› Forums › Operating Systems › Windows Server 2008 R2 › Miscellaneous › Server issues
- This topic has 40 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
Anonymous.
- AuthorPosts
-
- 3rd September 2009 at 08:24 #43808
Well I’ve had small issues where as when I play music or a movie, it’ll freeze for like a second or 2. And server uses alot of core. Anyone have any fixes? Thanks
- 3rd September 2009 at 09:49 #49469
what media player do you use?
also tell me more about your system.
and welcome to the site! 😉
- 3rd September 2009 at 09:49 #59280
Anonymous
what media player do you use?
also tell me more about your system.
and welcome to the site! 😉
- 3rd September 2009 at 19:13 #49470
I use mirc for music, wmp, and wmp. My system is HP Dv7t 1000 CTO. 4 gig ram, intel centrino dual core, nvidia 9600GT graphics. And thanks for the welcome.
- 3rd September 2009 at 19:13 #59281
Anonymous
I use mirc for music, wmp, and wmp. My system is HP Dv7t 1000 CTO. 4 gig ram, intel centrino dual core, nvidia 9600GT graphics. And thanks for the welcome.
- 4th September 2009 at 01:36 #49471
This might be cause by excessive thrashing This is when the disk becomes extremely slow becuase it is taking too much resources to keep the application alive and it is not contributing anything. Please see the wiki link below.
other applications running and not doing anything can cause thrashing. Specially after not being messed with for an extended period of time.
WMP11 has alot of what’s called I/O reads. This is normal becuase as of right now my I/O reads for WMP11 are:
I/O Reads:612,003,098 (wmp has been open for 4 days)
commit charge (paging file usage):167,658K
RAM Usage:9,478K (working set)this is kinda like packets transferred. I have one playlist file with 55 hours of music on the “list pane” and another playlist in the library main view that is 6 hours long. WMP has been open since 4 days ago. I normally have it reside as miniplayer mode on the taskbar.
Please see this wiki article on Thrashing becuase this is a very common problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrash_(computer_science)
I have an article here called “windows system resource manager”…. Search for that and then you can find out how to keep the commit charge for programs trimmed to prevent thrashing!
Hope that helps!
- 4th September 2009 at 01:36 #59282
Anonymous
This might be cause by excessive thrashing This is when the disk becomes extremely slow becuase it is taking too much resources to keep the application alive and it is not contributing anything. Please see the wiki link below.
other applications running and not doing anything can cause thrashing. Specially after not being messed with for an extended period of time.
WMP11 has alot of what’s called I/O reads. This is normal becuase as of right now my I/O reads for WMP11 are:
I/O Reads:612,003,098 (wmp has been open for 4 days)
commit charge (paging file usage):167,658K
RAM Usage:9,478K (working set)this is kinda like packets transferred. I have one playlist file with 55 hours of music on the “list pane” and another playlist in the library main view that is 6 hours long. WMP has been open since 4 days ago. I normally have it reside as miniplayer mode on the taskbar.
Please see this wiki article on Thrashing becuase this is a very common problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrash_(computer_science)
I have an article here called “windows system resource manager”…. Search for that and then you can find out how to keep the commit charge for programs trimmed to prevent thrashing!
Hope that helps!
- 4th September 2009 at 02:28 #49472
Well all that really runs and not doing anything is the sidebar.
- 4th September 2009 at 02:28 #59283
Anonymous
Well all that really runs and not doing anything is the sidebar.
- 4th September 2009 at 09:40 #49473
do you leave a web browser open all the time with more then 5 tabs. Belive it or not having those tabs open consumes a TON of commit charge!
The more commit charge is being used the more thrashing you get. A good thing is to get more ram or close some programs. Not much else to totally eliminate thrashing. You could perhaps get a HUGE amount of RAM and disable swap (paging) file all together but that is not recommended.
On my system I got WSRM kicking in to kill the ie process that goes above 500MB commit.
