Slow write on a CD - R

Similar Questions

• SSD on MPB early 2011 (13 inches) slow write speed

  Hey all,.

  I installed an SSD Crucial of MX300 in my MPB 2011 (13 inches). I get that I have probably will not hit the read/write 510/510, said the player, but right now I get only a writing speed of 240 vs a reading of 470.

  Any ideas on why it's so slow?

  Thank you.

  What is it connected to internally? If we replace the optical drive, then it may be because it's a 3 Gb/s bus rather than the primary drive SATA 6 GB/s bus connects to.

  Do you have your repartition and reformat the SSD drive before using it? It is not unusual to see some write speeds slower than reading speeds. The MX300 is a new economic model that may be slower than expected in real use.

• Slow writes PERC H700 and Samsung 850 PRO SSD

  I saw several posts about this, but don't see a solution.

  I have a few servers R710 with H700 controllers. I have installed Samsung 1 TB SSD Pro 850 and see writing very slow compared to other performance SSD tested in one box, simply slow in general. SAMSUNG SSD are ~ 500 MB/s in both sense when connected to the stand-alone desktop computer, but ~ 500 MB/s read and ~ 45 MB/s, writes when it is connected to a server.

  1. 1 x SSD in RAID 0 - no redundancy, just to test the performance. I tried all combinations of memory cache writeback and read before possible setting (enabled, disabled) and has never had more than ~ 45 MB/s, writing.

  2. 6 x SSD in RAID 5 with all possible combinations of never getting write cache over ~ 110 MB/s, writing.

  3. 6 x SSD in RAID 10 yet one time all possible settings of the writeback cache - ~ 140 MB/s.

  Finally, I installed 120 GB Intel SSD and got more than 400 Mbps in both directions without worrying about the RAID or cached.

  What is the problem with the H700 and Samsung SSD controllers? No one knows how to fix?

  Any other R710 compatible controller, which do not have this problem? Might be able, JBOD? I also tried a stop the controller PCIe Board without a bit of luck (bottom of basket or any compatibility issues)

  Thanks in advance.

  P. S.

  The controller is a latest firmware and the BIOS and other components. Used Dell Repository Manager iDRAC discovery and the ISO bootable to update everything.

  SAMSUNG SSD are on a latest firmware as well.

  Hello.

  The Samsung 850 Pro SSD are not validated or certified to work with controllers from Dell, and as such, there is an incompatibility of communication between readers and the controller at the firmware level. Thus, you are required to achieve the unexpected poor read and write performance regardless of the controller cache settings. Consider using Dell certified readers.

  Thank you.

• slow writes - nfs datastore

  Greetings.

  I note that some write throughput problems I see with a based NFS datastore. Seems I'm not the only one who is seeing this, but so far have given little information in making it better.

  Try the update of ESXi V4 1 on a Poweredge T110 with 4 GB of memory, xeon X 3440 CPU and 1 250 GB sata drive.

  The NFS is based datastore served a machine of OpenSUSE 11.2 on a network of 1000Mb and speed and duplex has been verified to be correctly set on both machines.

  Initially I converted a server image OpenSUSE 11.2 VMware VMware ESXi server (12 GB) in a based NFS data store. It worked, but was incredibly slow, medium flow 2.7 MB/sec.

  Once, I found 3 MB/s writing was everything that I have the NFS datastore using jj. I tried both leave within the virtual machine and also in the ESXi console to the same store location.

  Performance of network using iperf, shows ~940mb/s between the virtual machine and the NFS server so when drives are out of the way, the net is doing well.

  I ended up changing the following advanced settings to see if it is any kind of problem memory buffer;

  NFS.maxvolumes to 32

  NET.tcpheapsize to 32

  NET.tcpheapmax to 128

  Which seem to help, access write from the virtual machine to the NFS data store went from 3 MB/s to 11 MB/s - 13 MB/s. So, there is certainly some slowdowns self-imposed via the default settings are defined.

  Tried to mount the NFS datastore even directory directly as / mnt in the virtual machine hosted and low and write to/mnt watch throughput ~ 25 Mbps. do the same exact command to another linux only box on the same network that I see about the same rate with the stand-alone server see about 2 MB/s more so no problem there.

