WRT310N - very slow compared to ethernet

I was reading through firmware upgrade threads on this model, and before I upgrade, here's my issue.
Comcast higher speed cable.
I get 35 Mbps with the computer wired via ethernet directly to the cable modem.
Both of my computers have built-in N network cards.
Using the WRT310N, both computers achieve a max speed rating of 5 Mbps upload, max of 1.6 download.
That's an amazing difference in speed.
One Macbook
One Azus notebook running Windows 7. Both test out about the same speeds.

I belive you should upgrade the router with a latest firmware first
And regarding the speed is concerned.. Did you checked if you plug the ethernet cable with the router into your computer does the speed increase or not.. Looking into the details that you have mentioned i belive its all wireless
If that is correct .. If yes then you can try to change the wireless channel on the router try with channel 6 , 9 or 11 and observe the connection..

Similar Messages

Wifi download speed very slow comparing to ethernet

Hello!
I have very strange problem with internet connection in my iMac.
I have a linksys router and 6Mbps broadband (slow or not, it's Poland ).
I try to download the same file via wifi or cable (connected to linksys).
Transfer on cable: 600-800kBps, transfer on wifi 50-100kBps.
Why is that?
It's very strange because ma macbook pro connected via wifi to linksys downloads the same file with transfer as well 600-800kBps.
On iMac there is Leopard 10.5.5. Linksys was restarted many times. iMac - 24" inch model 2.8GHz.
Does anybody know any solution?
Thanks in advance
Christopher

hello anybody?
please

Firefox 13 very slow compared to IE or Chrome despite Fastestfox

Firefox is very slow compared to IE 8 or Google Chrome despite Fastestfox plugin and the server connection is interrupted all the time when I try to load sites, and I have to re-load again and again (this also happens wehn I clicked on HELP)... I also could not restart in safemode as I didn't find it... Please help, as I would like to use Firefox...

I noticed firefox 13.0.1 is very slow after gradual use. Even my computer is slowing down when using it.. All this nonsense about the addon or extension seems like Bull...
Im thinking of using version 3.6.28 which was wayyyy faster. Mozilla need to make more quality products.
I recommend either going back to Internet Explorer or using Firefox 3.6.28, i really hope mozilla's next browser ver 14 is way faster...

Firefox 10.0.2 is very very slow - compared to IE9 and Safari 5.1.2?

Have used Firefox many years. Recently, 10.0.2 has been VERY slow to response to commands. I can compare same transactions with IE9 and Safari 5.1.2.
Extensions: Norton Vulnerability Protection 10.1.0.68-1, RealPlayer Browser Record Plugin 10.0.2, TrueSuite Website Logon 5.0.
Plugin: Acrobat, Google Earth, Java, Office 2010, QuickTime, Real, Flash, Shockwave, Silverlight, VLC Web Plugin. LATEST versions.

Hi goranax,
Have you looked at our [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-slow-or-takes-too-long-start performance troubleshooting section]? There is a lot of good information in there that should help.
Hopefully this helps!

Safari is very slow compared to other ipod

When using safari it is very slow tobrowse web pages. My wife also has an ipod touch and she can browse the internet no problem. it makes no difference if only my ipod is connected ti the net or both of them, my wifes is always a lot quicker. Sometimes it is taking 30-60 seconds to open a page.
any suggestions?

I realize that, but I also got the same speeds with my other wireless laptop (thinkpad t420s). The speed should be at around 50 Mbps regardless of whether it's wired or wireless according to my test.
So if it's an antenna issue, does it mean I need to have the macbook serviced at an apple store?
I'm not really interested in getting a range extender, it's not something I feel I should need, especially when I have another laptop getting 3x faster speeds without the need for one.

