SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SLOWER THAN EXPECTED

The system performance is poor. Any tips? Should I schedule a genius bar appointment?

The system performance is poor.
In what way? Need details. Please detail ALL you have done so far in the way of troubleshooting? Need this info to avoid the been there done that scenarios.
Any tips?
Not until you provide details.
Should I schedule a genius bar appointment?
Not until we find out if it's necessary.
OS X (10.6)
Use Software Update or the OS 10.6.8 combo update to update your OS. Also, update everything SU has to offer for your computer. When done, repair permissions and restart your computer.

Similar Messages

System performance slow

Here recently my mac has been running really slow, any suggetion as to how to resolve this issue?

First, back up all data immediately, as your boot drive might be failing.
There are a few other possible causes of generalized slow performance that you can rule out easily.
Reset the System Management Controller.
If you have many image or video files on the Desktop with preview icons, move them to another folder.
If applicable, uncheck all boxes in the iCloud preference pane.
Disconnect all non-essential wired peripherals and remove aftermarket expansion cards, if any.
Check your keychains in Keychain Access for excessively duplicated items.
Boot into Recovery mode, launch Disk Utility, and run Repair Disk.
Otherwise, take the steps below when you notice the problem.
Step 1
Launch the Activity Monitor application in any of the following ways:
☞ Enter the first few letters of its name into a Spotlight search. Select it in the results (it should be at the top.)
☞ In the Finder, select Go ▹ Utilities from the menu bar, or press the key combination shift-command-U. The application is in the folder that opens.
☞ Open LaunchPad. Click Utilities, then Activity Monitor in the icon grid.
Select the CPU tab of the Activity Monitor window.
Select All Processes from the menu in the toolbar, if not already selected.
Click the heading of the % CPU column in the process table to sort the entries by CPU usage. You may have to click it twice to get the highest value at the top. What is it, and what is the process? Also post the values for % User, % System, and % Idle at the bottom of the window.
Select the System Memory tab. What values are shown in the bottom part of the window for Page outs and Swap used?
Next, select the Disk Activity tab. Post the approximate values shown for Reads in/sec and Writes out/sec (not Reads in and Writes out.)
Step 2
If you have more than one user account, you must be logged in as an administrator to carry out this step.
Launch the Console application in the same way you launched Activity Monitor. Make sure the title of the Console window is All Messages. If it isn't, select All Messages from the SYSTEM LOG QUERIES menu on the left. If you don't see that menu, select
View ▹ Show Log List
from the menu bar.
Select the 50 or so most recent entries in the log. Copy them to the Clipboard (command-C). Paste into a reply to this message (command-V). You're looking for entries at the end of the log, not at the beginning.
When posting a log extract, be selective. Don't post more than is requested.
Please do not indiscriminately dump thousands of lines from the log into this discussion.
Important: Some personal information, such as your name, may appear in the log. Anonymize before posting. That should be easy to do if your extract is not too long.

System performance slow - vanishing wallpaper

My G5 seems to be experiencing a performance slowdown but it passes any diagnostic test that I perform. Lately it has been misbehaving when asked to handle graphicly complex applications such as iPhoto and Photoshop. It also "forgets" my wallpaper and reverts to the standard blue background after closing a graphically complex application.
Any ideas?

Hi,
I can probably nail the wallpaper problem down to bad preference file for the 'desktop picture' as it is known on the MacOS. Bin the file "com.apple.desktop.plist" which is found in your User folder: [hard disk root]/Users/[your User folder name]/Library/Preferences/
As for the slowdown/lack of performance, it could be due to either the application itself is inherently slow with underpowered Macs (see app's minimum specs). Or, if your Mac is up to the task performance wise, it may to do with lack of System volume's hard disk space, which will effect the virtual memory file which MacOS X uses all the time if you don't have enough real memory available. Max'ing out your RAM for the Mac will boost performance on any app that requires loads of memory.

Calculation in Esbase System 9 slower than in 6.5

Hello,
I, ve the following problem I'll try to summarize:
We’ve migrated a database from Essbase 6.5 to System 9. The main calculation in the database consists in several FIX statements that are faster in the new version (according to the log), except one, that lasts 5 minutes in 6.5 and almost an hour in System 9.
This is the FIX:
FIX(@LEVMBRS (Products,0), @UDA("Business Unit", "ELIM"), &Current_Month, "Actual", &Current_Year, Eliminations, global)
Sales = @SUM( @UDA( "Business Unit", @NAME( @CURRMBR("Business Unit"))));
ENDFIX
I’ll try to explain the meaning of this FIX: For some members in the Business Unit dimension (Marked with the UDA “ELIM”) the sales are calculated as the sum of the sales of those Business Units marked with an UDA that is the same name as the Business Unit that it’s being calculated (@CURRMBR).
As an additional information, it’s interesting because the fix syntax is reported as “Invalid parameter type” by the syntax analyzer of the 6.5, but the calculation works correctly (in only five minutes). In System 9, on the contrary, the syntax is reported as correct, but the FIX lasts far more than in 6.5 (as I said, almost an hour).
Does anyone have any idea of what could be happenning? Do you know any alternate syntax for the sentence?
Thanks in advance for your help.