  I suspect that there may be other elements in which the ESXi NFS based datastore is 50% less efficient than straight NFS. Have other any golden treats to try to obtain the ESXi storage NFS write speed up to something similar to what can be done with native NFS mounted in the virtual machine?

  TIA

  Check the mounting options on underlying partition, for example by the file system,

  -ext3 - rw, async, noatime

  -xfs - rw, noatime, nodiratime, logbufs = 8

  -reiserfs - rw, noatime, data = writeback

  Then export options use (rw, no_root_squash, async, no_subtree_check)

  Check that the IO Scheduler is correctly selected based on underlying hardware (use a rewrite if material noop).

  Increase the NFS threads (if 128) and Windows TCP to 256K.

  Finally ensure comments partitions are 4K aligned (this should not affect sequential performance well).

  I worked on a few notes on NFS, which cover all of this (not complete yet): http://blog.peacon.co.uk/wiki/Creating_an_NFS_Server_on_Debian

  HTH

  http://blog.peacon.co.UK

  Please give points for any helpful answer.

• Slow network performance

  Hello. Since version 6.4.0 I have very slow write speed. Now I launch last 6.4.2 RC1 and I have the same problems. My antivirus is disabled because I bought my readynas. While I can copy ReadyNAS with speed 20-30mbps under gigabit lan when I try to write something via lan I get 5-7mbps speed. Is there a solution? I must say that before 6.4.0 version I've had close read and 70mbps write speeds!

  Mastoul wrote:

  No I don't because it worked before, so I didn't touch it.

  Try without regrouping and see if the behavior changes.

• Very slow running disk check

  I use checkdisk on an external HARD drive and it took a day to process files only 32. Win7-64, Sony VAIO. The problem of the Moose was a very slow write speed (less than 100 KB/s, normally runs at 10 ~ 20 MB/s). Should I abandon the chkdsk? Thank you

  I use checkdisk on an external HARD drive and it took a day to process files only 32. Win7-64, Sony VAIO. The problem of the Moose was a very slow write speed (less than 100 KB/s, normally runs at 10 ~ 20 MB/s). Should I abandon the chkdsk? Thank you

  Your disk defragmentation.
  You get the unusual noises coming from the hard drive?

• Memory card recommendation

  I'm about to get a 5 d Mark III and am looking for a recommendation on the memory cards. I remember reading that the Mark III wrote to the slower speed of 2 cards.  Is this correct?

  I'll use the camera for General, non-professional photos.

  Steve F

  The CF card slot is a slot of UDMA7 (it is very fast).  But the extremely fast technology for SD cards is called UHS1 and the SD card on a 5 d III is not a location of UHS1.

  The standard of UHS1 was very new to roughly the time that the 5 d III is released, so depending on when all the engineering on this body has been finalized (well before it goes into mass production) if the standard of UHS1 was not far enough along, we understand why the 5 d III didn't.  Each Canon EOS camera that came out since (which uses SD cards) using UHS1 technology.

  But this isn't the weird bit.  The weird bit is, several photographers say have tested this (I didn't) and demand, is that even if you configure the 5 d III to write exclusively in the slot for CF card and ignore the SD slot, simply having an SD card inserted into this cause slow write speed (it slows down at a speed "as if" he wrote in the DD even if he is ignorant of the SD card.)  I can only imagine that they are both connected to the same "bus" IO and Canon slows the bus for the lowest common denominator, if the SD card is present.

  These photographers argue that if you're shooting fast action photography, eject the SD card and only use a CF UDMA7 card - and your writing will finish faster so your camera erases the fast internal buffer and is therefore ready to fire executives earlier.

  I have not checked myself and have not read all the articles that display specific data (how many continuous burst for RAW images I can shoot with just a CF card, vs a CF and SD card times in camera before the buffer fills and the framerate slows down.?)

