When I try to play a backed up dvd, .iso file, with VLC in 11.04 it hangs quite a bit and seems like it's loading something (an orange bar shows up and slowly gets less over the volume) This only happens in VLC on 11.04 but does not happen in GnomeMPlayer when I open the same .iso file.
View 3 RepliesI have two Ubuntus installed. A 10.04 and a 9.04. In 9.04 if I watch a video in Firefox, it works very smoothly and nicely. Using the "top" command, totem-plugin-vi is using the most cpu time at about 16%, and xorg is using about 5%. But in 10.04, totem is using 72% and xorg is using 26%, and it looks really choppy. I think watching DVDs is the same way. I checked "Hardware Drivers" in the System->Administration menu (in 10.04) and it said "No proprietary drivers are in use on this system." I'm guessing maybe I'm using different video drivers on each system, but I don't even know how to check. and here is an excerpt from lspci:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV100 QY [Radeon 7000/VE]
Specs:
AMD Quad Core
8GB RAM
HD3200 ATI Graphics (onboard)
1920*1080 resolution via VGA.
Whenever I play flash video or a video in VLC the pictures seems "choppy" and slow as if it was laggy. What could be causing this? I am guessing its a video issue? Maybe something todo with refresh rates and stuff like that.
I can't seem to watch 576p or 720p files without either VLC tearing and blocking or MPlayer freezing for a few frames, or stuttering. I can't figure out why.
I have a Intel Q6600 and a GTX480 with the latest drivers on OpenSUSE 11.4. Qt 4.7.1
On VLC 1.1.8/1.2.0 I've tried X11 video out, XVideo video out and GLX video out. I've also tried enabling hardware decoding under Advanced > Inputs/Codecs > FFmpeg to no avail.
On MPlayer 0.6.9, I set my cores to 4, and and tried XVideo output and VDPAU output.
Playback works fine but its really juddering and not very smooth compared to windows. I have installed all the latest updates, ATI drivers and the restricted codec pack. I am using the standard video player that comes with Ubuntu.
Ubuntu 11 64bit
ATI Radeon HD 3870 512mb
AMD Athlon X2 6000
A relative of mine who uses Debian 6.0.2 has bought a Samsung HMX-H300 Camcorder which records videos in:
1. H.264 (MPEG4 part10/AVC) format
2. High Definition Video (HD-VIDEO)
3. Standard Definition Video.
I notice that the PC requirement for the camcorder's bundled software, apart from the usual Windows XP SP2/Vista/Windows 7, lists an Intel Core Duo 1.66 minimum CPU and an NVIDIA GeForce 8500 or higher or ATI HD 2600 series or higher.
My relative has an old Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.30GHz computer which only has an AGP GeForce FX 5200 but after copying the videos from the Memory Card to /home it is just about possible to play them using Totem Movie Player and VLC but, although the audio is OK the video is painfully slow or almost stationary.
Is there a way to view the videos recorded in these formats with this hardware? Can they be converted to another format? Or should he consider buying a better computer?
I have good experience in microsoft enviroment, now tiring to use linux, i tried Ubuntu 9.10, OpenSuse on different computers bur there is same big problem: Very slow download speed compared to microsoft.same file at same time downloaded by microsoft winxp toke incomparable short time. for example file 5.5MB attached to e-mail on Yahoo toke ~1minute to download on winxp computer,same file at same computer but with Ubuntu takes more thane 30minutes!
View 3 Replies View RelatedI have installed the recommended driver for my nvidia card (185), and after much fiddling finally got my config file to stick and boot correctly, however I can't see the output of the media player or the DVD player. The files play because I can hear them, but I don't see any output. I have moved the depth to 16 bit, but I still don't get anything.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI tried to play a certain mkv file, AVC AAC, 720, but I got these error messages:
Code:
MPlayer 1.0rc4-4.5.2 (C) 2000-2010 MPlayer Team
Playing [Coalgirls]_Serial_Experiments_Lain_01_(1008x720_Blu-Ray_FLAC)_[F0EF8AF8].mkv.
[mkv] Track ID 1: video (V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC) "Serial Experiments Lain 01", -vid 0
[mkv] Track ID 2: audio (A_FLAC) "2.0 FLAC", -aid 0, -alang jpn
[mkv] Track ID 3: audio (A_FLAC) "2.0 FLAC", -aid 1, -alang eng
[Code]...
Whenever I try to play a divx avi file in VLC it starts up, then shuts down again with no warning or error. Is this a bug in the current version. Kaffeine seems to play files OK. Using Fedora 11.
View 10 Replies View Relatedi have a bit of a problem and it seems i am not alone, google gave me a lot of hits but no solution.i'm running a dual-boot system on my laptop.
ubuntu 9.10 is installed on ext3
windows xp sp3 on ntfs
files are on another ntfs partition
if i want to copy a file (or folder) bigger than 250mb my laptop literally gives up until the file transfer is complete. opening up a terminal via keyboard shortcut gives my an idea how long a ice age can last.this happens with ext3 to ext3; ext3 to fat32; ext3 to ntfs and ntfs to ntfs.today i wanted to backup some files (12GB ~4k files) the first 4gb ran with 20MB/s (all open applications grayed out). after 2h i came back to see that only 6GB where done.
Is there any solution for slow file transfers experienced when copying files to usb in 10.04?
View 2 Replies View RelatedHas anyone else noticed that file transfers on Maverick are significantly slower than on Lucid? A review of Maverick on Tom's Hardware finds that it is considerably slower. My own test says: On 10.10, file copy between two NTFS drives maxes at 30 MBytes/s; on 10.04.1, the same operations clock in at 40 MBytes/s. Both drives are capable of rw speeds of 70-90 MBytes/s, which I got on WinXP, and hdparm's cached read results back that up.
why file transfers are so slow, and especially why Maverick is even slower than Lucid?
I have 8.04.3 server-32bit. It is on an HP 2.3ghz Pent 4 with 512 mb of RAM.I had previously installed Ubuntu and Kubuntu in a dual boot with XP (actually had a triple boot with XP, Ubuntu, and a BETA Windows 7) for a while, Grub got messed up so I ended up wiping it and just put my XP back on it. I have been intimidated by the command line and when thinking server, I tried the 30 day deal with windows Home server, its OK but it's $100.00 for the permenant version.
Anyway, I manned up to the challenge, installed Ubuntu server, set up as SSH and Samba. I administer from PuTTy and WEBMIN, I tried TightVNC but the GUI seemed very useless, so on a reinstall I went headless.The problem is I have alot of MP3 files I want to transfer back to the server that I had previously transfer to and back again from the Windows server, it was sceamin' fast compared to this. I have found threads talking about using NTFS, I have the EX3, or whatever the Ubuntu format is. Could that cause slow transfers, from NTSF through Samba to Ubuntu?
I have a server set up as an NFS share, and the share mounted on my laptop. Using linksys wireless g router and 15mb internet connection. Laptop is on wireless connection and server is wired.While transferring files from the laptop to the server I only get about 55kb/s. Is this normal for wireless g?
View 1 Replies View RelatedFor the past week+ I have been experiencing very slow file transfers, moving files from one HDD to another - both internal, connected with SATA, should anyone care.. When I move any file, regardless of its size, it is moved with 1.1 MB/sec at very best That's a major pain in the behind, even for moving small amounts of data! If anyone could point me in the right direction, or give me a solution
View 9 Replies View RelatedHas anyone else noticed that file transfers on Maverick are significantly slower than on Lucid? A review of Maverick on Tom's Hardware finds that it is considerably slower. My own test says: On 10.10, file copy between two NTFS drives maxes at 30 MBytes/s; on 10.04.1, the same operations clock in at 40 MBytes/s. Both drives are capable of rw speeds of 70-90 MBytes/s, which I got on WinXP, and hdparm's cached read results back that up. Any ideas why file transfers are so slow, and especially why Maverick is even slower than Lucid?
View 9 Replies View RelatedI am trying to move over 1 Terrabyte of files from a two terrabyte drive into my Ext4 drive where Ubuntu 11.04 is installed. The two terrabyte drive is where my winxp used to be and it's currently paritioned into three partitions. I would like to reformat into a single partition that's why I'm moving the files.
When moving the files from the 2Terrabye NTFS partition into the Ext4 partitioned drive, the best transfer rate I could get is 11 megabytes per second. When I transfer from one NTFS drive to another NTFS drive, I could get as high as 70megabytes per second in WinXP. Is there a way to speed up the speed transfer?
Otherwise, the file transfer dialogue says it would take 26 hours to move all the files!!!
Edit: both drives are internal drives connected via a sata II.
I'm trying to set up a fileserver on my 10.04 machine, and access the files from Windows 7 via wifi. I can see everything alright, but the transfer speed to Windows never gets higher than 70KBps. Both computers can access the web at 800+KBps. I've also checked with an OS X machine on the same network, which was also extremely slow, so I'm fairly sure that the problem is on the server's side.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWith Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.0.4 I have seen that the nautilus filemanager is extremely slow with folders that contains many files or/and folders.I made sure that "Assistive Technologies" is diable. On the filemanager preference I set all preview to "Never", tried all possible views, but the filemanager remains extremely slow. It seems like it becomes even slower when the subfolders in the folder you are viewing new files are being created by for example a program. Possibly nautilus filemanager is updating continuously ?
I use to be using debian etch nautilus file manager. With the same directories, nautilus in debain etch was working much faster. But contrary to the one in Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.0.4 is is far less stable. It seems like the newer version is more stable but however extremely much slower. I was wondering if I am missing something. Or whether this is a bug. If it is a bug, then I am wondering when this is going to be solved in nautlius filemanager.
I have connected two computers with each other both having fc installed. Now, when I tried to transfer a file from one computer to another using scp command, sometimes the file transfers very slowly and sometimes very fast. I wana know that why it sometimes transfers slowly. By slow I mean much slower than a file downloaded from a dsl.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWhen I copy files from one partition to another, or from one drive to another, the transfer rates hover around 5-8MB/sec which is kind of slow given that all my hard drives are SATA II. I have the same problem when copying either a single file or a group of files.
I'm running openSUSE 11.2 x64 here (KDE 4.3.5) with three SATA II hard drives that are all formatted with ext3. I have dropped to the CLI and used mv and cp instead - this seems to improve things but I shouldn't have to do this.
I am running Samba on a debian Lenny box on a wireless home network. I find that file transfers to the samba share are very slow. It takes over a minute to copy a 40MB file to the linux box, but only 20 seconds to copy the same file to a windows XP box on the same network.
Anyways, I could use a little direction on how to proceed with this, I'm really not sure where to start,
We have a server and we have instales an Open suse 10.3 on it. We created a Samba server also. Made to share folder, that we acces from network from other computers that have xp.
The problem is if we try to copy from server it is very slow only 100-300kb/s. The strange thing is that if i copy 1 file then its slow but if i start to copy another one the speed gos up to 10-15mb/s. Evry time i want to copy somethin or install from that server i need to start another copy. If i copy from a comp to that server the speed is normal only if i copy from server its slow.
Ok, the only thing I remember doing is changing out my hard drive because it went bad. I swapped in a new one and reformatted with Windows 7. (I can hear the boos and hisses as I type) Anyway, now file transfers are exceedingly slow. They are ~10KB/s when they should be ~40MB/s. The odd thing is that it mostly occurs on large files, but not all large files and sometimes smaller files are affected. Copying files from one hard disc to another on the server, as well as copying from the server to Win7. Local files are not affected. The problem does not occur on my laptop which has Slackware Linux on it.
Another thing about the problem is that when I mount a disc image on a virtual drive, access time is very slow and windows explorer is very unresponsive and often locks up completely.
I have a samba server with Slackware Linux on it and a Windows 7 client. DHCP is configured through dnsmasq. (dhpc-host=<mac address>,<computer name>) Every now and again, dnsmasq seems to conk out when I try to access the network with my Win7 machine. I then have to reboot the server, as my only access to it is via SSH and I don't have a video card in it. After the server reboots everything is fine until accessing the network with my Win7 machine conks it out again.
