Long time to copy web page to UR

[ferp_ferp]

Hi,

I find the 'copy to Ultra Recall' really useful in IE and Firefox. However, it routinely takes 30-45 seconds to complete the process - sometimes longer. Even the 'copy link to UR' takes about 20 seconds. Even simple pages take this long.

I've seen another post on this topic, but no resolution. Should it take this long? I have a fast PC (3ghz dual core, lots of memory).

Any idea why this should be the case?

Many thanks.

[quant]

please give an example of the website a state how long it took to link and to store (and please state whether you are indexing). The least we can do is to compare ...

[ferp_ferp]

OK, so I copied this page (as in, this forum post) with Firefox.

First time it got to 120 seconds and still hadn't finished but I noticed my anti-virus was churning away a bit so I cancelled the copy and disabled my anti-virus (Kaspersky 7). It then took 38 seconds.

To send a link to UR was much quicker - 5 seconds. I guess it normally takes longer when I have the anti-virus enabled.

But still, 38 seconds is still a long time for a small page, even when the anti-virus turned off (which I obviously don't want to do if I can help it). It is just as slow with IE.

I used to use Windows Onecare and it was similarly slow to copy and link.

I'm using UR 3.2.1 and database size is 22mb. I compacted it this morning.

I assume that the anti-virus is causing part of the slow-down then, but why would it still be quite slow when the AV is turned off?

[quant]

old 1.6 pentium centrino with 1GB RAM:

4 seconds to store (with indexing, 176 keywords)
<2 to link

Antivirus: Nod32 running

[kinook]

Originally posted by ferp_ferp
OK, so I copied this page (as in, this forum post) with Firefox.

First time it got to 120 seconds and still hadn't finished but I noticed my anti-virus was churning away a bit so I cancelled the copy and disabled my anti-virus (Kaspersky 7). It then took 38 seconds.

To send a link to UR was much quicker - 5 seconds. I guess it normally takes longer when I have the anti-virus enabled.

But still, 38 seconds is still a long time for a small page, even when the anti-virus turned off (which I obviously don't want to do if I can help it). It is just as slow with IE.

I used to use Windows Onecare and it was similarly slow to copy and link.

I'm using UR 3.2.1 and database size is 22mb. I compacted it this morning.

I assume that the anti-virus is causing part of the slow-down then, but why would it still be quite slow when the AV is turned off?
UR uses the same underlying APIs as IE to retrieve web pages, so if IE is slow it makes sense that UR is also slow. The solution would be to determine why IE is slow (http://www.google.com/search?esrch=BetaShortcuts&q=ie%20slow%20web%20page%20load) and fix that.

[ferp_ferp]

Hmm, OK. So does UR use the same API when I copy from Firefox?

Aside from that, I don't find IE to be slow at all. It renders pages as quickly as I would expect - ie. with very little delay.

Originally posted by ferp_ferp
But still, 38 seconds is still a long time for a small page, even when the anti-virus turned off (which I obviously don't want to do if I can help it). It is just as slow with IE.


Anything else I can try? Is there some logging I can switch on?

[kinook]

1) Exit UR
2) Download and extract http://www.kinook.com/Download/test.zip to the UR installation path
3) Start UR
4) Perform the steps that result in the slow import
5) ZIP and send %TEMP%\ks_trace.txt (literally type %TEMP% into a Windows Explorer address bar to navigate there) to support@kinook.com

Thanks.

[ferp_ferp]

Done and done.

[kinook]

Standard Windows internet API (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa385473.aspx) calls are very slow on your system (200 to 4000 milliseconds vs. 1 to 2 milliseconds in our tests). I'm not sure what would be causing that. Here are some possibilities:
http://www.google.com/search?q=internetconnect%20slow

[ferp_ferp]

Hmm, thanks for the response. I don't know why either. I had Kaspersky completely turned off when I did the trace file.

The link above just goes to a list of WinInet functions - is it the right link?

Thanks.

[kinook]

That was the wrong link. It's fixed now.

[ferp_ferp]

OK, thanks. I don't have a slow internet connection in general however. As I said in my mail, I routinely get 500K/s download speeds and pages load quickly in IE and FF.