• DVD Burner problem

  I'm writing a DVD mastered with data. He is preparing to go, and then tells me "There was an error burning disc."  I then put in another disc and it never passes the validation errors entry screen. I bought another brand of DVD media and also a new DVD burner. I put the slow write speed as I can.

  Hello FarmBoy59,

  I suggest that you run the fixit by following the link below. This will automatically diagnose and repair problems with your CD or DVD drive when trying to read or burn media:

  http://support.Microsoft.com/GP/cd_dvd_drive_problems

  If this does not work, I suggest that you follow the steps in the link below:

  http://support.Microsoft.com/kb/314060

  Important: This section, method, or task contains steps that tell you how to modify the registry. However, serious problems can occur if you modify the registry incorrectly. Therefore, make sure that you proceed with caution. For added protection, back up the registry before you edit it. Then you can restore the registry if a problem occurs. For more information about how to back up and restore the registry, click on the number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:

  322756 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322756/) how to back up and restore the registry in Windows

  Thank you
  Irfan H, Engineer Support Microsoft Answers. Visit ourMicrosoft answers feedback Forum and let us know what you think.

• Try to burn images on a cd to make them playable on home dvd player. the computer will burn on the cd and the images will not play on a DVD player? any help would be great.

  Try to burn JPEGs on a cd in "master" mode to make them playable on standard dvd players. the computer will burn on the cd and the images can be viewed on another computer, but cannot be viewed on a DVD player? any help would be great.

  Hello Lackyboi,

  ·         How you try to burn the pictures on your CD?

  ·         What is the burning software CD that you use to burn the discs?

  I suggest you burn your photos using Windows Media Player.  You can read this article which will give you information on burning media with Media Player:

  http://Windows.Microsoft.com/en-us/Windows-Vista/burn-a-CD-or-DVD-in-Windows-Media-Player

  1. in Windows Media Player, on the Tools menu, click Options.

  2. in the Options dialog box, on the devices tab, click the name of the reader of CD - R or CD - RW you use and then click on the properties button.

  3. in the Properties dialog box, under the recording tab, select a slower write speed.

  Thank you
  Irfan H, Engineer Support Microsoft Answers. Visit our Microsoft answers feedback Forum and let us know what you think.

• How do to the size of the log buffer reduce with huge Pages Linux

  Data sheet:

  Database: Oracle Standard Edition 11.2.0.4

  OS: Oracle Linux 6.5

  Processor: AMD Opteron

  Sockets: 2

  Carrots / power outlet: 16

  MEM: 252 GB

  Current SGA: GB 122 automatic shared memory (EAMA) management

  Special configuration: Linux huge Pages for 190 GB of memory with the page size of 2 MB.

  Special configuration II: The use of the LUKS encryption to all drives.

  Question:

  1. How can I reduce the size of the log buffer? Currently, it appears that 208 MB. I tried to use log_buffer, and it does not change a thing. I checked the granule size is 256 MB with the current size of the SGA.

  Reason to reduce:

  With the largest size of log buffer the file parallel write newspaper and the synchronization log file is averaged over 45 ms most of the time because she has dumped a lot of stuff at the same time.

  Post edited by: CsharpBsharp

  You have 32 processors and 252 GB of memory, so 168 private discussions, so 45 MB as the public threads size is not excessive.  My example came from a machine running Oracle 32-bit (as indicated by the size of 64 KB of threads private relative to the size of 128 KB of your son) private with (I think) 4 GB of RAM and 2 CPUs - so a much smaller scale.

  Your instance was almost inactive in the meantime so I'd probably look outside the Oracle - but verification of the OS Stats may be informative (is something outside the Oracle using a lot of CPU) and I would like to ask you a few questions about encrypted filesystems (LUKS).  It is always possible that there is an accounting error - I remember a version of Oracle who report sometimes in milliseconds while claiming to centisecondes - so I'll try to find a way to validate the log file parallel write time.

  Check the forum for any stats activity all over again (there are many in your version)

  Check the histogram to wait for additional log file writes event (and journal of file synchronization - the lack of EPA top 5 looks odd given the appearance of the LFPW and and the number of transactions and redo generated.)

