution, and I've yet to find anything that works. I'm hoping a Time Capsule expert may be able to help me sort this problem out.
I have a 1st generation, 1tb Time Capsule. I've had one since they first were released. Use already had one fail from the dreaded dead power supply issue that was affecting many 1st gens after reaching 18 months old. This one is less than a year old.
I have Verizon Fios with a blazingly fast Internet connection. When I plug directly in to my ISP's router via Ethernet, my connection is amazing. I realize that wifi connections are much slower than Ethernet, but what I've been dealing with lately is ridiculous.
I believe the problem lies with the Time Capsule. It's set to 801.11n, 5ghz only, maximum throughput (24mbps), WPA2 personal security, latest firmware. Wifi connections via the TC are great at first, but they seem to degrade as time goes by until I finally have to reboot the TC, then the speeds are back up to normal again for a while.
The problems also seem to arise whenever a computer is backing up to the TC. I understand that speeds might slow down while a backup is occurring, but I would expect that they would return to normal when the backup is complete. Unfortunately, the speeds often slow down so much that the backup never actually finishes, and often it comes up with an error saying that the disk is no longer available.
Trying to share a file between my macs is often impossible. Even a small file, say 5mb, can take minutes to transfer between to wifi-connected devices. Sometimes a TC reboot with fix this, other times it won't.
My setup is like this - Verizon router with wifi disabled, serving as the DHCP router for my entire internal network, connected via Ethernet to my Time Capsule and an Airport Express. The Time Capsule is set up in bridge mode and serves as the 802.11n wifi source for my newer wifi devices. The Airport Express is also set up in bridge mode and serves as the 802.11b/g wifi source for my older wifi devices.
Due to the nature of the Fios service, I can't have the Time Capsule set up as the DHCP distributer for the network. However, even when I didn't have Fios and the Time Capsule was set up as the dhcp distributor, I suffered from these slow connection issues.
Are the 1st generation TCs plagues with issues? Is it just time for me to get a new one?
Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated.

Unfortunately, you are experiencing one of the downsides to 5 GHz. That's because the higher frequency 5 GHz signals are much weaker than 2.4 GHz signals.
After all, you always have to give up something to gain something else. In the case of 5 GHz, you gain potential speed but in return, you must give up penetration power and distance capability.
In order to work well, 5 GHz signals need to almost have a line-of-sight relationship between devices. Unless you can achieve this, you will do much better to leave the Time Capsule running at the 802.11n (b/g compatible) 2.4 GHz Radio Mode and allow the Express devices to "extend" that network.
As for the location of the AirPort Express devices in an exended network, that is critical for best performance. That's because the Express can only "extend" the quality and bandwidth of the signal that it receives. Post back if you need a few more tips on how to find the best location for the AirPort Express devices.
Would the new airport extreme fix the problem?
Unfortunately, no.

Time capsule is slow and inconsistent

It seems that the wifi is much slower than my old airport extreme, and inconsistent in terms of connectibility and strength. Any hints? I've been at this for two days.

All,
Maybe trying some of these suggestions will help?
*_Slow Time Capsule Transfer Speeds_*
*Initial Backup Best Over Ethernet*
It is recommended that you perform the initial full backup via ethernet, then all subsequent backups via wireless.
*Transmit Power & Wide Channels*
If you are using the 802.11n only (5 GHz) radio mode, you can also select to use wide channels, which provide higher data throughput in your network.
Launch Airport Utility
Select your Time Capsule on the left.
Click “Manual Setup”.
Select “Airport” in the toolbar.
Click the “Wireless” tab.
Click “Wireless Options...” at the bottom of the window.
Adjust the “Transmit Power” to 100%.
Put a check mark in the box labeled “Use Wide Channels”.
Click “Done”.
Click “Update” in the lower right hand corner.
Wait for the Time Capsule to restart and then see if your network speeds improve.
*Anti-Virus Software*
Are you running anti-virus software. Disable it and see if network speeds improve. The discussion boards are filled with users who are experiencing degraded network speeds due to their anti-virus software.
One poster observed: “I had the exact same problem 5mins ago, it had taken 2 hours to back up 2GB, I realized I installed Sophos anti virus a couple of days ago. When I turned that off my back up is speeding through.”
Another contributor stated, “I am doing the first backup to my time capsule, about 71 Gb, It seems to be going about 1 Gb per hour. is this seem OK? I tried the ethernet connection and the speed was about the same. It has been going all night and after 12 hours it is at only 12 Gb of 71….I found the problem, I uninstalled Norton and the problem went away. It backed up in about 3 or 4 hours”
*Wireless Security Issue*
Some who have experienced degraded network speeds have isolated the problem to their wireless security setup. Try this:
Launch Airport Utility
Select your Time Capsule on the left.
Click “Manual Setup”.
Select “Airport” in the toolbar.
Click the “Wireless” tab.
Change “Wireless Security” to “None”.
Click “Update” in the lower right hand corner.
Wait for the Time Capsule to restart and then see if your network speeds improve.
Granted, this is far from desirable. But it does help to isolate the problem in you instance. Maybe simply resetting the security with a new password will help?
Let us know if any of these procedures helped.
Cheers!