SQL report in 9.2.1 is very slow compared to 7.3

Hi,
I have an sql report which takes only 5 minutes (oracle version 7.3) is taking almost double the time(one or two user accessing the system) with oracle version 9.2.1.
This report sums the total amount grouped by date field using two tables. Data is exported from 7.3 and imported to 9.2. Indexes are same and the explain plan gives the same resultand runs on unix tru64. Other PL sql and proc programs performance is good compared to version 7.3
Any idea why the statement is slow.
Thanks
sreekumar

It seems using F9 is the same as Ctrl+Enter, it just repeats the execution. I tried running "select count(*) from <table>" using a basic connection against a remote 11.2 DB, where the <table> had anywhere from 20K to 60K rows, on both 2.1.0.63 and 3.0.02.31. Regardless of the version, or table size, or repeated execution, all executions ran from 0.062 to 1.4 seconds. Sometimes successive executions run faster, sometimes not. Depends on what the database server and the network are doing.
The <table> cases all happened to have indexes, so Autotrace showed the DB doing an index fast full scan. Even with dropping the index on the 60K table and forcing a table full access, the count(*) came back in under 0.25 sec, so the table needs to be bigger for lack of index to make a difference.
Possibly the database version could be a factor, I haven't tested on 9i or 10g, but then that wouldn't really make much sense for simple counting. You are no doubt aware of the impact that file system or DB buffer caching could have on this type of test. Here is a post from Ask Tom on the same:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:311990400346061304

BI 7: Background activation very slow compared to Dialog activation

We are using the SAP BI 7.0 with SP15 and this question is about efficiency of dialog process compared to inefficiency of the background process and I want suggestions from SAP Basis/BI experts on this.
We have observed that our background processes on BI server are not running as efficiently as we would like them to run.
For example
DSO activation:
When I use u201CDialogu201D mode for DSO Activation with 3 parallel processes, I can activate a certain DSO with in 15 seconds. But the same DSO and the same data package when activated using u201Cbackgroundu201D mode with 3 parallel process takes about 15 minutes.(there are plenty of background processes available on the system when this activation is running). So dialog process runs 60 times faster than background process.
We saw the job log in SM37 when activation was running in the background mode and log showed that system
u201CProgram RSBATCH_EXECUTE_PROZESS successfully scheduled as job BIBCTL_49VQYEYSLA9SH00QBYNN3MTUV with ID XXXXXu201D was executed internally about 100 times.
In BI 7 most of the operations can be executed only in the background parallel mode. And from the activation example we know that our background processes are not as efficient as dialog processes. It is understood that in general the background processes will not be as efficient as dialog processes, but in our case the difference is a factor of 60. We want help to identify, why the background processes are not as efficient as dialog processes. Any suggestion or help will be highly appreciated. This may be System Bug in SAP BI 7

I am having this same issue in SP15. Did you find any solution?
I am finding my activation is slow for the number of records being activated. The process RSBATCH_EXECUTE_PROZESS successfully scheduled as job BIBCTL_49VQYEYSLA9SH00QBYNN3MTUV with ID XXXXXu201D was executed internally about many, many times. And if you look at the aggregate time of all of these schedulings this is what is taking soo much time. Our batch job table is not large so this is not the problem.
Any more ideas?

Report running very slow compared to Query Analyzer - high TimeDataRetrieval

Hi,
I have a report in SQL Reporting Services 2005 which calls a stored proc and the report takes a very long time to run and sometimes returns zero records. But when i run the stored proc in query analyzer it takes about 4 seconds!!
I have checked the execution log on the RS using the below sql:
Code Snippet
use ReportServer
Select * from ExecutionLog with (nolock) order by TimeStart DESC
It shows that i have a large amount of time for the dataretrieval (601309ms, about 10mins) and does not return any records most likely because of a query timeout:
TimeDataRetrieval TimeProcessing TimeRendering Source Status ByteCount RowCount
601309 2227 3 1 rsSuccess 4916 0
The weird thing is that when i run it in query analyzer, i get about 400 records in 4 seconds !!
I dont understand what RS is doing to take up so much time like this to retrieve data.
The report is very simple - it basically returns the records straight out into a table.
The only thing I somewhat suspected was a parameter data type conflict between RS and SQL, specifically dates. I have a start and end date parameter in the report - i tried specifying this as date and string to see if it made any difference but it didn't.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Mark,
I didn't say it was an issue of parameter sniffing, and I didn't point you towards the good article about that <s>. I asked you whether you had read the article, described to you earlier in the thread.
What I said was that it might be an issue of appropriate and dynamic query optimization, versus a cached query plan. Parameter sniffing is only one of many ways that SQL Server tries to figure out how to optimize a query. I thought the article did a good job of discussing some of what goes on during this process, and that by absorbing that you could think of ways to handle the wider issue that would be appropriate to your code. I also pointed you to a thread in which I discussed this in more detail.
While there are truly many issues with the date controls in the default parameter interface and how they behave, I don't think that what you're experiencing with the date format is implicated in the performance issue. I guess it *might* be if (say) there is a non-default param value in your proc but your report parameter allows nulls.
Let's say the report server database has a different date default than your production database in your system. I have never sat down and tested this scenario and I guess it might cause problems, So we'll look at that first.
Whether the date format is at fault is really easy to prove one way or the other, and once proven can be pretty easy to fix:
Create a test parameter that is of string type. SQL Server is really good about dynamic conversion of string dates to date types as you probably know.
place values (formatted however you want) into this version of the parameter instead of your date control parameter. Use valid dates, in both formats.
Does your performance change?
Do you get the right results but bad performance with US format date strings versus right results with good performance with AU date values?
Do you get the WRONG results with US format date strings, or with AU date strings?
Try additional permutations involving casting/converting in your proc.
FWIW, go ahead in the Query Analyzer and put the SAME values you see in the log into your tests there (in US format, I mean). Do you get the CORRECT results? Does performance change? Hold this thought and see below.
Another thing you can do is look at the query plan as presented by the Query Analyzer when you present the arguments different ways. See #7 above -- try presenting the date in different formats. Does the plan show the same path and the same indexes in use each time, or are some not possible because of the way the date has to be converted? When this happens, the issue is usually that the conversion must be done for each line compared in the filter. You can fix this really easily in most cases by cast/convert in the procedure so that your SELECT line is only doing that work once.
If the plans are different, and perhaps the indexes used are different and you *can't* fix it by fixing the date before the SELECT, do you need to add an index, or perhaps rebuild one?
Moving on from the date format, as I said before it may be really important NOT to go by your interactive Query Analyzer performance because what you do there may not be used by SQL Server in determining a query plan to cache and re-use. In case you haven't read the other discussion that I pointed you to at (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1827775&SiteID=1), think about using RECOMPILE or other options that will force a more dynamic investigation of the query.
>L<

Time capsule is very slow on wired Ethernet - tested from multiple sources

I purchased a 2 TB Time Capsule today. I want to use it for automatic backups of my Macbook, and I also want to use it to store files from my Windows PC's.
My TC is connected to my network using wred Ethernet only (Wireless is disabled in the TC)
My problem is that transferring files to the TC is incredibly slow. I have been doing some research and found lots of articles that talk about wireless interference and various problems with interoperability between WiFi flavors. None of these would seen to apply as I am using only wired Ethernet to transfer my files.
I also found a couple of discussions that describe how to make a change to the Mac's TCP/IP configuration to avoid a strange network condition slowing things down. This solution doesn't seem applicable as I am seeing the performance problem regardless of where I copy files FROM (I have a mixed environment with Windows and Linux and Mac systems)
Also, I am aware that the inital backup with Time Machine will be slow but I don't think that's relevant to my situation.
My TC is configured for file sharing so I can read and write files from my various Windows systems on the network. When I copy a set of large files to the TC, I see a typical transfer rate of 5 - 6 MB / Second. To me, this is completely abnormal and here is why: When I copy the same files, from the same Windows system, to a server on my network I get about 60 MB / second or about 10 times the transfer rates.
The TC is running firmware 7.4.2.
What gives?
Message was edited by: 92656iPhone

I also had the same issue. My Time Capsule was connect to the Linksys router WAG325N. I had a wireless network broadcasted from the Linksys and a different one from the Time Capsule. When connected to the TIme Capsule wireless network i pinked the Linksys router and got 10% to 30% pack loss. When i pinked the Time Capsule i got 0% loss. I used the AirPort Utility and changed the "Internet" "Ethernet WAN Port" from automatic to "10 Mbps/Full Duplex" and this seem to fix the slow internet.
I guess the Linksys and Time Capsule as issues with port speed negotiation.