  Check the log file to track writer for reports of slow writes

  Try to create a controlled test that might show whether or not write reported time is to trust (if you can safely repeat the same operation with extended follow-up enabled for the author of newspaper which would be a very good test of 30 minutes).

  My first impression (which would of course be carefully check) is that the numbers should not be approved.

  Concerning

  Jonathan Lewis

• ESXi5 - problems with NFS and the data copy store

  Hello world

  I recently moved into a solution fully virtualized for my network, 3 x 5 ESXi servers running on our GigE network.

  First of all, I use all free software from VMware, so vCentre etc is out of the question.

  I have major problems when you try to copy files between:

  • NAS (NFS) to ESXi 5 host
  • ESXi host to the NAS (NFS) 5
  • And using VMware converter between ESXi 5 hosts converter Standalone

  The problem is that whenever I'm transfer between hosts I am struck with the horrible network performance. Even if I use GigE adapters and switches between my hosts I will receive no more than 12 Mbps speed of transfer real (100 Mbit/s connect?).

  On the flipside, if I use virtual guests on the same exact host I can happily transfer data between my NAS (NFS) servers with speeds between 60-150MBps ~ (1000 Mbps).

  Examples:

  Speed of 10 Mbps of transfer of ESXi_1 copy OF NFS data store share ~

  Server2008 (comments, located on ESXi_1) copy OF NFS 75MBps transfer rate ~.

  Server2011 SBS (comments, located on ESXi_2) copy OF Windows share 2008 (ESXi_1) transfer speed 120MBps. ~

  ESXi_2 copy OF NFS data store share transfer rate 5MBps ~.

  Attached (wtf.png) example:

  I copy a file that is located on our NFS share first, it's a 3 GB file to the copy within guest OS (2008), it is indicated in blue - top speed of 80MBps

  I copy the same exact NFS share for the host (datastore1), this is indicated in red - top speed of 7.5Mbps

  The third transfer/s (green) is between the customers of windows on different hosts, transfer a 6 GB file as well as a copy of the 360 MB file - transfers two happily send to GigE speeds with a peak around 40MBps

  I can reflect these results across the three servers without modification. Copies between you will be able to run well enough (not exactly 100% use of GigE) but at the moment where I try to do something to the data store it will just choke at all about a 100 Mbps connection speed.

  The final image (wot.png) confuses me beyond belief. I would try to explain what is happening here:

  • This image shows two times the same exact file transfers, except even machine PHYSICS
  • The first (red) transfer between the ESXi_2 host server and the NFS share using the browser data store and direct download - its top speed is around 8MBps
  • The second (green) transfer between a guest server 2008 running on ESXi_2, download the same file exactly at the exact location using vSphere Client. I mean the same EXACT file; It connects to the NFS drive by the data store ESXi_2 (NFS share).

  Why on earth can my comments directly download a file on a data store connected to NFS GigE clocked and yet the same exact host cannot go anywhere near corresponding to these speeds?

  As indicated in the title, the problem seems to happen whenever I use ESXi datastore browser on the host computer using vSphere Client or between browser datastore ESXi to/from an NFS share.

  No one knows what might happen?

  Is there some sort of restriction on the transfer of files between a host and shared NFS ESXi 5? Whence this bottleneck?

  Thanks in advance for all the help/ideas that guys can throw my way.

  P.S. Sorry for the wall of text, I really wanted to give as much information. as possible.

  What type of storage you have locally on the host computer?

  I have seen this problem with write-through controllers: http://wahlnetwork.com/2011/07/20/solving-slow-write-speeds-when-using-local-storage-on-a-vsphere-host/

• laptop - hard drive & RAM installation tips

  Hello

  I customize a new laptop for video editing and after reading the thread "'generic guideline for the configuration of disk", I decided to replace the optical Bay and install a third hard drive. "

  My idea is to install the operating system and programs on the mSATA SSD. However, the available SSD isn't a great write speed. This 'slow' write speed compromise the performance of the system?

  I have the possibility to replace the mSATA for a faster, however, with only 120GB (120 GB Kingston SSDNow mS200 mSATA (up to 550 MB/sR: 520 MB/sW))

  Or would it be better to replace one of the HDD for a faster SSD?