I experienced similar unexplained calc degradation going from essbase 6.5.1 to 7.1.5.
I had a calc statement similar to the one you are seeing degration on,
"Regular Hours" = "Dept. Minimum Hours Input"->@MEMBER(@CONCATENATE(@NAME(@ANCEST("Time Periods",4)), " GLOBAL DRIVER"));
I can't remember how I stumbled on this, but I did stumble on to the fact that the newer calc engine wasn't as efficient with resolving these functions. My statement was trying to resolve the "Time Periods" ancestor to it's 4 generation member, and concatenating that with " Gloabal Driver" which is a data input member. Since there are only 13 different "Periods" in my outline it wasn't too difficult for me to replace those functions with an IF statement checking which "Time Period" I was in (example)
If(@IsMbr("P01W1") OR @IsMbr("P01W2") OR @IsMbr("P01W3") Or @IsMbr("P01W4"))
"Regular Hours" = "Dept. Minimum Hours Input"->"Period 01 GLOBAL DRIVER";
ElseIf(@IsMbr("P02W1") OR @IsMbr("P02W2") OR @IsMbr("P02W3") Or @IsMbr("P02W4"))
"Regular Hours" = "Dept. Minimum Hours Input"->"Period 02 GLOBAL DRIVER";
Etc.
It meant a lot more typing, but it took my calc from 20 minutes to 2 minutes.
Hopefully you can do something similar to remove the functions.
Good Luck,
Robert

Photoshop CS5 & Lightroom running slower than expected...

Hi All,
Hope someone can help me out here. I have a 2.66 Quad Core MacPro (2009) with 8gb RAM & I find Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom don't run as quickly as I would expect.
For instance a lot of times when applying actions in Photoshop I will get the blue "applying filter" bar which will sit for quite some time.
I have IStat widget installed so tonight as Photoshop really slowed down I went to the widget to take a look and this was what was happening: (not sure if this is useful or not?)
CPU was 97% idle
Memory was Wired-643mb / Active-4.91gb / InActive-2.42gb / Free-11mb
Processors was Adobe Photoshop between 6.8% & 23.6%
Any idea what would cause the slow down and if there is anything I can do to speed things up?
Appreciate it.
Andrew

There are a number of guides to setting up Mac Pro.
http://macperformanceguide.com/
Read, test, and follow this guide using your own files and such:
http://homepage.mac.com/boots911/.Public/PhotoshopAccelerationBasics2.4W.pdf
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=11661836&#11661836
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404440.html
10.6.4 + CS5 + Graphics
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2462882&tstart=0
Double your memory probably if not more.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory

Hive connection performs slower than Native connection

Jing, to add to what Justin said above - for small jobs the overhead of executing on Hadoop could sometimes be disadvantageous compared to native execution on Informatica platform. Typically when you pushdown mappings involving huge data processing you will see performance gain as the work in Hadoop is split acorss multiple data nodes and processed parallely.

I am using trial BDE, Hortonworks. I tested m_Sample_Web_log_parsing using Native connection and then using Hive connection, Hive connection takes much longer to finish the job. My understanding is Hadoop Hive should be faster, why is the testing result different from my expection? See img, top one job is using Hive connection; second one is using Nativee connection.

Image acquisition slower than expected on Win 7 64bit

Hi all,
I wanted to know if anyone had issue after upgrading OS from Windows XP to Windows 7 64bit.
I had a fairly big project the runs fine on Windows XP, hardware is computer + PCIe 1433 + Basler A504 + external trig source. The frame size 1000*128 pixel so I can acquire at 4kHz. This works fine. NI Software is LV 2011 SP1 + lastest VDM and VAS.
I've tried to switch to Windows 7 64bit with LV 2011 SP1 + VDM + VAS all in 64bit versions and the acquisition doesn't work as I expect.
I've put together a test VI that configures the acquisirion in a similar way that my app does (triggered ring acquisition) with my external trig source set at 4kHz, when I run it, instead of having a 4kHz frame rate I get ~250Hz frame rate.
I also tried triggered acquisition in MAX because I know MAX gives me 2 information : display frame rate and acquisition frame rate, both appear to be ~250Hz.
I contacted NI about this issue, an application engineer has been able to reproduce the issue with similar hardware and we're trying to identify the reason.
Anyone has a clue?
ps : here's the code used to test the acquisition on Win 7 64bit.
When my feet touch the ground each morning the devil thinks "bloody hell... He's up again!"
Attachments:
TestAcqu_64bit.zip ‏99 KB