Here’s a screenshot of my iexplore.exe usage to tell you how this is:
- 4th September 2009 at 09:40 #59284
Anonymous
do you leave a web browser open all the time with more then 5 tabs. Belive it or not having those tabs open consumes a TON of commit charge!
The more commit charge is being used the more thrashing you get. A good thing is to get more ram or close some programs. Not much else to totally eliminate thrashing. You could perhaps get a HUGE amount of RAM and disable swap (paging) file all together but that is not recommended.
On my system I got WSRM kicking in to kill the ie process that goes above 500MB commit.
Here’s a screenshot of my iexplore.exe usage to tell you how this is:
- 4th September 2009 at 12:02 #49474
Firefox is especially bad with that because it is all in one process so it will crash all your tabs if you have to end its process because it froze. On this computer I have 256MB of RAM and Firefox can use 117MB+ sometimes 😐
- 4th September 2009 at 12:02 #59285
Anonymous
Firefox is especially bad with that because it is all in one process so it will crash all your tabs if you have to end its process because it froze. On this computer I have 256MB of RAM and Firefox can use 117MB+ sometimes 😐
- 4th September 2009 at 13:00 #49475
and the FF devs said it won’t have multiprocess till at least Q4 2011 or somethin like that!
IE8 FTW!!!!
- 4th September 2009 at 13:00 #59286
Anonymous
and the FF devs said it won’t have multiprocess till at least Q4 2011 or somethin like that!
IE8 FTW!!!!
- 6th September 2009 at 18:36 #49476
Yeah I see now. I have 4 gigs of Ram but I can see what you guys are talking about. My firefox uses 120MB at times. I just close it when I’m not using it. Thanks.
- 6th September 2009 at 18:36 #59287
Anonymous
Yeah I see now. I have 4 gigs of Ram but I can see what you guys are talking about. My firefox uses 120MB at times. I just close it when I’m not using it. Thanks.
- 6th September 2009 at 19:34 #49477
@RemixedCat wrote:
IE8 FTW!!!!
Google Chrome has individual processes, possibly Opera, but no one uses that 😉 I like IE7 because switching tabs is a lot smoother, but there is no IE7 in R2… I’m on Vista so I can use IE7, but IE7 is all one process, so that could be a problem. Ethier way, IE isn’t as much as a memory hog as FF is. I currently have: Win2008workstation.com/forum [this page], another page from the r2 site (tables), Hotmail, Bing and YouTube and IE is using less than 50MB. Firefox would be using 120MB with these tabs.
- 6th September 2009 at 19:34 #59288
Anonymous
@RemixedCat wrote:
IE8 FTW!!!!
Google Chrome has individual processes, possibly Opera, but no one uses that 😉 I like IE7 because switching tabs is a lot smoother, but there is no IE7 in R2… I’m on Vista so I can use IE7, but IE7 is all one process, so that could be a problem. Ethier way, IE isn’t as much as a memory hog as FF is. I currently have: Win2008workstation.com/forum [this page], another page from the r2 site (tables), Hotmail, Bing and YouTube and IE is using less than 50MB. Firefox would be using 120MB with these tabs.
- 6th September 2009 at 19:53 #49478
I wanna use chrome but I was told it isn’t very safe and protected.
- 6th September 2009 at 19:53 #59289
Anonymous
I wanna use chrome but I was told it isn’t very safe and protected.
- 6th September 2009 at 20:40 #49479
I’ve never experienced anything wrong with Chrome, it’s just light-weight and lacks a RSS reader (as of v2 beta anyways)
- 6th September 2009 at 20:40 #59290
Anonymous
I’ve never experienced anything wrong with Chrome, it’s just light-weight and lacks a RSS reader (as of v2 beta anyways)
- 6th September 2009 at 22:20 #49480
chrome may be fast and stuff and have multiprocess, however I do not trust it yet and it won’t load near as many sites as FF and IE do. Yahoo mail has a hissy fit with it and so does LJ.
I kinda want to use it but I have isssues with the sites I frequent so I cannot use it.
IE8 is workin awesome. Just get the extension IEpro and use the adblocking and the flashblock and it works great. flashblock is nice because if you go to a site that has it but you dont need it you don’t need to bog your computer down with it. you can click to restore the flash content you want.
I also use a HOSTS file to block malicious sites and content.
120MB FF usage… ha! Nothing compared to mine. I had 20 tabs on 5 windows (property hunting) each window was a city I was looking in on several realty sites. and I approached 1.5GB!!
Also I maxxed out my tabs at 50 (3 windows)becuase I was powersearching for parts for 10 computers and also casual surfing and looking for a GPS unit and usage was at 1.8GB!!
- 6th September 2009 at 22:20 #59291
Anonymous
chrome may be fast and stuff and have multiprocess, however I do not trust it yet and it won’t load near as many sites as FF and IE do. Yahoo mail has a hissy fit with it and so does LJ.
I kinda want to use it but I have isssues with the sites I frequent so I cannot use it.
IE8 is workin awesome. Just get the extension IEpro and use the adblocking and the flashblock and it works great. flashblock is nice because if you go to a site that has it but you dont need it you don’t need to bog your computer down with it. you can click to restore the flash content you want.
I also use a HOSTS file to block malicious sites and content.
120MB FF usage… ha! Nothing compared to mine. I had 20 tabs on 5 windows (property hunting) each window was a city I was looking in on several realty sites. and I approached 1.5GB!!
Also I maxxed out my tabs at 50 (3 windows)becuase I was powersearching for parts for 10 computers and also casual surfing and looking for a GPS unit and usage was at 1.8GB!!
- 6th September 2009 at 23:02 #49481
@RemixedCat wrote:
flashblock is nice because if you go to a site that has it but you dont need it you don’t need to bog your computer down with it. you can click to restore the flash content you want.
I also use a HOSTS file to block malicious sites and content.
I did this to my IE8 so it blocks Advertisements and keeps legit flash objects.
120MB FF usage… ha! Nothing compared to mine. I had 20 tabs on 5 windows (property hunting) each window was a city I was looking in on several realty sites. and I approached 1.5GB!!
Also I maxxed out my tabs at 50 (3 windows)becuase I was powersearching for parts for 10 computers and also casual surfing and looking for a GPS unit and usage was at 1.8GB!!
This was on my old computer which only had 256mb of ram so I couldn’t really get it too high, I have had loads of tabs though.
- 6th September 2009 at 23:02 #59292
Anonymous
@RemixedCat wrote:
flashblock is nice because if you go to a site that has it but you dont need it you don’t need to bog your computer down with it. you can click to restore the flash content you want.
I also use a HOSTS file to block malicious sites and content.
I did this to my IE8 so it blocks Advertisements and keeps legit flash objects.
120MB FF usage… ha! Nothing compared to mine. I had 20 tabs on 5 windows (property hunting) each window was a city I was looking in on several realty sites. and I approached 1.5GB!!
Also I maxxed out my tabs at 50 (3 windows)becuase I was powersearching for parts for 10 computers and also casual surfing and looking for a GPS unit and usage was at 1.8GB!!
This was on my old computer which only had 256mb of ram so I couldn’t really get it too high, I have had loads of tabs though.
- 6th September 2009 at 23:10 #49482
yesh I knew about the inprivate thing too 😉 Good idea.
I dare you to max your FF! LOLz.
- 6th September 2009 at 23:10 #59293
Anonymous
yesh I knew about the inprivate thing too 😉 Good idea.
I dare you to max your FF! LOLz.
