| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 6613 | 2000-11-26 09:48:00 | defrag | Guest (0) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 7243 | 2004-11-01 08:18:00 | > I'm having exactly the same problem. I'e turned off > all open applications, etc. exactly as per the > article on p. 64 of the November 2004 issue of PC > World, and tried the suggestion there. However, there > is no Fast Find appearing on my system. > > I can do a thorough disk scan of the System area, but > not of the data area. it keeps on restarting after > about 10%, in the same way. Check out the forum's FAQ section (link top right of this page) for FAQ #34 - Why does scandisk/defrag stop after only 10%? which may be of some help. |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 7244 | 2004-11-01 08:49:00 | i have to admit the faq threads take ages to load, but oh well, overall the site loads damn quick..... 56k freindly, i dont like fourms that are 56k murders | Prescott (11) | ||
| 7245 | 2004-11-01 08:50:00 | > > I think this brainiac is going to prove his > "knowledge" of databases by bouncing a heap of old > threads to the front page. > > Lmao. No that's a bad way to do it but it would still > prove my point. PF1 would slow to a crawl. > > The better way to do it is to request threads 1 - 100 > simultaneously or sequentially and it will slow right > down. Almost similiar to DOS attack. > > Might do it another night, I'm watching K-pax atm. The several posts in this thread from Azsen show a less than helpful approach to PF1, and the put-down on Beetle was out of order. Folk who like to show off a little might find out that there are some very knowledgeable people lurking in this Forum. Be helpful,Azsen and you will be welcome. Cheers anyway. Tony |
TonyF (246) | ||
| 7246 | 2004-11-01 08:55:00 | this Azsen is going to far, im sencing a negative approach here?.... | Prescott (11) | ||
| 7247 | 2004-11-01 20:16:00 | > i have to admit the faq threads take ages to load, They don't take "ages" to load, just a little bit longer than threads a couple of days old due to them slipping a little bit further back in the database. They are certainly much faster loading than they were a couple of months ago anyway - you could go have several coffees while waiting then. ;-) |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 7248 | 2004-11-01 21:36:00 | "So that's why PressF1 is taking 2mins to load, and 30secs to reply to on an 8mbit Jetstream connection".................REALLY ?..........AN 8mbit connection ?..........didn't know there was any connection plans that fast.... | drcspy (146) | ||
| 7249 | 2004-11-01 21:57:00 | > "So that's why PressF1 is taking 2mins to load, and > 30secs to reply to on an 8mbit Jetstream > connection"................ Perhaps it really is 8 millibits.... |
TonyF (246) | ||
| 7250 | 2004-11-01 23:06:00 | I'm on dial-up and posts here only take a few seconds, and I'm way out in the wop-wops. The FAQs are excellent now, used to be virtually unusable. Don't recall anything from the mods about what they did. You could say Megaman's word game degrades the server. Same as OT's, but hey it's all good fun. I've leanrt lots here mostly as a lurker, bugs me that people seem to slip into being snappy so easily.:D |
mark c (247) | ||
| 7251 | 2004-11-02 00:30:00 | Azsen: It's a good idea to think before you post . My point was that three people jumped on a new poster for reviving an old posting . Only one made a helpful hint (even as an afterthought) . They ignored the fact that Ian didn't deliberately revive an old posting to slow the site down . . . :O:D . He used the search function on this site to find references to his problem . He (I think) had a look at the FAQs . The search brought up the old posting . (How else could he find it?) . He used the Reply function . . . easier than making a new posting . He did everything right . So silly people tell him off . And then waste huge amounts of bandwidth arguing about it . If you "think" that a four-year old posting will slow down the site, be happy in your ignorance . Once it has been fetched once, it is cached, with the rest of the thread as long as the thread is active . Anyway, I'm quite sure it's not an antique hierarchically stored database with the oldest data stored on tapes . ;-) Even if it was, the way those are organised, it takes just as long to fetch any record as any other after the first (background) recovery from tape . Databases work like that . Read the bloody rules . Be nice to new posters . Especially don't abuse them for doing the right things . |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 7252 | 2004-11-02 01:02:00 | Hi Graham , my post was intended to be helpful - my correction was after I realised dave barker posted in 2000 and probably wasn't still awaiting a reply ... | KatiMike (242) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||