  Regarding the RAM is enough 16 GB? where do I go to 32 GB?

  Thanks for the tips.

  SYSTEM:

  Processor

  Intel® Core™ i7 Quad Core Mobile Processor i7-3840QM (2.80 GHz) 8 MB

  RAM

  16GB 1333 MHz MEMORY (2 x 8 GB) DDR3 SODIMM SAMSUNG

  mSATA SSD

  MSATA of Crucial M4 256 GB Solid State Drive (up to 500 MB/sR: 260MO/sW)

  Hard drive

  750 GB WD SCORPIO BLACK WD7500BPKT, SATA 3 Gb/s, 16 MB CACHE (7200 RPM)

  2nd hard drive

  750 GB WD SCORPIO BLACK WD7500BPKT, SATA 3 Gb/s, 16 MB CACHE (7200 RPM)

  The kingston HyperX is very good, but the mS200 mSATA uses the SandForce controller, in contrast with the Plextor using the Marvell controller. In general the SSD with a controller SF is more prone to the 'stable state' performance degradation than SSD with Marvell controller. However, given that this is only for OS & programs, degradation of Scripture is not so important, it will be used mainly to read, not write. If the choice is between Kingston and keep your warranty or the Plextor and voiding your warranty, I would choose the Kingston, also because the write performance is not so important on your startup disk.

• Wireless AC slow (and different) read/write speeds

  Hi all

  I just bought a new Mac Mini and unfortunately it is too far from my media server to run an ethernet cable (I just moved) so I use an Airport Extreme (new model with AC Protocol).  But the read speeds seem to be slow I can't broadcast some movies from high on the server bandwidth.  I tested the speed of transfer, and it seems that I get the following:

  READ: 24 MB/s (or 192 MB/s)

  WRITE: 8 MB/s (or 64 Mb/s)

  Can someone explain to me why these speeds are not the same?  And should not be a lot faster?  I get full signal and I joined technical details if this helps to explain anything. I would like to know what speeds you guys get with your Airport Extreme.

  Thank you!

  

  How far is your Mac to your server?

  There the walls or something in the line of fire?

  Have you tried the 2.4 GHz connection instead?

• XP SP3 reinstall slower computer performance, a lot of hang ups, delayed write failed and bsod.

  Hi everyone;

  Thank you all very much for putting time and effort to help as many people. I thought I was opening first with a receipt.

  I'm very tired on my computer. I already spent days and days trying to solve a lot of questions. Literally, my computer has been hindering my work since the middle of January!

  I have a Dell Dimension 4700 Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00 GHz 2.99 Ghz and 3.25 GB of Ram, with a Hitachi 500 GB HDS721050CLA362 as the main disk (Disk0) and a Seagate 1 TB ST31000528AS secondary storage (disk 1) with Windows XP SP3 disk. I have insalled all updates (including frame work 1.1 windows.net, 2 something etc).

  I have avast antivirus and it is always kept up to date as well as ad-aware and anti malware malbyte.

  I recently bought a BlacX Thermaltake Docking Station and 2 TB Hitachi 3.5 car as well. I try to have 2 backups of my work, because I lost valuable data in the past.

  Initially, I had only 2 GB of Ram, but I knew that my computer could handle 4 GB because I have confirmed these specifications with the people of Dell who assembled to the machine. Right now I have 4 GB of ram, as confirmed in the menu setup.

  I also originally had a Maxtor 80 GB disk0 and disk1 No.

  I opted to replace the Maxtor 80 GB because it is 6 years old already and I run Adobe CS4 production Premium. I thought that 500 GB would suit my OS & important programs and large temporary files that they generate.

  When I reinstalled the operating system on the Maxtor I had formatting problems. It hangs at 94% or I would get a BSOD on start up. Then I used the 500 GB HDD and ran the Installation of XP on it and was fine.

  I used it for a week, but I noticed his incredibly slow, despite having all this ram and a clean operating system installation.