- 6th September 2009 at 23:24 #49483
Maybe I will once I need to answer 20 posts on this forum, 10 on another, and then watch some videos in 3 more and yeah.. I’ll try. Do older versions of FF use more memory by any chance? 😉
- 6th September 2009 at 23:24 #59294
Anonymous
Maybe I will once I need to answer 20 posts on this forum, 10 on another, and then watch some videos in 3 more and yeah.. I’ll try. Do older versions of FF use more memory by any chance? 😉
- 6th September 2009 at 23:42 #49484
I dunno I used the old FF back in the 1.0 days on linux and it was alot more stable and better. it never bloated that much as from 2.0 on. 1.5 was thier sweet spot IMO. FF 3 blows.
I did use 1.5 on windows and it was good. only I couldnt do much online though cause I was on dialup at the time.
but it did not crash near as much as FF 3 does now.
IE8 crashes tabs but that’s mostly when i am on a busy blog with too much bling or on a whole-flash site. Then it recovers and I say nice and cool and calm. FF was making me have a coniption. it happened once while I bought something online and I had to contact them to cancel the order!! I broke a glass over it. I almost lost 200 bucks becuase of that!
- 6th September 2009 at 23:42 #59295
Anonymous
I dunno I used the old FF back in the 1.0 days on linux and it was alot more stable and better. it never bloated that much as from 2.0 on. 1.5 was thier sweet spot IMO. FF 3 blows.
I did use 1.5 on windows and it was good. only I couldnt do much online though cause I was on dialup at the time.
but it did not crash near as much as FF 3 does now.
IE8 crashes tabs but that’s mostly when i am on a busy blog with too much bling or on a whole-flash site. Then it recovers and I say nice and cool and calm. FF was making me have a coniption. it happened once while I bought something online and I had to contact them to cancel the order!! I broke a glass over it. I almost lost 200 bucks becuase of that!
- 6th September 2009 at 23:49 #49485
Back in from (end of)2004/(start of) 2005 – end of November 2008 I was on Dial-up. That was also about the time when FF was version 2 was around. I hated 3 when it came out, mainly because of the new UI. I can say one thing about dial-up, you have lots of time to get a snack while waiting for something 😉
Personally, I like Firefox 3.6a1pre “Minefield” which when I used it a few months ago was basically Firefox 3.5. I just had to download Shockwave because Flash didn’t work.
- 6th September 2009 at 23:49 #59296
Anonymous
Back in from (end of)2004/(start of) 2005 – end of November 2008 I was on Dial-up. That was also about the time when FF was version 2 was around. I hated 3 when it came out, mainly because of the new UI. I can say one thing about dial-up, you have lots of time to get a snack while waiting for something 😉
Personally, I like Firefox 3.6a1pre “Minefield” which when I used it a few months ago was basically Firefox 3.5. I just had to download Shockwave because Flash didn’t work.
- 6th September 2009 at 23:54 #49486
I feel yah on the dail up issue. I got plenty of good naps wating for stuff LOLz. and I kept my house much cleaner 😛
But yah most people it’s a love-hate relationship with browsers.
but IE8 so far has pleased me well. Multiprocess IS THE NEXT SLICED BREAD!
- 6th September 2009 at 23:54 #59297
Anonymous
I feel yah on the dail up issue. I got plenty of good naps wating for stuff LOLz. and I kept my house much cleaner 😛
But yah most people it’s a love-hate relationship with browsers.
but IE8 so far has pleased me well. Multiprocess IS THE NEXT SLICED BREAD!
- 6th September 2009 at 23:57 #49487
Yeah, IE 8 is my default on my other comp, but I am using IE 7 here on my laptop because the tabs are smoother — I may dig up a “beta 1” or “beta 2” copy as it has mixed features 😉
- 6th September 2009 at 23:57 #59298
Anonymous
Yeah, IE 8 is my default on my other comp, but I am using IE 7 here on my laptop because the tabs are smoother — I may dig up a “beta 1” or “beta 2” copy as it has mixed features 😉
- 7th September 2009 at 00:00 #49488
cool let me know how that goes 🙂
- 7th September 2009 at 00:00 #59299
Anonymous
cool let me know how that goes 🙂
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.