My four year old iMac is running much slower than when it was new. Any suggestions on cleaning out the cob webs?

My four year old iMac is running much slower than when it was new. Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to "clean it up" and get it running like it used to?

What year, screen size, CPU speed and amount of RAM installed?
To find out info about your system,
Click on the Apple symbol in the upper left of the OS X main menu bar. A drop down menu appears.
Click About this Mac. A smaller popup window appears. This gives you basic info like what version of OS X your iMac is running, the speed of your iMac's CPU and how much RAM is installed.
Click on the button that says More Info. A larger window appears giving you a complete overview of your iMac's hardware specs.
Highlight all of this info and copy/paste all of this into another reply to this post, editing out your iMac's serial number before actually posting the reply.
This will tell us everything about your iMac so we may begin to help with your iMac issues.
How full is your Mac's hard drive?
Locate your iMac's hard drive icon on the OS X desktop. Click the icon once, then use the keyboard key combination Command-I. This will give you additonal info about your iMac's internal hard drive.
Post this info in your reply here, also.
Here are some general tips to keep your Mac's hard drive trim and slim as possible
You should never, EVER let a conputer hard drive get completely full, EVER!
With Macs and OS X, you shouldn't let the hard drive get below 15 GBs or less of free data space.
If it does, it's time for some hard drive housecleaning.
Follow some of my tips for cleaning out, deleting and archiving data from your Mac's internal hard drive.
Have you emptied your Mac's Trash icon in the Dock?
If you use iPhoto, iPhoto has its own trash that needs to be emptied, also.
If you store images in other locations other than iPhoto, then you will have to weed through these to determine what to archive and what to delete.
If you use Apple Mail app, Apple Mail also has its own trash area that needs to be emptied, too!
Delete any old or no longer needed emails and/or archive to disc, flash drives or external hard drive, older emails you want to save.
Look through your other Mailboxes and other Mail categories to see If there is other mail you can archive and/or delete.
STAY AWAY FROM DELETING ANY FILES FROM OS X SYSTEM FOLDER!
Look through your Documents folder and delete any type of old useless type files like "Read Me" type files.
Again, archive to disc, flash drives, ext. hard drives or delete any old documents you no longer use or immediately need.
Look in your Applications folder, if you have applications you haven't used in a long time, if the app doesn't have a dedicated uninstaller, then you can simply drag it into the OS X Trash icon. IF the application has an uninstaller app, then use it to completely delete the app from your Mac.
To find other large files, download an app called Omni Disk Sweeper.
Download an app called OnyX for your version of OS X.
When you install and launch it, let it do its initial automatic tests, then go to the cleaning and maintenance tabs and run the maintenance tabs that let OnyX clean out all web browser cache files, web browser histories, system cache files, delete old error log files.
Typically, iTunes and iPhoto libraries are the biggest users of HD space.
move these files/data off of your internal drive to the external hard drive and deleted off of the internal hard drive.
If you have any other large folders of personal data or projects, these should be archived or moved, also, to the optical discs, flash drives or external hard drive and then either archived to disc and/or deleted off your internal hard drive.
Good Luck!

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing.

It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
1. ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
2. Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
-Noel
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

I using FF-5-Stable. It much slower than Google Chrome 13. & crash during upload ??

I using FF-5-Stable. It much slower than Google Chrome 13. & crash during upload ??
it takes too much time to open a page.
Always Crash during upload..for big or small file..
It hangs and closed through Task manager or Reboot...

1. What are you "uploading"?
2. Have you tried a new Profile? Profiles don't last forever, and after going through a few major version updates "things" slow down, depending upon how much stuff the user has added to Firefox. Personally, I have created a new Profile for every new version of Firefox I have installed, up through Firefox 4.0. Didn't do that for Firefox 5, and probably won't for Firefox 6, due to the new fast release schedule and the fact that Firefox isn't being changed as much from one version to the next as it used to be changed under the 10 to 14 month intervals between major versions.<br />
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows

Time Capsule Network SLOWS

I have a 1 TB Time Capsule (purchased July 08) directly connected via ethernet cable to a broadband cable network; I use the TC for my home wireless network. Speed of download/upload will change over time. I test on www.speakeasy.net/speedtest and find that download speed will start around 10 mbps, then slow to ~1 mbps over the course of a few days. If I power off the time capsule (unplug it) wait a few seconds; power back on (plug back in), the upload speed returns to ~10 mbps. Upload speed does not change as drastically.
Any thoughts, ideas as to what's happening? How to handle? This doesn't seem like something I should have to routinely do (power on/off the TC).
Thanks.