  I am also BSOD when I launch the antivirus OR when I try to copy files from one HD to another (of the primary transmission on the slave drive OR the disk from 2 TB to dock, or from disk on the drive connected slave or the slave on the primary drive drive). Other times I'll take an absurd copy for a file time relatively small i.ye. a 300 MB file will suddenly be more than an hour to copy.

  I have run diagnostics and diskscan and receive nothing wrong. Windows finished 'control' the disc and not tell me that something was wrong. I look at the disk management tool, and all readers "(healthy)" next to them.

  The skeptic in me feels like this happens when I install the updates of the .net framework. I already reinstalled OS two times.

  Isn't .net important features of the machine?

  I'm so lost in this and I spend most of my days Googling solutions and try to implement them without result. I've disabled "write cache" and reactivated it. I went through a bunch of procedures aimed at preventing the failure of writeback. I do not have any type of file sharing software or torrents on my machines at all and I do not share my files. My firewall is on.

  All that I know, I did everything by the book and to the letter, so I feel like my computer could run surprisingly, not like I have a lemon and I'm terrified that I'll lose all my work despite the fact that I have enough space to save all of the universe.

  Thanks again for all your help! It is really appreciated in advance and always.

  PEI

  I ended up reinstalling the operating system again, it works fine now. But it was very very weird. Thank you very much to try to advise me, I know that it was a complicated issue.

  See you soon
  PEI

• Sharing network of Windows 7 64-bit problem: other machines may very well write, but the readings are extremely slow.

  I tried to access to the shared both directory a Vista and XP machine via cable connections and wireless to my Win 7 64 bit machine on the part and it is extremely slow to read, but not written.  Not only the directory never takes show all thumbnails, and then open a file that is a couple mb in size as a photo takes more than a minute.  However, if I try to write the same file sharing, it takes only 5 seconds.  This fine all worked until I went from the version release candidate for the final version a few weeks ago.  Shared directories exist on another partition for the relocation does not have their effect.

  Maybe it helps diagnose the problem... I just make a copy of a picture of 4 MB on the part of win 7 on my win xp desktop and it took about 1 minute.  I renamed the file on my desktop and tried to write to the share and it took 5 seconds .  Now, it's strange.  So, this is the bed that would take forever.  The Scriptures are fine, which also explains why my nightly backups on the part of win7 are very good.

  I have a machine to hit the share by using the name of the computer and the other using the ip address.  Both show the same problem...

  I also tried to access files using a mapped network drive.

  I can take a 4 MB file and just copy it on my local desktop and it takes about a full minute.  However, written the same file or even another file of the same size as the part only takes about 5 seconds.

  I ran the Windows 7 network troublshooter last night and used the troubleshooter for incoming connections and he says that it found a problem but that he could not fix and he really had nothing to help me.  But I think he sent the information in Microsoft... not sure.  Next time, I'm at home, I'll run again and try to put all the gross results that I could not understand in this thread.

  I've also updated my driver for the network card and redone permissions and actions several times.  The only thing that I can also say that something can highlight, it is that when I was using the RC of windows 7, I don't have this problem at all.  It was my first installation of Windows 7.  I reinstalled from the final version and all of these files already exist on another partition on the same drive.  I just had to move my public and directories user space on the D: partition and share everything.  Maybe the new facility with something on the existing structures of the file works well with the new facility of the former?  But this does not explain why a new directory and file that create displays the same behavior.  I'm thinking out loud a bit to see if it helps that anyone think that anything...

  I thought about it!

  At least for me, it was a setting in the Advanced tab of the network adapter.  I have a Realtek Gigabit network card and one of the places must have been missed incorrectly.

  I changed the 2 following settings to "disabled", and he immediately started working very well.

  Disabled IPv4 Checksum Offload
  People with disabilities large send Offload (IPv4)

  I have a suspicion that among recent updates of Microsoft for this driver he missed bad... but it was this or the latest driver from Realtek.

  Update:

  In other research I have narrowed it down to make it just the Large Send Offload value.  Is located on "activated" whenever I update the driver Realtek to the latest version.  If I then go and set it to "Disabled", everything works fine.