Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

DynV

Member
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DynV

  • Rank
    Newbie
  • Birthday 09/01/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://dynv.qc.to/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Montreal, Canada

Computer Information

  • OS
    Windows 7
  • CPU
    Intel
  • RAM
    8GB
  • Storage Size
    500GB – 1TB
  • Graphics Card
    Intel
  1. first, please excuse me if the answer was readily available but I went through all the following query results in vain. I'm using a NetLimiter on Windows 7, which a screenshot is attached, and it works as expected when I actually get a connection to programs/processes. 2/3 of the time, connection don't get through and the difficulties even reach low enough (ISO level) to affect ping (command-line). Ping will sometimes not get through and sometimes do get through although with a pathetic 1st or 2nd reply, effectively getting better, and other times get worse through the ping seeing such behavior, I'm wondering which process, image name or title/label, is responsible for DNS resolving ; so I could set it to high priority. I tried to set a few processes to high (network priority) but my attempts were failures. it's likely either the ones I tried (at high) weren't for DNS resolving or the netlimiter fail to consider DNS ; high = none, normal = some, low = lots. for my process screening I've looked at the process image names in reverse order of total downloaded bandwidth. the context is me using an offline downloader to low (bandwidth) priority, which seem to be the sole responsible for taking so much bandwidth that almost none is left for others. what usually happen using such program is the server bandwidth being lower than my provider maximum speed so I have some left out to do not-so-high internet usage, AKA non-video-streaming. now being on a limited connection, dial-up, I've set that high-bandwidth process to low priority using the netlimiter. I expected normal/high process to have no problem accessing internet just as there was about no other internt usage. the workaround I came up with is to cap the offline downloader, to 2-4 kbps, which leave me 1-3 kbps for other programs. the downside to this is all the time I'm actually not using that little bandwidth (chatting, reading forums, etc.), I'm taking even longer to complete the download. the workaround to the workaround was to keep turning that absolute limit on & off. I'd really like the netlimiter to do as expected, which is imposing relative limits, so I wouldn't have to use absolute ones ; the latter wasting bandwidth or annoying me to switch on & off regularly. I'd appreciate help with bandwidth relative limitation but my main concern ATM is to find which process(es) is/are responsible for DNS resolve. thank you kindly
  2. I have a custom program (batch file) which make daily logs. I keep the original just in case but I use a summary of it which is made from pruning the original file (threough regex & other replacements) making an uncompressed file about the 1/3 of the (original) size. After I created the summary I'd like to compress the original (keeping it just in case, will seldomly be used). I made an archives folder inside the logs folder which I moved 3 (original) file just after (its creation). I then remembered about tweaking with folder properties and seeing comthing about compression ; I checked "Compress contents to save disk space" in Advanced. Curiosity got the better of me and I really wanted to see how it did compared to a "regular" archive file.stumbling on Compression ratio of Windows file compression so I tried the command Compact but I got for result >compact archives\ Listing .\archives\ New files added to this directory will be compressed. Of 0 files within 1 directories 0 are compressed and 0 are not compressed. 0 total bytes of data are stored in 0 bytes. The compression ratio is 1.0 to 1. >dir archives Directory of .\archives 24/03/2012 04:35 PM <DIR> . 24/03/2012 04:35 PM <DIR> .. 21/03/2012 11:59 PM 1,063,983 pinger-60-120321.txt 22/03/2012 11:59 PM 1,232,328 pinger-60-120322.txt 24/03/2012 12:00 AM 1,235,511 pinger-60-120323.txt 3 File(s) 3,531,822 bytes 2 Dir(s) 20,409,688,064 bytes free and as you can see the folder contained files so somethign was wrong with the command I then moved inside the directory and had another try >compact Listing \archives\ New files added to this directory will be compressed. 1063983 : 1063983 = 1.0 to 1 pinger-60-120321.txt 1232328 : 1232328 = 1.0 to 1 pinger-60-120322.txt 1235511 : 1235511 = 1.0 to 1 pinger-60-120323.txt Of 4 files within 1 directories 1 are compressed and 3 are not compressed. 3,531,870 total bytes of data are stored in 3,531,870 bytes. The compression ratio is 1.0 to 1. I then thought it could have been because the files were already there co forced compaction >compact /c /f *.* Compressing files in \archives\ pinger-60-120321.txt 1063983 : 266240 = 4.0 to 1 [OK] pinger-60-120322.txt 1232328 : 307200 = 4.0 to 1 [OK] pinger-60-120323.txt 1235511 : 307200 = 4.0 to 1 [OK] 4 files within 1 directories were compressed. 3,531,870 total bytes of data are stored in 880,688 bytes. The compression ratio is 4.0 to 1. >compact Listing \archives\ New files added to this directory will be compressed. 1063983 : 266240 = 4.0 to 1 C pinger-60-120321.txt 1232328 : 307200 = 4.0 to 1 C pinger-60-120322.txt 1235511 : 307200 = 4.0 to 1 C pinger-60-120323.txt Of 4 files within 1 directories 4 are compressed and 0 are not compressed. 3,531,870 total bytes of data are stored in 880,688 bytes. The compression ratio is 4.0 to 1. but later I moved a new file (original log, not summary) inside the compressed folder but it seem it wasn't compressed >compact Listing \archives\ New files added to this directory will be compressed. 1063983 : 266240 = 4.0 to 1 C pinger-60-120321.txt 1232328 : 307200 = 4.0 to 1 C pinger-60-120322.txt 1235511 : 307200 = 4.0 to 1 C pinger-60-120323.txt 1234703 : 1234703 = 1.0 to 1 pinger-60-120324.txt Of 5 files within 1 directories 4 are compressed and 1 are not compressed. 4,766,573 total bytes of data are stored in 2,115,391 bytes. The compression ratio is 2.3 to 1. Is there comthing I don't understand about NTFS compressed folder? I thought those were folder which added files were automatically compressed. Please help. Thnak you kindly
  3. Hello, I've switch my main applications (email client + browser) themes to dark themes and I'd really like to do the same for the OS, Windows Vista. For Windows style, I'm stuck in 95, very plain ; I didn't like XP blue&green and I don't like the 3D&translucence of Aero ; the only theme I prefer over Windows 95 one is Gnome. I've tried a few themes from DeviantArt but none seemed functional. I thought it may have been because I tweaked my services (as all recent Windows installations) and realized Themes was set to manual so started it but the Theme settings panel would still not function on the downloaded ones ; the only disabled services on this installation are Dnscache, NetTcpPortSharing, RemoteAccess, SSDPSRV, WerSvc & Mcx2Svc and some other services were switched from automatic from manual. So in essence, I want a Vista theme for Windows Classic and I won't turn 3D nor translucence for any reason. Thank you kindly Hmm! I can't seem to find an option for subscription or notification. I'd like to get an email if someone reply. Ah! It was: Follow this topic. Not so obvious.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy