Search Results

Search found 3324 results on 133 pages for 'gb j'.

Page 1/133 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• GA 8KNXP Rev1.0: 4 GB installed, only 3.5 GB recognized by BIOS

  - by hurikhan77

  I've installed 2x 1 GB and 4x 512 MB memory into my GA-8KNXP system which would sum up to 4 GB. The specification from the manual says: Maximum memory support: 4 GB. If all six slots are utilized, slot 5+6 may only equipped with single-sided RAM modules. And so I did. Anyway: The BIOS counts up to 3.5 GB and finishes there. Also my Linux system reports only 3.5 GB of memory although 4 GB memory support is activated in the kernel. So I suppose this is a memory mapping issue or a hardware issue. I've tried removing only on of the 512 MB memory modules leaving 5 modules in place. But that just stopped the system from powering on correctly (screen stays black although fans and leds come to live). Dual Channel was detected and enabled so the system technically found all 6 modules. "dmidecode" in Linux reports only memory in slots 1 to 4 and ignores slots 5+6, so it only detects 3 GB of memory. It also says the system would support up to 16 GB of memory with 4 GB modules per slot. I think technically the chipset should be able to offer and utilize the complete 4 GB memory range. Any clues what else I could check? Or do I have just to live with 0.5 GB wasted memory?

  Read the article

• My laptop suppose to have 6 GB ram but it's only 2 GB installed

  - by monablo

  My laptop is supposed to have 6 GB ram but it only detects 2 GB of it, so I don't know what to do. I searched the web for answer and what i get that there's 2 possible problem: 1- That 4 GB ram card is broken and not working 2- or the 2 ram card have a different path so the windows chose the path of the smaller ram card which would be the 2 GB ram I don't know what is the path in first place so I really don't know what to do. How would I troubleshoot, and work out why the 4 GB stick is not being detected? My laptop's specifications are as follows: Windows 7 Home premium 64- bit Operating system processor : intel (R) core(TM) i7 CPU Q740 @1.73 GHz 1.73GHz installed memory(RAM) : 2.00 GB (but it suppose to be 6 GB -_- ) My laptop is Dell and it's Model N5010

  Read the article

• My 4 GB microSD card only allows me to use 1 GB

  - by James Litewski

  My phone came with a 4 GB microSD card. On the card it lists that 3 GB goes to Muve Music which is Cricket's music program, and I get 1 GB... Well, I don't pay for Muve Music, so why waste the space? I thought I'd be able to simply buy an adapter and reformat the microSD card to get the full 4 GB; but that wasn't the case... I could only find the 1 GB partition on the card. I even tried reformatting the disk, but I had no luck. How can I get the full 4 GB? BTW, I'm running Mac OS X v10.7 (Lion).

  Read the article

• 4 GB DDR2 vs 2 GB DDR 3...........

  - by metal gear solid

  I 'm going to purchase new PC. due to my budget limit either i can purchase 2 x 2GB = 4GB DDR 2 or 2 GB Single stick DDR 3. Will 2 GB DDR 3 will give almost same performane compare to 4 GB DDR 2? In future I will upgrade RAM upto 8 GB Which option would be better for me for now and why?

  Read the article

• Need help with testdisk output

  - by dan

  I had (note the past tense) an ubuntu 12.04 system with separate partitions for the base and /home directories. It started acting wonky, so I decided to do a reinstall with 12.10, intending just to do a reinstall to the base partition. After several seconds, I realize that the installer was repartitioning the drive and reinstalling, so I pulled the power cord. I'm now trying to recover as much as I can with testdisk, but it seems that testdisk is finding 100 unique partitions when I run it - they mostly tend to be HFS+ or solaris /home (which I think is just an ext4; I've never had solaris on the machine). I've pasted an abbreviated version of the testdisk output below (first ~100 lines, and then ~100 lines from the middle of the output). Is there a way to combine or recreate the partitions and then data recovery, or some other way maximize what I can recover (ideally as much of the file system as possible)? I really only care about what was in the /home directory - I'd rather not use photorec since I don't have another 2 TB HD lying around to recover to. Thanks, Dan Mon Dec 10 06:03:00 2012 Command line: TestDisk TestDisk 6.13, Data Recovery Utility, November 2011 Christophe GRENIER <[email protected]> http://www.cgsecurity.org OS: Linux, kernel 3.2.34-std312-amd64 (#2 SMP Sat Nov 17 08:06:32 UTC 2012) x86_64 Compiler: GCC 4.4 Compilation date: 2012-11-27T22:44:52 ext2fs lib: 1.42.6, ntfs lib: libntfs-3g, reiserfs lib: 0.3.1-rc8, ewf lib: none /dev/sda: LBA, HPA, LBA48, DCO support /dev/sda: size 3907029168 sectors /dev/sda: user_max 3907029168 sectors /dev/sda: native_max 3907029168 sectors Warning: can't get size for Disk /dev/mapper/control - 0 B - CHS 1 1 1, sector size=512 /dev/sr0 is not an ATA disk Hard disk list Disk /dev/sda - 2000 GB / 1863 GiB - CHS 243201 255 63, sector size=512 - WDC WD20EARS-00J2GB0, S/N:WD-WCAYY0075071, FW:80.00A80 Disk /dev/sdb - 1013 MB / 967 MiB - CHS 1014 32 61, sector size=512 - Generic Flash Disk, FW:8.07 Disk /dev/sr0 - 367 MB / 350 MiB - CHS 179470 1 1 (RO), sector size=2048 - PLDS DVD+/-RW DH-16AAS, FW:JD12 Partition table type (auto): Intel Disk /dev/sda - 2000 GB / 1863 GiB - WDC WD20EARS-00J2GB0 Partition table type: EFI GPT Analyse Disk /dev/sda - 2000 GB / 1863 GiB - CHS 243201 255 63 Current partition structure: Bad GPT partition, invalid signature. search_part() Disk /dev/sda - 2000 GB / 1863 GiB - CHS 243201 255 63 recover_EXT2: s_block_group_nr=0/14880, s_mnt_count=5/4294967295, s_blocks_per_group=32768, s_inodes_per_group=8192 recover_EXT2: s_blocksize=4096 recover_EXT2: s_blocks_count 487593984 recover_EXT2: part_size 3900751872 MS Data 2048 3900753919 3900751872 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock, 1997 GB / 1860 GiB Linux Swap 3900755968 3907028975 6273008 SWAP2 version 1, 3211 MB / 3062 MiB Results P MS Data 2048 3900753919 3900751872 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock, 1997 GB / 1860 GiB P Linux Swap 3900755968 3907028975 6273008 SWAP2 version 1, 3211 MB / 3062 MiB interface_write() 1 P MS Data 2048 3900753919 3900751872 2 P Linux Swap 3900755968 3907028975 6273008 search_part() Disk /dev/sda - 2000 GB / 1863 GiB - CHS 243201 255 63 recover_EXT2: s_block_group_nr=0/14880, s_mnt_count=5/4294967295, s_blocks_per_group=32768, s_inodes_per_group=8192 recover_EXT2: s_blocksize=4096 recover_EXT2: s_blocks_count 487593984 recover_EXT2: part_size 3900751872 MS Data 2048 3900753919 3900751872 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock, 1997 GB / 1860 GiB block_group_nr 1 recover_EXT2: "e2fsck -b 32768 -B 4096 device" may be needed recover_EXT2: s_block_group_nr=1/14880, s_mnt_count=0/4294967295, s_blocks_per_group=32768, s_inodes_per_group=8192 recover_EXT2: s_blocksize=4096 recover_EXT2: s_blocks_count 487593984 recover_EXT2: part_size 3900751872 MS Data 2046 3900753917 3900751872 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock Backup superblock, 1997 GB / 1860 GiB block_group_nr 1 recover_EXT2: "e2fsck -b 32768 -B 4096 device" may be needed recover_EXT2: s_block_group_nr=1/14880, s_mnt_count=0/4294967295, s_blocks_per_group=32768, s_inodes_per_group=8192 recover_EXT2: s_blocksize=4096 recover_EXT2: s_blocks_count 487593984 recover_EXT2: part_size 3900751872 MS Data 2048 3900753919 3900751872 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock Backup superblock, 1997 GB / 1860 GiB block_group_nr 1 recover_EXT2: "e2fsck -b 32768 -B 4096 device" may be needed recover_EXT2: s_block_group_nr=1/14584, s_mnt_count=0/27, s_blocks_per_group=32768, s_inodes_per_group=8192 recover_EXT2: s_blocksize=4096 recover_EXT2: s_blocks_count 477915164 recover_EXT2: part_size 3823321312 MS Data 4094 3823325405 3823321312 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock Backup superblock, 1957 GB / 1823 GiB block_group_nr 1 ....snip...... MS Data 2046 3900753917 3900751872 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock Backup superblock, 1997 GB / 1860 GiB MS Data 2048 3900753919 3900751872 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock, 1997 GB / 1860 GiB MS Data 4094 3823325405 3823321312 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock Backup superblock, 1957 GB / 1823 GiB MS Data 4096 3823325407 3823321312 EXT4 Large file Sparse superblock Backup superblock, 1957 GB / 1823 GiB MS Data 7028840 7033383 4544 FAT12, 2326 KB / 2272 KiB Mac HFS 67856948 67862179 5232 HFS+ found using backup sector!, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67862176 67867407 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67862244 67867475 5232 HFS+ found using backup sector!, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67867404 67872635 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67867472 67872703 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67872700 67877931 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67937834 67948067 10234 [EasyInstall_OSX] HFS found using backup sector!, 5239 KB / 5117 KiB Mac HFS 67938012 67948155 10144 HFS+ found using backup sector!, 5193 KB / 5072 KiB Mac HFS 67948064 67958297 10234 [EasyInstall_OSX] HFS, 5239 KB / 5117 KiB Mac HFS 67948070 67958303 10234 [EasyInstall_OSX] HFS found using backup sector!, 5239 KB / 5117 KiB Mac HFS 67948152 67958295 10144 HFS+, 5193 KB / 5072 KiB Mac HFS 67958292 67968435 10144 HFS+, 5193 KB / 5072 KiB Mac HFS 67958300 67968533 10234 [EasyInstall_OSX] HFS, 5239 KB / 5117 KiB Mac HFS 67992596 67997827 5232 HFS+ found using backup sector!, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67997824 68003055 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 67997892 68003123 5232 HFS+ found using backup sector!, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 68003052 68008283 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 68003120 68008351 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Mac HFS 68008348 68013579 5232 HFS+, 2678 KB / 2616 KiB Solaris /home 84429840 123499141 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84429952 123499253 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84493136 123562437 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84493248 123562549 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84566088 123635389 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84566200 123635501 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84571232 123640533 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84571344 123640645 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84659952 123729253 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84660064 123729365 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84690504 123759805 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84690616 123759917 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84700424 123769725 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84700536 123769837 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84797720 123867021 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84797832 123867133 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84812544 123881845 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84812656 123881957 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84824552 123893853 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84824664 123893965 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84847528 123916829 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84847640 123916941 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84886840 123956141 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84886952 123956253 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84945488 124014789 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84945600 124014901 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84957992 124027293 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84958104 124027405 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84962240 124031541 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84962352 124031653 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84977168 124046469 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB Solaris /home 84977280 124046581 39069302 UFS1, 20 GB / 18 GiB MS Data 174395467 178483851 4088385 ..... snip (it keeps going on for quite a while)

  Read the article

• When I have 6 GB of RAM installed, why is just 3 GB available on Ubuntu?

  - by user842225

  I'm using a laptop with 32-bit Ubuntu 10.04. I used to have only 2 GB of RAM. Today, our IT-support upgraded my laptop to a total of 6 GB of RAM. They told me "Though you do now have 6 GB, when you use your current Ubuntu, you'll only have 3 GB available. You have to install the latest version of 64-bit Ubuntu to enable all of the 6 GB." He was in a hurry to leave without explaining more. I turned on my laptop, used gnome-system-monitor to check, and as he said, it shows I only have 3 GB of RAM. Could someone explain me why? Why do I have just 3 GB available, and why installing a 64-bit version makes all of the 6 GB available?

  Read the article

• How can I allocate 8 GB ( not 1 GB ) RAM to my JDK on windows

  - by Deepak

  JDK on Windows takes max around 2 GB RAM. Even if we allocate more RAM to our JDK; it doesnt take it. If I need to run a process which need 8 GB RAM on Windows; how can I achieve it ? Do we have any JDK provided by any other provider which could support it ? Memcached provides us additional cache which can be used... but that is not I am looking for. Suppose I need to run my jMeter with 8 GB RAM on my windows box; Memcached wont help for sure.. Is there any provider which provides me with this ? Previosly I thought Terracotta does that; but looks like that also is like Memcached. I am using Windows 7. If needed I can use Windows Server also.. I just need to get it running.

  Read the article

• rdiff-backup is taking longer and longer every time it runs

  - by Jakobud

  I've been running rdiff-backup for the past week or so, every night at 4am. It started out not taking that long, but its taking longer and longer and longer every time its runs every night. In some cases there are quite a few new and changed files and in other cases, not so much. It started out taking < 10 minutes, and after a week its taking over 4.5 hrs to run. Take a look at my session stats below: StartTime 1268046002.00 (Mon Mar 8 04:00:02 2010) EndTime 1268046373.50 (Mon Mar 8 04:06:13 2010) ElapsedTime 371.50 (6 minutes 11.50 seconds) SourceFiles 213928 SourceFileSize 277271282225 (258 GB) MirrorFiles 213914 MirrorFileSize 276693097638 (258 GB) NewFiles 16 NewFileSize 578209911 (551 MB) DeletedFiles 2 DeletedFileSize 2598 (2.54 KB) ChangedFiles 27 ChangedSourceSize 5195150 (4.95 MB) ChangedMirrorSize 5217876 (4.98 MB) IncrementFiles 0 IncrementFileSize 0 (0 bytes) TotalDestinationSizeChange 578184587 (551 MB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268132402.00 (Tue Mar 9 04:00:02 2010) EndTime 1268134341.29 (Tue Mar 9 04:32:21 2010) ElapsedTime 1939.29 (32 minutes 19.29 seconds) SourceFiles 213963 SourceFileSize 307959842562 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 213928 MirrorFileSize 277271282225 (258 GB) NewFiles 37 NewFileSize 31265005547 (29.1 GB) DeletedFiles 2 DeletedFileSize 576511960 (550 MB) ChangedFiles 25 ChangedSourceSize 5243761 (5.00 MB) ChangedMirrorSize 5177011 (4.94 MB) IncrementFiles 65 IncrementFileSize 577266412 (551 MB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 31265826749 (29.1 GB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268218802.00 (Wed Mar 10 04:00:02 2010) EndTime 1268225230.15 (Wed Mar 10 05:47:10 2010) ElapsedTime 6428.15 (1 hour 47 minutes 8.15 seconds) SourceFiles 213971 SourceFileSize 307960643843 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 213963 MirrorFileSize 307959842562 (287 GB) NewFiles 9 NewFileSize 694087 (678 KB) DeletedFiles 1 DeletedFileSize 894 (894 bytes) ChangedFiles 38 ChangedSourceSize 30656167797 (28.6 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30656059709 (28.6 GB) IncrementFiles 48 IncrementFileSize 289278151 (276 MB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 290079432 (277 MB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268305202.00 (Thu Mar 11 04:00:02 2010) EndTime 1268312788.15 (Thu Mar 11 06:06:28 2010) ElapsedTime 7586.15 (2 hours 6 minutes 26.15 seconds) SourceFiles 213971 SourceFileSize 307960643779 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 213971 MirrorFileSize 307960643843 (287 GB) NewFiles 0 NewFileSize 0 (0 bytes) DeletedFiles 0 DeletedFileSize 0 (0 bytes) ChangedFiles 15 ChangedSourceSize 30650824127 (28.5 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30650824191 (28.5 GB) IncrementFiles 16 IncrementFileSize 689437042 (657 MB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 689436978 (657 MB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268391601.00 (Fri Mar 12 04:00:01 2010) EndTime 1268400145.85 (Fri Mar 12 06:22:25 2010) ElapsedTime 8544.85 (2 hours 22 minutes 24.85 seconds) SourceFiles 213974 SourceFileSize 307960784445 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 213971 MirrorFileSize 307960643779 (287 GB) NewFiles 5 NewFileSize 269587 (263 KB) DeletedFiles 2 DeletedFileSize 128921 (126 KB) ChangedFiles 16 ChangedSourceSize 30650815948 (28.5 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30650815948 (28.5 GB) IncrementFiles 26 IncrementFileSize 818279963 (780 MB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 818420629 (781 MB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268478002.00 (Sat Mar 13 04:00:02 2010) EndTime 1268488740.33 (Sat Mar 13 06:59:00 2010) ElapsedTime 10738.33 (2 hours 58 minutes 58.33 seconds) SourceFiles 213974 SourceFileSize 307960784238 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 213974 MirrorFileSize 307960784445 (287 GB) NewFiles 0 NewFileSize 0 (0 bytes) DeletedFiles 0 DeletedFileSize 0 (0 bytes) ChangedFiles 16 ChangedSourceSize 30650823920 (28.5 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30650824127 (28.5 GB) IncrementFiles 19 IncrementFileSize 1041846015 (994 MB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 1041845808 (994 MB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268560803.00 (Sun Mar 14 04:00:03 2010) EndTime 1268573194.82 (Sun Mar 14 07:26:34 2010) ElapsedTime 12391.82 (3 hours 26 minutes 31.82 seconds) SourceFiles 213974 SourceFileSize 307960784238 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 213974 MirrorFileSize 307960784238 (287 GB) NewFiles 0 NewFileSize 0 (0 bytes) DeletedFiles 0 DeletedFileSize 0 (0 bytes) ChangedFiles 14 ChangedSourceSize 30650815948 (28.5 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30650815948 (28.5 GB) IncrementFiles 15 IncrementFileSize 1116911810 (1.04 GB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 1116911810 (1.04 GB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268647203.00 (Mon Mar 15 04:00:03 2010) EndTime 1268662364.88 (Mon Mar 15 08:12:44 2010) ElapsedTime 15161.88 (4 hours 12 minutes 41.88 seconds) SourceFiles 214010 SourceFileSize 307963430178 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 213974 MirrorFileSize 307960784238 (287 GB) NewFiles 37 NewFileSize 2684172 (2.56 MB) DeletedFiles 1 DeletedFileSize 5348 (5.22 KB) ChangedFiles 32 ChangedSourceSize 30656134913 (28.6 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30656167797 (28.6 GB) IncrementFiles 71 IncrementFileSize 1316460362 (1.23 GB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 1319106302 (1.23 GB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268733603.00 (Tue Mar 16 04:00:03 2010) EndTime 1268750396.76 (Tue Mar 16 08:39:56 2010) ElapsedTime 16793.76 (4 hours 39 minutes 53.76 seconds) SourceFiles 214010 SourceFileSize 307963430156 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 214010 MirrorFileSize 307963430178 (287 GB) NewFiles 0 NewFileSize 0 (0 bytes) DeletedFiles 0 DeletedFileSize 0 (0 bytes) ChangedFiles 15 ChangedSourceSize 30650823898 (28.5 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30650823920 (28.5 GB) IncrementFiles 16 IncrementFileSize 936032413 (893 MB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 936032391 (893 MB) Errors 0 StartTime 1268820002.00 (Wed Mar 17 04:00:02 2010) EndTime 1268834619.90 (Wed Mar 17 08:03:39 2010) ElapsedTime 14617.90 (4 hours 3 minutes 37.90 seconds) SourceFiles 214010 SourceFileSize 307963430156 (287 GB) MirrorFiles 214010 MirrorFileSize 307963430156 (287 GB) NewFiles 0 NewFileSize 0 (0 bytes) DeletedFiles 0 DeletedFileSize 0 (0 bytes) ChangedFiles 14 ChangedSourceSize 30650815948 (28.5 GB) ChangedMirrorSize 30650815948 (28.5 GB) IncrementFiles 15 IncrementFileSize 1289272860 (1.20 GB) TotalDestinationSizeChange 1289272860 (1.20 GB) Errors 0 Is this common behavior? It's only about 300gigs of data total. One important thing to note though, rdiff-backup is backup up stuff over to a USB2 external drive. Maybe thats why its so slow?