*_Time Capsule Weak Signal Strength / Dropped Connections_*
Forgive the size of the post, but the suggestions below have helped others with similar issues. Try each topic individually and see if things improve, If not move on to the next one.
*Keep the Time Capsule Cool*
Some posters have observed that when they positioned the Time Capsule for better ventilation and cooling, their network connectivity issues resolved themselves. Also avoid locating the devise within poorly ventilated cabinets or piling items around or on top of it.
*Time Capsule Orientation*
While the location you chose to setup your Time Capsule may be acceptable, but the direction it is oriented can have an effect on signal strength. It appears that the signal of the Time Capsule does not radiate equally from all sides of the devise.
The antennas within the devise are positioned along the 3 smooth sides. That is, there is no antenna on the side bearing the ports and cables. As a result, position the devise with the ports and cables AWAY from the direction of most of the clients that will be connecting to it.
*Cordless Phones*
Some users have discovered that the cordless phones they have in the home occupy or are near the same bandwidth as their wireless network (2.4Ghz or 5Ghz). Try temporarily disabling the handsets and their bases and see if network connectivity improves. If so you may need to change the channel that the phone uses or purchase phones that occupy a different bandwidth.
*Proximity To Other Devices*
One poster observed: “Finally have full access, full speed, and full functionality. Initially I installed the Time Capsule at the location of my cable, cable modem... which of course was next to my HDTV, DVD, Apple TV, Amplifier, etc. Get the picture? After about 4 weeks of starts and stops, resets and repeated initial backups, I moved the unit to another location, closer to my Mac, and in an area where there are no other electronics. Now, it runs perfect.” [http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1734818&tstart=0]
*Change Firewall Settings* #
Go to System Preferences --> Security.
Click the Firewall tab.
Change setting to “Set access for specific services and applications”.
The System will now ask you when each process wants to penetrate the firewall. Once you click “Allow” each time you are asked, it will be saved in the pane at the bottom of this window and it should never ask you again.
One poster observed, “Since I made this change, my wireless has been strong and Time Machine works like a champ and the impact on my network performance is minimal. I speculate that the change in performance is due to security protocols or services that run in the 'allow all incoming connections' and 'allow only essential services' modes. Whatever the reason this fix has worked for me for over 2 months without resetting my airport connection or time capsule.” [http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8348496#8348496]
*Change Time Capsules’ Channel*
Launch Airport Utility.
Select the device on the left.
Click "Manual Setup."
Select “Airport” in the toolbar.
Click the "Wireless" tab.
If “Channel” is set to “Automatic” try changing to a different one. Holding the Option key down and clicking the drop-down menu should provide more channels to choose from. If you have another wireless router operating, ensure that each devices’ channels are as far apart as possible.
Click “Update”.
Close Airport Utility.
*Preferred Networks & Airport Services*
You may be experiencing interference from other networks in your neighborhood. When you click the Airport menu are there other networks listed other than your own?
If so, is your network at the top of the list? It should be.
Go to System Preferences --> Network --> Select Airport on the left.
Click "Advanced". In the “Airport” tab note the various local wireless networks that Airport detects. Is the network you prefer to connect to at the top of the list? If not drag it to the top. Are there other networks you never intend to connect to (an old work network, or a neighbors network)? Then highlight them and click the "-" button.
Make sure “Remember any network this computer has joined” is checked.
Click "OK".
For "Network Name" be sure your network is selected and then click "Apply".
Is Airport (wireless) your primary means of connecting to your network? If so, is Airport at the top of the list of services on the left? It should be.
Click the small “Gear” button at the bottom of the window and select “Set Service Order”.
Now drag Airport to the top of the list.
Click “OK”. Click “Apply”.
Now see if network connectivity has improved.
*Transmit Power & Wide Channels*
If you are using the 802.11n only (5GHz) radio mode, you can also select to use wide channels, which provide higher data throughput in your network.
Launch Airport Utility
Select your Time Capsule on the left.
Click “Manual Setup”.
Select “Airport” in the toolbar.
Click the “Wireless” tab.
Click “Wireless Options...” at the bottom of the window.
Adjust the “Transmit Power” to 100%.
Put a check mark in the box labeled “Use Wide Channels”. (If you are using a 802.11a/b/g (2.4GHz) radio mode then select “Interference Robustness”)
Click “Done”.
Click “Update” in the lower right hand corner.
Wait for the Time Capsule to restart and then see if your network speeds improve.
*Faulty Airport Card*
One poster reported: “I reckoned the fault must be with the Macbook’s hardware so took the plunge and got a new airport card fitted to my Macbook and now everything is working fine. At last I have a working Macbook!” [http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1719326&tstart=0]
If you think this might be the case, follow the steps outlined in this KB article to determine if your Airport card is still being detected by your system:
[http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2601]
Let us know if any of the above helped improve your situation.

Internet Speed Through Time Capsule Much Slower than Direct Ethernet

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for