Download Speed High But Download Slow

I noticed that on all my devices - a Macbook Pro, iPhone, Windows desktop -webpages were sometimes taking a long time to load; it was a bit intermittent,but everything from google maps to gmail suddenly got very sluggish. I haveone of their higher tier Internet plans from Comcast, so this was prettydisappointing.

At 57 Mb/s, the download speed was great; however, the upload speed was a mere0.17 Mb/s, which is pretty much unusable. In fact, I had to re-run the testseveral times, as occasionally, the upload portion of the test would get stuckand never complete.

Download Zip 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y7ZC3 🔥

An AMD K7-600 with 128MB of RAM and a 5400 RPM HDD running Windows NT 3.51. This was a machine from the year 1999-2000 with an OS that was about 5 years older than it. Hardware was experiencing really fast improvements back then, particularly in CPU speeds, and you were kinda expected to keep up with the 2-year upgrade treadmill or suffer from incredibly slowness. All this is to say that this machine was indeed overpowered for the OS I used.

Notepad had been a native app until very recently, and it still opened pretty much instantaneously. With its rewrite as a UWP app, things went downhill. The before and after are apparent, and yet&mldr; the app continues to be as unfeatureful as it had always been. This is extra slowness for no user benefit.

Related, but I feel this needs saying: the biggest shock for me was when I joined Google back in 2009. At the time, Google Search and GMail had stellar performance: they were examples to follow. From the inside though&mldr; I was quite shocked by how all internal tools crawled, and in particular by how slow the in-house command line tools were. I actually fault Google for the situation we are in today due to their impressive internal systems and their relentless push for web apps at all costs, which brings us to&mldr;

AD Backend First, I think the default backend for Turing is still forwarddiff, which should be very inefficient for a high-dimensional model like yours. I just tried your model on my laptop with reversediff as the AD backend and progressmeter shows 2:30:16,

The MUSE algorithm gives a Gaussian approximation to the marginal sig posterior, but is very accurate for high-dimensional latent spaces (due to central limit theorem) and is exact up to MC error if the likelihood is Gaussian (your case happens to be both).

I figure maybe the Orbi speedtest tool is slow, but even if i connect a computer to the Orbi Satallite via ethernet cable, i get like 560/700 through the backhaul using speedtest.net on the computer. So i again see a fast upload, but the same "limited" download speed.

Also, i just tried connecting my laptop directly to the Orbi using an ethernet cable and ran speedtest.net. The results were like 475/475. I used the laptop's gigabit dock so it should be fast, but its sort of old so who knows. I did confirm a 1000M/full link in the Orbi admin panel. I should prob go test it directly to the FIOS ONT to see how fast it can go.

Try a factory reset on the RBR, setup from scratch with a wired PC. Do not enable QoS, Traffic Meter, Access Controls or IPv6 on the RBR. Set a different SSID name temporarily to prevent any wireless from connecting. Just the wired PC and the RBR. Do speeds improve any at this point?

OK, any router built in to the ONT can be a factor as well.

If it does happen to have a built in router, configure the RBR50 for AP mode then speed test. You should see near 900Mbps.

I as others have seen this problem, seems that there is a hardware accelleration with in the FW that is not getting enabled or a problem in this area that seems to cause the RBR50 series to not see 900Mbps on the Wan to Lan speed test.

That will exclude anything which could influence download speed: bad cable, some app downloading tons of data, conflict with other devices on your network, switches, etc., etc. You practically going to test X20 on idle network with the network cable that is provided by TP-Link.

I'm a student and for a project I have to use the eQEP module for a TMS320F28335 to measure the speed and position of a linear machine (PMSM). The incremental encoder ouputs the signals with frequencies between 10Hz and 100kHz depending on the speed.

I get the measured speed and position for high and low speeds without a problem. But the speed update rate for high frequencies is too slow.

The update rate is the value of the QUPRD-register divided by the clock. For correct measurements I need at least the period QUPRD=1.500.000 and the clock frequency is 150MHz. That means the DPS calculates every 10ms a new speed value. That is quiet slow. Especially after an index event, when the QPOSCNT-register is resettet to get a reference point for the position (position counter reset on index event [PCRM]=00). If I choose QUPRD much smaller like QUPRD=30000, the measured speed isn't usable at all.

For example (diagram):

The machine drives with 0.4m/s (QEPA and QEPB=20kHz) and it passes an index event/refernce point, the measured speed is 0m/s for 20ms (QUPRD=3.000.000), even when it's a lot faster. The frequencies for the PWM signals are 16kHz, so during the 20ms with no measured speed, the DSP outputs 320 (different) calculated PWM values based on the speed to the inverter. But the values are just wrong.

EQEP module can generally measure signals of quite high frequencies if Unit Timeout Measurement approach is used so ideally there should not be any issue in your case where signals are around 20kHZ. Can you provide more details about your configuration of eQEP, are you using unit time out interrupt i.e. speed calculation occurs after every unit timeout (20 ms in your case) .

It is quite unclear to me what exact problem you are facing. But what I could think of if you are wondering why the first calculation is wrong in the first interrupt then you don't need to worry as this might be possible because by the time unit timeout is configured, there might be some already accumulated position counts but in calculation, "pos_past" is assumed 0 so this could result in some error. So i would suggest you to always ignore the first speed calculation, and monitor the values from second calculation onwards.

14.5 hours is quite long but not unheard of for a long burn. There may be strategies to speed this up. First in tuning your machine for maximum performance and then also in the actual engraving strategy. You may want to start a new Topic with details about that design asking for tips on how to reduce runtime.

It is my goal to do some more writing on speed in the near future, and I hope that this particular blog will give you some thoughts on what might be holding you back in your own speed based endeavors.

Now it is possible the lighting is poor enough that your SS is the determining factor in how fast the continuous speed is. All photographic gear has limits to what it can do. If this is the case you have hit one of those limits. You will need to reduce the exposure requirements some how. This could be a faster lens or kicking the ISO up or a better camera which has better high ISO specs.

Even in high speed continuous mode, with fast moving sports there is going to be a lot of action between frames. Your options are either timing your captures or shooting in video mode and settling for the lower resolution video frames as still captures.

With high school football, the problem often becomes greater because poor field lighting may force lower than optimal shutter speed resulting in reduced capture rate in high speed mode. I use f2 and f2.8 glass for HS sports which allows me to maintain 1/1000 shutter speeds with reasonable ISO for 1DX series bodies even on poorly illuminated fields but using "slower" glass and/or a body less high ISO friendly can easily force a shutter speed slow enough that the camera cannot maintain its rated maximum capture rate.

I use 1DX III bodies for sports and they are set to 16 FPS in high speed capture but if I relied upon just shooting at high continuous rate, it would still be a low percentage of specific contact shots. Most of my captures at sports events are from quick shutter presses resulting in single frame captures at the right time. Once you gain experience with the sport and the specific shutter release lag of your camera body, timing becomes pretty easy.

But for kicking, the moment of contact with the ball often doesn't result in the best photo and typically more interesting is the "power pose" of the player with kicking leg back preparing to make contact or with the kicking leg follow through with the ball still in frame. My daughter was recruited from soccer to do kickoff, field goal, and point after for the football team during her sports shortened Covid junior year of high school. The first two photos were captures of foot to football contact using precise timing and I captured several of those during the season but I preferred images captured before and after contact which I think better present the power of the kicker.

The weird thing is that straight from the switch over ethernet I can pull 99mbit up and down no problem. I can do the same plugging in another 3P router like an Asus into the switch. I go 20 feet away and get on a solid Wifi signal through a Meraki AP and i get 50mbit down (spikes higher here and there but nothing consistent) and 95mbit up. So its not like the link can't handle it. I looked at the channel utilization and all are "very low" as there are maybe 30 people here at any given time using very light internet - mail, iMessage, some internet. There is no conceivable reason we should be seeing such low download. And its consistent around the property - in an area where signal to a MR74 (gateway) is strong and good its about that 1:2 ratio, same for when I get on a repeater a ways away, it may be 10 down 20 up but that 1:2 ratio is pretty consistent.

I had heard that maybe my radios were overpowering my clients? I have it all set to auto on the APs. My clients are a mix of modern Apple portables and iOS devices which have no trouble elsewhere. 006ab0faaa