  Read the article

• Bring 2 GB Large Pages to Solaris 10

  - by Giri Mandalika

  Few facts: 8 KB is the default page size on Oracle Solaris 10 and 11 as of this writing Both hardware and software must have support for 2 GB large pages SPARC T4 processors are capable of supporting 2 GB pages Oracle Solaris 11 kernel has in-built support for 2 GB pages Oracle Solaris 10 has no default support for 2 GB pages Memory intensive 64-bit applications may benefit the most from using 2 GB pages Prerequisites: OS: Oracle Solaris 10 8/11 (Update 10) or later Hardware: Oracle servers with SPARC T4 processors e.g., SPARC T4-1, T4-2 or T4-4, SPARC SuperCluster T4-4 Steps to enable 2 GB large pages on Oracle Solaris 10: Install the latest kernel patch or ensure that 147440-04 or later was installed Check the patch download instructions Add the following line to /etc/system and reboot set max_uheap_lpsize=0x80000000 Finally check the output of the following command when the system is back online pagesize -a eg., % pagesize -a 8192 <-- 8K 65536 <-- 64K 4194304 <-- 4M 268435456 <-- 256M 2147483648 <-- 2G % uname -a SunOS jar-jar 5.10 Generic_147440-21 sun4v sparc sun4v Also See: Solaris 9 or later: More performance with Large Pages (MPSS) Large page support for instructions (text) in Solaris 10 1/06 Solaris: How To Disable Out Of The Box (OOB) Large Page Support? Memory fragmentation / Large Pages on Solaris x86

  Read the article

• How to meet Windows 8 upgrade's 20 GB requirement on a 40 GB SSD with a 22 GB Windows 7 install?

  - by deryus

  A PC I have has Windows 7 installed on a 40 GB SSD, and I bought a Windows 8 upgrade for it. The current Windows folder on it however is 22 GB, that's after removing hibernation, turning off the pagefile and removing all extra programs/features. So even if I purge every other file and folder, the Windows folder itself takes more than half the disk. The PC also has a 1 TB HDD, but the upgrade installer didn't give me any options about choosing another drive. So, is my only option to reinstall Windows 7 on a larger drive, then proceed with the Windows 8 upgrade? Or is there anything I can remove from the Windows folder that while might be dangerous for long term usage, is fine for the few minutes I need to get Windows 8 installing?

  Read the article

• Microsoft Prepares 64 GB Zune HD for Upcoming Release

  To hopefully increase its market share in the ever-competitive world of MP3 players Microsoft has announced that it will release the new 64 GB version of the Zune HD on April 12 2 1 . The 64 GB version of the Zune HD provides much more storage capacity than the previously-released 16 GB and 32 GB versions of the player that were released to the public in September of 2 9.... Business Productivity Online Suite From $10 per user per month. Includes a 12-month subscription. Min 5 seats.

  Read the article

• AT&T’s new prepaid plan for smartphones –$65 for 1 GB data and unlimited calls, text

  - by Gopinath

  AT&T is stepping up competition in prepaid mobile plans offering and trying to attract more smartphone customers who are not interested to lock in with expensive contracts. Today AT&T announced a new prepaid plan for smartphone customers which offers 1 GB of , unlimited calls and text for $65 a month. Compared to existing plans that offers same , the new plan saves $10 per month and rates are comparable to T-Mobile prepaid service. The new plan will be available to all prepaid customers from October 7, 2012. I’m using AT&T prepaid plan for the past 3 months and paying $75 for 1 GB data, unlimited calls. Few days ago I did some analysis on prepaid plans offered by various network providers and found T-Mobile has cheapest plans that suits my needs – $60 for 2 GB data,  unlimited calls and texts. Even though T Mobile’s network coverage is not as great as AT&T in the area where I live, I planned to switch to save $15 per month. After reading today’s announcement, I don’t think that I’ll switch to T Mobile for saving $5 + 1 GB of extra data.  Thanks AT&T for the new plan, I’ll stay with you for now. via engadget