I've tried different MTU settings, different network cards on the Win7 machine(Dlink and realtek), various regedit hacks, but none of them produce any results.
we got a dell nf600 network storage server which functions as headnode for our little computing-grid and network storage system
i did a normal install of centos 5.4, upgraded to 5.5 and so far there haven't been any problems with one exception:there are 2 harddisk configurations present on the box:
- a raid system where i store all the data with 4TB, mirrored
- a harddrive where the system files are stored
the network access happens via samba and nfs and is fast enough, but when i want to copy something from the raid to the single harddrive or vice-versa, or make some bigger file operations on the raid, the system slows down VERY much and is not responsive at all that there should be some extra-configuration for the filesystem/raid controller/... but i don't know where to start looking i would appreciate it very much if someone could help me further - and i will ofc provide all the configuration files you need for that (i just don't know which ones to post here in the first place)i'm not too lazy to read through some manuals, if you know a good one for setting up a fileserver in centos (with info how to tweak performance)
I've fixed almost everything except this problem. My network card worked fine on Windows but since I switched from Windows, file transfer over the network using my network card is horribly slow, 30kbps max on 100mbps wired connection. I know my network card is working fine, and I'm trying to copy files between my Ubuntu PC and windows PC, I've set up Samba as recommended by these forums, I can transfer files when using wireless connection, but I still can't transfer files at a speed faster than 30kbps on a wired connection.And the funny part is, it's fast when copying files from Ubuntu to Windows but it's slow the other way. And I've tried this with more than 4 different Windows computers.lspci returns this for the network controllerCode:Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 191 Gigabit Ethernet AdapterIs there any way of updating drivers or something that I can do to fix this problem
View 9 Replies View RelatedIt stores all my important stuff, as well as some music and movies.I use a second linux box in my living room to "stream" content via NFS or SAMBA share.The streaming tends to stop several times during playback, and needs to fill up its buffer again before continuing to play.I also have some Windows XP and 7 based computers that connect to this file server.I have noticed that directory listing is VERY slow, and there is a huge lag when I want to save/read a file from/to my home directory.
This is my setup:Ubuntu Server 10.10 64 bit (I have the same problem with 32bit ubuntu)
3 RAID5 arrays with 4 hard drives eachLVM on top of the 3 raid5 arrays.The Logical Volume i use is about 6.5TB, and I use the ReiserFS file systemThis LVM has grown over the years, and has had som replaced disks. So I have used the pvmove, and extend commands a bit.I have tried using IOTop and top to check if there is not enough resources available, but that doens't seem to be the problem.I haven't been able to find out why streaming over the network stops, but I know it is the server that causes the problem.Does ReiserFS have any performance problems with large logical volumes? Would changing to EXT4 or some other FS give any performance gain?
Yesterday pendrives started to misbehave when files are being copied/moved into them: after each major file (like a few hundred megabyte movie) the copying process freezes, stops and doesn't seem to proceed. After a long while (a few minutes), it unfreezes and proceeeds, only to get stuck again on another large file. Thus copying 5 movie files takes half an hour instead of just a few minutes.
The freeze occurs regardless of copying method used: mc (F5), Dolphin, command line cp or mv. During the freeze the process refuses to react to any signals, for example 'killall cp' or 'killall mc' doesn't kill the process, only 'killall -9 mc/cp' works, and also only after a short delay.
This misbehaviour continues across reboots.
What may be the cause of this? Where should I look for the source of the problem or for solution?
This has never occurred before - since I'm on llinux, copying to external devices has always been going smooth and fast. On current Debian this used to be like that as well since install untill yesterday. I don't recall doing anything special to the system yesterday or right before yesterday (I switched from Ubuntu to Debian (squeeze, AMD 64) a week ago).
this is all on LAN.Whenever I transfer files through the router A to a pc connected wirelessly, the internet hit the speed of molasses. What can I do to rememdy this? I was thinking about having my fedora box connect wirelessly to the internet, through router A, and then bridge via ethernet to router B and then have my pc always connected to router B, so when i transfer files, router A remains unaffected. Is this correct logic?
View 1 Replies View Related