Maybe it's a Vista issue, maybe not. I guess I've lived with it this long I can live with it a bit longer.

[bookman]

Originally posted by ferp_ferp
OK, thanks. I don't have a slow internet connection in general however. As I said in my mail, I routinely get 500K/s download speeds and pages load quickly in IE and FF.

Maybe it's a Vista issue, maybe not. I guess I've lived with it this long I can live with it a bit longer.

Frankly, I cannot understand it the slow copy either

See below which is from an earlier thread which is contrasting UR webpage copy speed with two other programs :


Kinook Software Forums - Why does Ultra Recall take so much longer to save a webpage ?
"Why does Ultra Recall take so much longer to save a webpage ?

Besides Ultra Recall, I use two other program to capture webpages. I'm actually trying to settle on 1 or 2 but not using all 3.

Ideally, I would like to stick with just 1 and hopefully I would like to settle on just using Ultra Recall.

And both these other programs are much faster at the webpage captures.

For example, it may take Ultra Recall a full 12 full seconds, Program A, 1 sec and Program B 3 secs.

Program A also indexes the captures and I can search for the article instantaneously.

Program B also indexes the captures except that it does not do instantaneous search. I have to type the keyword and hit enter.

I'm just plain curious - Why the big difference ?"
http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2926

[kinook]

Most likely, it is the same issue (standard Windows internet API calls returning very slowly). UR has no control over how quickly those function calls return. I'm not sure what would be causing it. Perhaps some security software is singling out UR and causing the slow behavior.

[bookman]

Originally posted by kinook
Most likely, it is the same issue (standard Windows internet API calls returning very slowly). UR has no control over how quickly those function calls return. I'm not sure what would be causing it. Perhaps some security software is singling out UR and causing the slow behavior.

But the point I'm trying to make is that the other two programs do it much faster and in fact one of them which also uses a Button on the Explorer bar is the quickest of the lot - almost instantaneous whether from IE or Firefox itself.

[jjinwi]

Originally posted by bookman
But the point I'm trying to make is that the other two programs do it much faster and in fact one of them which also uses a Button on the Explorer bar is the quickest of the lot - almost instantaneous whether from IE or Firefox itself.


Exactly… I’m flip-flopping between UR and Web Research for capturing web pages. UR is without question the more powerful product, but UR falls down on capturing web pages. UR took a big step forward with the addition of adding a window for selecting the location of the capture.

However, there are 2 other areas that need attention:

#1. Properly saving the web page…

Too often UR will not save all the content. WR on the other hand captures the page correctly 99% of the time. So it can be done.

#2. Speed of capture…

I have personally timed both UR and WR side by side. WR is considerably quicker than UR. (up to 5 times faster on some pages) So speeding up UR seems possible.

Obviously #1 is more important than #2.

In my mind UR is soooo close to the being the perfect information manager… I just wish they would address these concerns in the next release. (along with the AV issue)

[StephenUK]

Just to add my voice, I found Web Research much more reliable and much faster at screen capture.

Nontheless, I have abandoned Web Research because it does nothing else. UR's advantage of having everything in one place, so that I can mix screen captures with other types of information, for me far outweighs the speed of capture and occasional mis-capture.

But I echo the view that it would be great if UR could in the future match Web Research which I now see as the gold standard for web screen capture.

[janrif]

Also Stephen, Kinook made some browser adjustments that has -- at least -- sped up resolving websites on my machine. It may also affect other web clipping issues.

[Leoram]

There is something in my opinion that should be made (and soon I should say) or UR will be known worldwide for what it shouldn't, slowness.

I have experimented myself this slow behavior in some of the functions: capturing web pages, storing documents, compacting. Apparently the culprit is the way UR indexes and zips. For example it took me around 3 hrs to compact my database of 400 MB absolutely containing only stored docs, no links at all, and I have a fast machine. Anyway and besides this annoying behavior, I continue to think without any doubt that UltraRecall is the best product of its kind, a grandeur, so much so that it will probably some day (and soon) will be the standard for any serious PIM. Only that this sluggish thing should be tackled with efficacy.