  Read the article

• MSDN Subscriber Benefits

  - by kaleidoscope

  Windows Azure Platform offer Introductory MSDN Premium offer Ongoing MSDN Subscription Benefits Windows Azure Compute hours per month 750 hours 250 100 50 Storage 10 GB 7.5 GB 5 GB 3 GB Transactions per month 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 300,000 AppFabric Service bus messages per month 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 300,000 SQL Azure Web Edition (1GB databases) 3 3 2 1 Data Transfers per month Europe and North America 7 GB in / 14 GB out 5 GB in / 10 GB out 3 GB in / 6 GB out 2 GB in / 4 GB out Asia Pacific 2.5 GB in / 5 GB out 2 GB in / 4 GB out 1 GB in / 2 GB out .5 GB in / 1 GB out Available for sign-up January 4, 2010* After completion of your 8 month introductory Windows Azure benefit Duration of benefit 8 months While MSDN Subscription remains active Subscription levels receiving benefit** MSDN Premium & BizSpark Visual Studio Ultimate with MSDN & BizSpark Visual Studio Premium with MSDN Visual Studio Professional with MSDN Estimated Retail Value: $1038 (8 months) $812/year $436/year $223/year This introductory offer will last for 8 months from the time you sign up. After that, you'll cancel your introductory account and sign up for the ongoing MSDN benefit based on your subscription level. The easiest way to cancel your introductory account is to set it to not "auto-renew". Think of "compute" as an instance of your application running in the cloud. So with 750 hours per month, you can keep a single instance running non-stop all month long. Or run 2 compute instances for two weeks a month. Or 4 for a week a piece. Lokesh, M

  Read the article

• Why can't I copy a 7 GB file to an external USB HD with 120 GB free?

  - by Johann Gerell

  Yes, why can't I? I was stashing away some old photography backup zips last night. I could copy 4 of my 1 GB backup zips to my external USB connected hard-drive when I got the error message "Cannot copy file. Not enough free space." (sort of) for a zip of roughly 7 GB. But there are 120 GB free. Why is this? EDIT: Clarification - the files that I could copy was smaller than 4 GB. The failing one was 7 GB. The cause seems to be the FAT32 4 GB limit.

  Read the article

• How can I create a solid business case for upgrading our programmers to 256 GB SSD and 16 GB of RAM?

  - by Alex. S.

  We have an environment based on Microsoft stack (VS2010, SQL Server, etc), and I firmly believe that we could improve productivity a little bit, having more RAM and a faster secondary SSD. What data do you advice to gather so I can solidify my request in such a way the advantages can be unbiasedly demonstrated? Currently we have only 6GB of RAM and slower HD drives, and at home I have a 128 GB SSD in my desktop and 16 GB of RAM (I also think is the max amount of memory supported by our workstations, if we could go bigger then better), so I can feel the difference and it's real. I also want to add that we are in an industry with plenty of money, so the issue actually is how to get a budget approval from management and spend it wisely to increase productivity.

  Read the article

• Want to back up using dd, but my present ubuntu installation is 149.04 + 3.81(swap) GB, my target drive is only 149.05 GB

  - by Shreshth

  My netbook is a Windows7-Ubuntu 12.04 dual boot. in gparted the strcture looks like Partition filesystem size /dev/sda2 extended 152.86GiB __/dev/sda6 ext4 149.04GiB __/dev/sda5 linux-swap 3.81GiB /dev/sda3 ntfs 100MiB /dev/sda4 ntfs 145.13GiB /dev/sdb1 fat32 149.05GiB I want to backup my ubuntu 12.04 installation that is sda2 (sda6 + sda5) to sdb1. As you can see sda5 +sda6 is 152.86 GB where are sdb1 is only 149.05 GB. Can I backup only sda6(149.04GB) without losing any data? That is to say, will I be able to restore my ubuntu using only sda6 and later add the needed swap? Edit: Made it readable.