Hi TiTou,
Please make sure that you are not triggering the camera and the frame grabber board.Sending a trigger signal to the camera in order to trigger acquisition of every frame. In this case, there is no need to trigger the frame grabber board as well because the camera is being triggered directly. What was causing the acquisition to run at half the triggered frame rate was the way the signals lined up. The camera begins acquiring on the rising edge of the trigger pulse. Once a rising edge is received, FVAL goes high and remains high as long as the camera is exposing. It then goes low until another trigger pulse is received.
At the same time, if you are triggering each buffer on the frame grabber, the frame grabber waits to begin reading data from the camera until a rising edge is received, and then begins read out once FVAL goes low. The result is that the frame grabber begins reading out the current frame, which takes about as long as the camera takes to acquire a frame. So while the frame grabber is reading out the data, the camera receives the next trigger pulse and begins acquiring the next frame. However, the frame grabber is still reading out the previous frame and thus ignores the trigger pulse until it finishes, resulting in an acquired frame rate that is exactly half of the triggered rate. At lower rates, there is enough time for the camera and the frame grabber to acquire the frame off the same trigger pulse and "re-arm" before the next pulse arrives.
Elmar
PS: Please also make sure the exposure time is lower as 161us.

Airport Extreme file transfer speed slower than expected.

I have an Airport Extreme with a 1 TB drive attached.
I'm trying to copy a bunch of files to it with a Windows Vista computer with a D-Link wireless N dual-band adapter (connected to the 5GHZ channel, which I configured to act solely as wireless N 5 GHZ), but the transfer is only taking place at 1.3 MB/sec.
I'd expect more in the 8-9 MB/sec range for my new router given other benchmarks I've seen. What could be going on?

I have an Airport Extreme with a 1 TB drive attached.
I'm trying to copy a bunch of files to it with a Windows Vista computer with a D-Link wireless N dual-band adapter (connected to the 5GHZ channel, which I configured to act solely as wireless N 5 GHZ), but the transfer is only taking place at 1.3 MB/sec.
I'd expect more in the 8-9 MB/sec range for my new router given other benchmarks I've seen. What could be going on?

IMac OS X performing slow/hangs

My iMac system is performing slower than expected and often hangs. I often wait up to a minute for the next action to happen, while the little cursor sits and spins. What to do? Frustrating.
System specs that seem pertinent:
4G memory (2 slots taken; 2 slots free)
storage report says 176G free out of 499G
OS X, 10.8.2
Thanks, Apple community.

Most often this indicates you are running to many applications concurrently for the amount of physical RAM you have installed. It may also mean you have a crashed process:
Open Activity Monitor in the Utilities folder. Select All Processes from the Processes dropdown menu. Click twice on the CPU% column header to display in descending order. If you find a process using a large amount of CPU time (>=70,) then select the process and click on the Quit icon in the toolbar. Click on the Force Quit button to kill the process. See if that helps. Be sure to note the name of the runaway process so you can track down the cause of the problem.
While Activity Monitor is open click on the System Memory tab in the bottom portion of the AM window. Use COMMAND-SHIFT-4, use the crosshairs to select this portion of the AM window, then use the Camera icon of this message composition window to post the image here.

System seems slower after new hard disk installation.

Dear all:
After a recent hard disk crash that caused me to lose a lot of important professional and personal information I replaced my old defective hard disk (a Seagate Barracuda 1.0 TB internal SATA drive) with a new one (a Seagate Barracuda 1.5 TB internal SATA drive).
The issue I am now experiencing may or may not be related to the new drive but I wanted to post it here and have your opinions about it. It seems to me that since this new hard disk was installed that my system is slower than it was before. Something else I noticed is that iTunes seems to hang every once in a little while, freezing and a while later resuming its operation (as if it were frozen while trying to read the information from its library located on the new hard disk ???).
Since the capacity of the new disk has increased some 50% compared to the older one, could this be the issue ? Can the fact that the 1.5 TB hard disk are new technology be a reason why this is happening (some issues still not completely resolved) or could it be that the capacity being so much greater requires the drive to work harder at finding the data ?
In case the information is relevant the drive's speed is 7200 rpm but I couldn't find any information (including Seagate's own web site) about its seek time spec.
Something else I noticed is that since I've installed the two 1.5 TB internal drives the fans inside my G5 have become more noticeable, raising their speed to a noisy level every now and then depending on what I am doing with my computer. This didn't happened before when I had only one internal hard disk installed (my original purchase configuration) and when I had (2) internal 400 GB hard disks installed.
Any ideas ?
Thank you in advance.
Joseph Chamberlain

Turns out I used screws that were too long above the optical drive which blocked it...

URLClassLoader slower than system loader

I'm subclassing URLClassLoader to load jar files on the local file system. I noticed that URLClassLoader loads about 30% slower than placing the jar files on the system class path. In my app, class loading performance in very important -even though it is just a one time hit.
I suspect the URLClassLoader (which I believe is implemented mostly in Java on Sun's VM) is not leveraging the many performance optimziations that the system loader enjoys (which is probably implemented in native code).
I also experience the same performance issue if I try to do jar loading myself using Java ZipFile i/o.
Comments?

well there is quite more overhead involved - loading from classpath of course is the most optimized one.

Why does this forum perform much slower than form forum in metalink?

I feel strongly that this forum performs much slower than the form forum in metalink where there are even more active and more issues created there.
I don't know why Oracle creates two form forum, which one is faster and another one is slower.
What is the difference b/w them besides here is jsp pages and over there is plsql pages?

Oracle certainly allows you to have users that do not have roles. Or users that don't have any system privileges. Or users that don't have any object privileges.
If you want the query to return a row for every row in DBA_USERS, you would need to outer join all the other tables to DBA_USERS.
Justin

Why the system is very slow than before

I have two computers, One is desktop, another is laptop,but I met the problems about the performance for the two
computers, from last Monday, two computers speed are very slow, after I checked the task manager, I found the service(ntoskrnl.exe) used the 60-70% CPU resource, but why the ntoskrnl.exe cause this? I also download the tools and analysised it, but it seems
that no useful information,how to find the root cause?
summary all the information as below
1.Suddenly this problems happened
2. I closed the AVP (Kaspersky antivirus software), but it seems no improved for the performance
3. I have closed the Windows search service, but no change for this
4\I use the maxthon and Firefox browse
, all the same thing happened.
you can download the Log file from http://1drv.ms/WwTBhU

Hi,
Any update in this thread?
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/ce42930b-f0f3-4df7-a621-d8f9d59109b4/why-the-system-is-very-slow-than-before?forum=w8itpronetworking
Regards
Yolanda Zhu
TechNet Community Support

Slow system performance...

Hey guys, i recently installed Arch Linux via my 0.7.2 CD. I then did a full system upgrade, up to the 2.6.19 kernel, boots fine, followed the new kernel instructions.. however it just seems like my overall system performance is SLOOWW. Keep in mind, i have installed Arch on this computer when 0.7.2 first came out, and it ran perfectly fine, everything ran fast. However now since i did a fresh install, upgraded to the latest, things seem slow.
i have installed xorg as well as gnome, including the nvidia drivers. When ever i type startx, it takes more then a few seconds for anything to happen after the command has been entered, before it would be VERY snappy. Gnome seems to take longer to load as well. When i launch xterm from within gnome, it takes a while for the xterm window to show, this includes any other windows. When i move windows around overtop of firefox, it seems alot of ghosting is happening, alot of trailling over the desktop when the window is being dragged overtop another window. I checked to see if Nvidia drivers are being loaded which they are. a glxtest reports back a 1500fps + as well as showing nvidia corporation in the glxinfo....
This is a fresh BASE install, upgraded to the current, then Xorg and gnome installed. Top shows no high cpu spikes and i cant figure out why suddenly, application loading seems to be slow...
P.S also, with all of this, accessing webpages seem very slow as well....this includes Pinging an IP address...
-Dan
Last edited by bolero (2007-01-31 22:52:13)

well, i added that in, startx as well as gnome + application seem to load as they should now, if that was the reason thanks for telling me about that.
However my internet is still very very slow. Booting into Windows XP i can confirm its not my internet connection, no lag in XP, however in Arch, seems very slow. If its any help, im using the sundance driver
actually, now that applications seem to be loading as they should, my internet connection probebly can be asked in the network section?
-Dan
Last edited by bolero (2007-01-31 23:48:52)

Is the performance of iOS 6 on iPhone 4 slower than iOS 5?

Is the performance of iOS 6 slower than iOS 5 on iPhone 4 (GSM) ?

I haven't upgraded after a visit to my local Apple store. On playing with the iPhone 5, I found Safari to be very slow so I logged on to their wifi on my 4s running 5.1.1 and loaded the same uncashed webpage on both. iPhone 5 18 seconds and my 4s 8.5!
Hmm, I then tried the same with 2 other 5s, exactly the same. Next I tried a demo 4s running 5.1.1 and it was he same as mine.
Lastly, today I tried a friend's 4s running ios6 and it was way slower than the iPhone 5s in the Apple store.
Conclusion? Keep away from ios 6 for now.

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SLOWER THAN EXPECTED

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for