Very Slow compared to Lightroom 3

I love the updated, but it runs unbareably slow. Is anybody having the same problem? Working with the healing brush takes about two seconds each stroke.

This speed issue has some really weird aspects. I have been using two different machines with the same database. My workstation machine is a core i7, 12 Gb ram, quadro 1800 graphics, LR code on SSD system drive, images and LR databases on 1.5 T raid 0, 2 24" 1920X1200 screens. It runs LR3 like a hot knife through butter. The second is a Toshiba Portege R705-P35. This is a notebook with a Core i3 and 4 Gb of ram, no special video hardware. It runs LR3 competently, but not like the workstation. Both are running Win 7 64. Home premium on the notebook, ultimate on the workstation. Both are up to date.
I started with LR4 on the notebook with 350 images straight off the CF card (CR2s from Canon 50D). Everything seemed to be OK. I got home for the weekend and fired up the workstation. I saved all the metadata for about 5500 images to xmp using LR 3.6 then imported the files into LR4. That seemed to work. Keywords and develop settings seemed to be OK. Virtual copies and collections were of course gone as expected. Performance in the develop module was awful and only got worse. It took seconds to respond to sliders. At one point it seemed to crash every time I tried to change the crop on a virtual copy. (the crop change seemed to make it to the LR database but not to the screen. It was there when I restarted LR4!). I loaded the small database from the notebook into the workstation. It ran just as badly. I tried to replicate the crash scenario the next morning. No luck, so I can't give you a nice repeatable scenario. Turning graphics accelleration off in LR did not seem to make a difference.
I logged onto the forum. I am obviously not the only one having trouble with LR4 on a serious workstation. I powered off my second screen. That made a huge performance difference. The workstation was now only slightly slower than the notebook, but the sliders were still jerky. I did manage to use the new soft proof feature and make some prints. The behavior of the 2012 process looks very promising!
I copied the 5500 images and LR databases from the workstation onto an esata external drive. The notebook appears to be able to run it from the esata drive with no real problems. The 2012 process is sometimes a bit sluggish, but generally not bad. I have deliberately tried to stress it with local adjustments, sharpening, lens profile corrections, etc.
I have no explanations for this behavior and unfortunately will not be home to run more experiments with the workstation for at least a few days.

My imac is running very slow compared to normal. any one have any ideas?

iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2011)
2.5 GHz Intel Core i5
4 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 6750M 512 MB
running slowly compared to normal.
Any suggestions in what to look for?

When you see a beachball cursor or the slowness is especially bad, note the exact time: hour, minute, second.
These instructions must be carried out as an administrator. If you have only one user account, you are the administrator.
Launch the Console 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 and start typing the name.
The title of the Console window should be All Messages. If it isn't, select
          SYSTEM LOG QUERIES ▹ All Messages
from the log list on the left. If you don't see that list, select
          View ▹ Show Log List
from the menu bar at the top of the screen.
Each message in the log begins with the date and time when it was entered. Scroll back to the time you noted above.
Select the messages entered from then until the end of the episode, or until they start to repeat, whichever comes first.
Copy the messages to the Clipboard by pressing the key combination command-C. Paste into a reply to this message by pressing command-V.
The log contains a vast amount of information, almost all of it useless for solving any particular problem. When posting a log extract, be selective. A few dozen lines are almost always more than enough.
Please don't indiscriminately dump thousands of lines from the log into this discussion.
Please don't post screenshots of log messages—post the text.
Some private information, such as your name, may appear in the log. Anonymize before posting.

Creation of IDoc XML very slow compared to IDoc Flatfile

Hi everyone,
I did a test in our ERP6 system and created IDoc files for a few invoices. The result is that the creation of a XML Idoc is 22x slower than the creation of a flatfile Idoc. The creation of one large IDoc file with 1000 invoices took ~15 seconds as flatfile and ~5:30 minutes as XML. So the choice between flatfile or XML is really a performance question for me. Is that normal? I expected a difference but not that much.
Can I speed up the XML creation anyhow? XML is better to process and I really want to use it, but I can not with this bad performance...
Thank you!
Regards
Andreas

So the choice between flatfile or XML is really a performance question for me. Is that normal?
Yes, it is normal. For every byte of data in xml file, it needs to create multiple bytes of structures according to XML format.
But, i am wondering, why u need to go for xml, when there is no PI installed.
Because, end output file is always in flatfile format.

LabView 8.5 very slow compared to 7.1

A few of us in the office recently upgraded from LabView 7.1 to LabView 8.5. All of us have noticed a dramatic lag on our PCs since the upgrade (both LabView and other programs hang more frequently, especialy when editing large VIs). We all have Pentium4 >3.2GHz machines, some with 2 processors, and 2GB of RAM. The CPU usage will go up to 50% for about 1s just to place a simple part in the block diagram (longer for more complicated operations). This was not the case with 7.1. Are there any options we can change that may have been defaulted differently with 7.1 or is this something we just have to live with?
Thanks,
Dave

LV 8.5.1 is only available for companies with SSP support. Just because you have a network license does not mean you have support. you will need to contact NI about it. There are also many factors that can cause this slow down. Different virus scanners, some different software could be causing the problem, Who knows. I have seen many diferent things over the years that cause LV to slown down and do this. One software that i know for a fact that will do this is the Cisco Security Agent. Every time I upgrade LV I have to get IT involved so that they can come down and set up the security agent to be able to accept the new version. I would strongly suggest contacting NI about this.
Joe.
"NOTHING IS EVER EASY"

RoboHelp 7 is Very Slow Compared to 6

Any advice/suggestions on rolling back to robohelp 6 is
welcome. I find the new version clunky and slow in comparison.
Sigh,
STB

Wow, such a lot of great info - thanks everyone. Here's an
update.
Yesterday, I was working remotely. While my RH files are
local, our source control system (MS VSS) is at the office. So I
wondered if the way in which RH7 interacts with VSS was a
contributing factor. (To its credit, RH7 recognized as soon as I
opened my project that it was under source control and correctly
asked me if it could check out all the files, and did so. The
checkout wasn't any faster/slower than normal.)
That initial compile ended up taking 1 hour and 8 minutes! I
have NO idea why. But maybe the conversion (removal of kadov tags,
etc.) takes place then? Today, I came into the office so VSS is
down the hall, I'm on the LAN, etc. Opened RH7, made a couple minor
changes, and compiled. It took less than a minute!!!!
So whatever was going on yesterday, it's either resolved OR
it's something related to VSS and I'll re-encounter it the next
time I'm working remotely.
Now that I'm over the initial shock of the completely
different UI and things seem to be functioning better, I'm a MUCH
happier camper! I read the V7 info on Peter's site, took advantage
of a couple of the handy tutorials on the Adobe site (thanks for
the info and links, Peter), and I might even be PRODUCTIVE today!
kc

CS5.5 Live View is very slow compare to CS5?

I have just installed a trial version of Dreamweaver CS5.5.
I tried on the Live View. However, to my surprise, everything render in CS5.5 is extremely slow?
It works great for me in CS5 but not CS5.5
Any idea why?
Cheers,
Venn.

Hi,
I tried what you sayed, but without luck.
I mostly experience trouble with jQuery effects.
And yes i tried it with disabling my testing server(but normal i realy need this, because i build php based websites).
Also i have the same problem with the inbuild templates.
When i use jquery i experience this trouble the most.
One of the websites where i experience the trouble: http://www.boevewebdesign.com
Details of my testing server http://www.zend.com/en/products/server-ce/index
My computer:
windows 7 ulimate 32 bit
core i7
6 gb ram
thanks

WRT310N - very slow compared to ethernet

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for