  Read the article

• Get Exchange Online Mailbox Size in GB

  - by Brian Jackett

  As mentioned in my previous post I was recently working with a customer to get started with Exchange Online PowerShell commandlets.  In this post I wanted to follow up and show one example of a difference in output from commandlets in Exchange 2010 on-premises vs. Exchange Online.   Problem    The customer was interested in getting the size of mailboxes in GB.  For Exchange on-premises this is fairly easy.  A fellow PFE Gary Siepser wrote an article explaining how to accomplish this (click here).  Note that Gary’s script will not work when remoting from a local machine that doesn’t have the Exchange object model installed.  A similar type of scenario exists if you are executing PowerShell against Exchange Online.  The data type for TotalItemSize  being returned (ByteQuantifiedSize) exists in the Exchange namespace.  If the PowerShell session doesn’t have access to that namespace (or hasn’t loaded it) PowerShell works with an approximation of that data type.    The customer found a sample script on this TechNet article that they attempted to use (minor edits by me to fit on page and remove references to deleted item size.)   Get-Mailbox -ResultSize Unlimited | Get-MailboxStatistics | Select DisplayName,StorageLimitStatus, ` @{name="TotalItemSize (MB)"; expression={[math]::Round( ` ($_.TotalItemSize.Split("(")[1].Split(" ")[0].Replace(",","")/1MB),2)}}, ` ItemCount | Sort "TotalItemSize (MB)" -Descending | Export-CSV "C:\My Documents\All Mailboxes.csv" -NoTypeInformation     The script is targeted to Exchange 2010 but fails for Exchange Online.  In Exchange Online when referencing the TotalItemSize property though it does not have a Split method which ultimately causes the script to fail.   Solution    A simple solution would be to add a call to the ToString method off of the TotalItemSize property (in bold on line 5 below).   Get-Mailbox -ResultSize Unlimited | Get-MailboxStatistics | Select DisplayName,StorageLimitStatus, ` @{name="TotalItemSize (MB)"; expression={[math]::Round( ` ($_.TotalItemSize.ToString().Split("(")[1].Split(" ")[0].Replace(",","")/1MB),2)}}, ` ItemCount | Sort "TotalItemSize (MB)" -Descending | Export-CSV "C:\My Documents\All Mailboxes.csv" -NoTypeInformation      This fixes the script to run but the numerous string replacements and splits are an eye sore to me.  I attempted to simplify the string manipulation with a regular expression (more info on regular expressions in PowerShell click here).  The result is a workable script that does one nice feature of adding a new member to the mailbox statistics called TotalItemSizeInBytes.  With this member you can then convert into any byte level (KB, MB, GB, etc.) that suits your needs.  You can download the full version of this script below (includes commands to connect to Exchange Online session). $UserMailboxStats = Get-Mailbox -RecipientTypeDetails UserMailbox ` -ResultSize Unlimited | Get-MailboxStatistics $UserMailboxStats | Add-Member -MemberType ScriptProperty -Name TotalItemSizeInBytes ` -Value {$this.TotalItemSize -replace "(.*\()|,| [a-z]*\)", ""} $UserMailboxStats | Select-Object DisplayName,@{Name="TotalItemSize (GB)"; ` Expression={[math]::Round($_.TotalItemSizeInBytes/1GB,2)}}   Conclusion    Moving from on-premises to the cloud with PowerShell (and PowerShell remoting in general) can sometimes present some new challenges due to what you have access to.  This means that you must always test your code / scripts.  I still believe that not having to physically RDP to a server is a huge gain over some of the small hurdles you may encounter during the transition.  Scripting is the future of administration and makes you more valuable.  Hopefully this script and the concepts presented help you be a better admin / developer.         -Frog Out     Links The Get-MailboxStatistics Cmdlet, the TotalitemSize Property, and that pesky little “b” http://blogs.technet.com/b/gary/archive/2010/02/20/the-get-mailboxstatistics-cmdlet-the-totalitemsize-property-and-that-pesky-little-b.aspx   View Mailbox Sizes and Mailbox Quotas Using Windows PowerShell http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchangelabshelp/gg576861#ViewAllMailboxes   Regular Expressions with Windows PowerShell http://www.regular-expressions.info/powershell.html   “I don’t always test my code…” image http://blogs.pinkelephant.com/images/uploads/conferences/I-dont-always-test-my-code-But-when-I-do-I-do-it-in-production.jpg   The One Thing: Brian Jackett and SharePoint 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg_h66HMP9o

  Read the article

• Is 2 GB of RAM better than 2.5 GB?

  - by pibboater

  My laptop has two slots for RAM, and currently has two 512 MB chips, for 1 GB. Windows XP is running terribly slow on it, so I want to upgrade the RAM. I could buy two 1 GB chips to replace both of the current 512 MB chips, to give me 2 GB of RAM. Or, the price is the same to buy one 2 GB chip, to replace just one of the 512 MB chips, and give me 2.5 GB total. The RAM it takes is PC2-4200 533MHz DDR2. What do you think would be better: buying two 1 GB chips so it can take advantage of dual-channel operation, or buying one 2 GB chip to end up with more total RAM but not dual-channel operation? Like I said, price is the same, so performance is the only consideration. I'm not doing anything especially intensive like video or photo editing -- just having multiple Office programs open, playing music, browsers, etc., but currently even opening the first application takes forever. If it matters, the laptop is a Toshiba Qosmio G25-AV513 running Windows XP Media Center SP3. Thanks! Kevin

  Read the article

• Why is the Task Manager Total Physical Memory not 2048 MB or 2 GB

  - by Dorothy

  I found 3 numbers for the Total Physical Memory: In the Task Manager under the Performance tab: 1978 MB In Computer Properties: 2 GB And running wmic computersystem get TotalPhysicalMemory /format:list in the command line: 2074554368 Bites Number 1 matches Number 3 except Number 1 is rounded. When I convert Number 3 to GB 2074554368 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 I don't quite get 2 GB. I get 1.93207932 GB. Why does Number 1 and Number 3 not match Number 2?

  Read the article

• Why does my motherboard go through an endless reboot cycle when 8 GB of memory is attempted vs 6 GB?

  - by nizm0

  I never got an answer in my googling to this about a year ago and have an extra stick of memory I'd like to be able to use. When is inserted the computer starts, and then reboots immediately in an endless reboot cycle. As soon as the 4th stick is removed, the computer works fine. Right now I have 6 GB of my 8 GB installed. Is there a solution that I am missing to enabling this motherboard to actually boot up with all 8 GB (it supports it). Right now it won't even boot up to BIOS with the 4 sticks... only 3? Memory: 1 x G.SKILL 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1100 (PC2 8800) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-8800CL5D-4GBPI - Retail (URL: ) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231194 Motherboard: 1 x GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail ( URL: )http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128359

  Read the article

• ASUS P6X58D and 12 GB of RAM

  - by Hunter

  I just assembled my new PC and it screams, BUT it's only recognizing 8 GB of RAM in BIOS and OS rather than the installed 12 GB. In the BIOS the RAM was registering at 1066 MHz so I set it to 1600 MHz. I updated the BIOS to the latest non-beta release. http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=wurRaDZ8lo4Ckukj OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Motherboard: ASUS P6X58D Premium CPU: Intel Core i7 920 RAM: CORSAIR XMS3 12 GB (6 x 2 GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 HDD: Intel 80 GB SSD SATA II Power supply: Kingwin 1000 W Modular I've installed the Beta BIOS 0808 but no luck!

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Tools for recovering data from damaged USB Flash Drive ~ 10 Gb

  - by PREDA LUCIAN

  I have technical issues with my USB Flash Drive - JetFlash®V15 (TS16GJFV15) It's very critical situation because I can not see the data from it and I should get a way to recover them ASAP. So, in general, I have connected Non-stop that USB Flash Disk at my laptop. Was appear Power surges and when I was coming back, I saw that problem with it. Details regarding JetFlash®V15 (in present): - when I connect it on USP slot, the led is working intermittent and later on remain with constant light. - if I inspect the computer drivers, I found "Generic USB Flash Disk" (when the stick it's connected). - if I inspect "Properties", I can see next details: --- Type: unknown (application/octet-stream) --- Size: unknown --- Volume: unknown --- Accessed: unknown --- Modified: unknown I inspected that stick on 2 different computers (as well in different different USB Ports) and was the same problem, I can not see the content. I was checking with Windows 7 and Ubuntu 10.04 OS, but without success. With both OS was working before this issue. I'll appreciate an answer which will solve the problem, not an answer which will certify the problem. What I have to do, to recover the information form it (nearly 10 Gb)? I'm looking forward to be guided from a technical expert.

  Read the article

• PAE, 60 GB of Memory, 32 bit Windows Server OS vs 64 bit OS

  - by dynback.com

  I have 60 Gb of RAM on server. Windows 2008, 32bit with PAE. One Sql Server 2008 Express Instance can use 1 Gb of RAM. So if I install 60 instances, each can use 1 Gb of RAM, right? And the second question, what will be if I install 64bit system and use many Express instances?

  Read the article

• Linux RAID-0 performance doesn't scale up over 1 GB/s

  - by wazoox

  I have trouble getting the max throughput out of my setup. The hardware is as follow : dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2376 16 GB DDR2 ECC RAM dual Adaptec 52245 RAID controllers 48 1 TB SATA drives set up as 2 RAID-6 arrays (256KB stripe) + spares. Software : Plain vanilla 2.6.32.25 kernel, compiled for AMD-64, optimized for NUMA; Debian Lenny userland. benchmarks run : disktest, bonnie++, dd, etc. All give the same results. No discrepancy here. io scheduler used : noop. Yeah, no trick here. Up until now I basically assumed that striping (RAID 0) several physical devices should augment performance roughly linearly. However this is not the case here : each RAID array achieves about 780 MB/s write, sustained, and 1 GB/s read, sustained. writing to both RAID arrays simultaneously with two different processes gives 750 + 750 MB/s, and reading from both gives 1 + 1 GB/s. however when I stripe both arrays together, using either mdadm or lvm, the performance is about 850 MB/s writing and 1.4 GB/s reading. at least 30% less than expected! running two parallel writer or reader processes against the striped arrays doesn't enhance the figures, in fact it degrades performance even further. So what's happening here? Basically I ruled out bus or memory contention, because when I run dd on both drives simultaneously, aggregate write speed actually reach 1.5 GB/s and reading speed tops 2 GB/s. So it's not the PCIe bus. I suppose it's not the RAM. It's not the filesystem, because I get exactly the same numbers benchmarking against the raw device or using XFS. And I also get exactly the same performance using either LVM striping and md striping. What's wrong? What's preventing a process from going up to the max possible throughput? Is Linux striping defective? What other tests could I run?

  Read the article

• df -h showing wrong output in GB

  - by Anurag Uniyal

  If I list df output for KB, MB and GB, they do not match e.g. $ df -k |grep xvdb /dev/xvdb1 12796048 732812 11413172 7% /xxx $ df -m |grep xvdb /dev/xvdb1 12497 716 11146 7% /xxx $ df -h |grep xvdb /dev/xvdb1 13G 716M 11G 7% /xxx 12796048 KB = 12496.14 MB so that is slight off but OK 12796048 KB = 12.2 GB, 12407 MB is also 12.2 GB so why df is showing 13 GB or am I missing something? Here is full df listing $ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/xvda1 7.5G 1.7G 5.5G 24% / none 5.8G 128K 5.8G 1% /dev none 5.8G 0 5.8G 0% /dev/shm none 5.8G 44K 5.8G 1% /var/run none 5.8G 0 5.8G 0% /var/lock none 5.8G 0 5.8G 0% /lib/init/rw /dev/xvdb1 13G 716M 11G 6% /xxx Coreutils version seems to 7.4 as info coreutils shows This manual documents version 7.4 of the GNU core utilities,

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >