Search Results

Search found 11478 results on 460 pages for 'disk partition'.

Page 10/460 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

• I accidentally made my new hard drive (the non system drive) my primary partition

  - by qwerty2

  Hi all, When installing a new hard drive, I accidentally formatted it using 'Disk Management' and set it up as my primary active partition, even though it isn't the system drive. Then, when I restarted my machine, Windows wouldn't boot, citing a missing or corrupt SYSTEM folder. Can anyone help me re-enable the system hard drive as my primary active partition? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Windows Vista not booting after deleting a partition

  - by crapiscrewedup

  Hello, My cousin just deleted his Linux partition and another smaller partitio nand now Windows is not booting, no he does not have the recovery disc. When Windows tries to boot it goes to "GRUB" and says "partition not loaded". What are some GRUB commands? And is it possible to fix this without using the recovery CD? Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Hard disk with bad clusters

  - by Dan

  I have been trying to backup some files up to DVD recently, and the burn process failed saying the CRC check failed for certain files. I then tried to browse to these files in Windows explorer and my whole machine locks up and I have to reboot. I ran check disk without the '/F /R' arguments and it told me I had bad sectors. So I re-ran it with the arguments and check disk fails during the 'Chkdsk is verifying usn journal' stage with this error: Insufficient disk space to fix the usn journal $j data stream The hard disk is a 300GB Partition on a 400GB Disk, and there is 160GBs of free space on the partition. My os (Windows 7) is installed on the other partition and is running fine. Any idea how I fix this? or repair it enough to copy my files off it?

  Read the article

• Cloning single disk drive to multiple drives simultaneously

  - by mr.b

  Hi, I am looking for a way to clone single disk drive to more than one disk drive at the same time. I have prepared system images on 1TB disks, and it takes almost 2 hours to clone one disk to another, and then it goes up exponentially, in order to have say 30 disks cloned. If it was possible to clone one disk to more than single target, it would simplify whole procedure a lot. Also, is there something that prevents this kind of operation? I mean, is there some special reason why every disk cloning software that I know about supports only single target drive? Thanks! P.S. This question is cross-post from superuser, I hope nobody minds.

  Read the article

• zeroing a disk with dd vs Disk Utility

  - by jdizzle

  I'm attempting to zero a disk on my Mac OS X machine. I'm going for complete zeros and unformatted, so I think of dd. Unfortunately the maximum throughput I've managed to get out of dd is 7MB/s. Just for grins I tried disk utility and it has a throughput of 19MB/s. What gives? I've tried changing the bs option on dd to all sorts of values, but it still hovers around 7MB/s. Why is disk utility so much faster?

  Read the article

• How to limit disk performance?

  - by DrakeES

  I am load-testing a web application and studying the impact of some config tweaks (related to disk i/o) on the overall app performance, i.e. the amount of users that can be handled simultaneously. But the problem is that I hit 100% CPU before I can see any effect of the disk-related config settings. I am therefore wondering if there is a way I could deliberately limit the disk performance so that it becomes the bottleneck and the tweaks I am trying to play with actually start impacting performance. Should I just make the hard disk busy with something else? What would serve the best for this purpose? More details (probably irrelevant, but anyway): PHP/Magento/Apache, studying the impact of apc.stat. Setting it to 0 makes APC not checking PHP scripts for modification which should increase performance where disk is the bottleneck. Using JMeter for benchmarking.

  Read the article

• Beginners advice on Small business network disk(s)

  - by Rob

  We are having 10 PCs used by various user and presently use one network disk (a LaCie NAS) for all our data. Everything is Windows Vista and our collective IT hardware knowledge is minimal. This worked well generally. However, recently the disk freqently loses connection from the network (2-3 times per week) and the only way back seems to be the "turn it off and back on" trick. This obviously cant be any good for the disk. I understand that there are various more sophisticated ways of storing data and was wondering what people would recommend. One of the worries is obviously disk failure (either in part or as a whole) and the lack of continued availability due to network issues. I would guess that a disk which replicates data wouldnt work as a sole solution due to the network connection, but dont know what hardware (and/or software) would/could work in our case. In terms of size, we are looking at very small amounts, ie. less than 500 GB in total.

  Read the article

• virtualbox 2 vmware disk

  - by anol

  I have a virtualbox disk I'd like to convert to a vmware disk. The disk is dynamic which makes it a lot more trickier. If I follow the instructions at http://xpapad.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/migrating-from-virtualbox-to-vmware-in-linux, the vdi-to-raw conversion will result in a 2 TB file. I don't even have that much disk space! The first step therefore seems to be a dynamic to static conversion of the virtualbox disk, right? How do I do that or is there perhaps a better way to convert to vmware? Help!

  Read the article

• My hard disk does't get recognized

  - by SteveL

  For a few days now I have a problem with my 500GB internal hard disk. I am on Linux Mint 13 but I have the same problem with my Windows installation. When running fdisk -l I can see my hard disk (same on BIOS) but I can't mount it even via the disk utility program. In Windows XP I can see it on the My Computer menu but when I click it, it say's: D:\ is not accessible The file or directory is corrupted and unreadable Is there a way to fix it? Or at least save some of my files and format it? Should I be thinking about the worst-case scenario e.g. my HDD is dead? Edit: The filesystem is NTFS.

  Read the article

• Is there a current tool to build your boot / partition on hard drive?

  - by ????

  I tried Windows 8 Consumer Preview a couple months ago and it wiped out my partition table... or the boot information. So now the machine cannot boot to anything at all. Is there Ubuntu tools or Linux tool that can fix all the partition and make them boot again? (The partitions have Windows 7 and Vista on them. I run Ubuntu as a VM on Win 7). I tried another tool running on Vista and was able to see the Win 7 partition, except that tool wiped out the Vista boot info later on.

  Read the article

• Umount stale glusterfs partition

  - by Khaled

  I am using glusterfs on several Ubuntu servers: two of them are running glusterfs servers in replication mode. Without any clear error, the glusterfs partition became stale and the system shows this error when I try to access the stale partition: Transport endpoint is not connected Also, when running ls -l on the parent folder I get: d????????? ? ? ? ? ? myfolder I tried all types of commands that I can find to umount this partition, but I could not get it done: umount -l /path/to/mount/point umount -f /path/to/mount/point Also, using fuser command to show processes accessing this folder did not work. Unload the fuse kernel module can not be done as it is clear from the kernel config that fuse is built into the kernel and not a loadable module. I found this line in /boot/config-2.6.32-24-server CONFIG_FUSE_FS=y I have been left with two options: Reboot the system. Create another mount point like myfolder2 and mount this again using sudo glusterfs -f /etc/glustefs/glusterfs.vol /path/to/folder2. Of course, I have chosen to go with option 2. Anyone faced such an issue before? Anyone has a better solution for such a case?

  Read the article

• Acronis Disk Director AFTER Clone Disk error: PXE-E61: Media test failure, check cable

  - by Kairan

  Used Acronis Disk Director on my desktop, plugged in the laptop drive 240GB SSD (USB) and the new hard drive 500GB SSD (usb) and the copy seemed to be fine. I didnt see any error messages but I didnt stare at it for 3 hours either. The clone disk of course the Toshiba hidden restore partition, the primary partition C drive and the active (boot?) partition and yes, did check box for copy NT signature. The computer boots up fine most of the time, but it seems that when the computer goes to sleep (i believe its sleep, hard to do much testing during school) or hibernate or reboot it will sometimes display this message: Intel(R) Boot Agent GE v1.3.52 Copyright (C) 1997-2010, Intel Corporation PXE-E61: Media test failure, check cable PXE-M0F: Exiting Intel Boot Agent Insert system disk in drive. Press any key when ready... Of course any key does nothing but repeat a similar method. However, if I press the power button on the laptop (Toshiba Portege R705, Win 7 Pro 64-bit) it puts computer into hibernate. After hibernating I press power button again and it comes out of hibernation without any odd messages or problems described above... so apparently that is my TEMP fix. Another recent issue I noticed is on occasion when creating a new folder or modifying something in the system variables, other random areas I will get a message: "The Stub received bad data" and simply retry the task and it works. Perhaps these two issues are linked.

  Read the article

• Repairing hard disk when Windows installation disk won't boot

  - by Echows

  I'm trying to recover some data from a faulty hard disk with Windows installed on it (on which Windows won't even boot). I have tried so far: Booting to Ubuntu live USB stick and running ntfsfix (didn't work) Trying to mount the broken partition when running Ubuntu from usb stick (doesn't mount) Running photorec image recovery tool from live Ubuntu (it found some stuff but not the images I was looking for) Now as a last resort I got myself a Windows installation on a USB stick so that I can try fdisk, but the installer doesn't work. The loading screen shows up and then the installer crashes. The installer works fine on other computers. I suspect that the installer is trying to read the hard drive to see if there's something there but when it can't read one partition, it crashes. On Ubuntu, I can mount other partitions except the one I'm interested in so at least the hard drive is not completely dead. So the question is, what options do I have left? To be more specific, my goal is to recover some images from the faulty ntfs-partition on the hard drive. Other than that, I don't care about the contents of the hard disk.

  Read the article

• Possible disk IO issue

  - by Tim Meers

  I've been trying to really figure out what my IOPS are on my DB server array and see if it's just too much. The array is four 72.6gb 15k rpm drives in RAID 5. To calculate IOPS for RAID 5 the following formula is used: (reads + (4 * Writes)) / Number of disks = total IOPS. The formula is from MSDN. I also want to calculate the Avg Queue Length but I'm not sure where they are getting the formula from, but i think it reads on that page as avg que length/number of disks = actual queue. To populate that formula I used the perfmon to gather the needed information. I came up with this, under normal production load: (873.982 + (4 * 28.999)) / 4 = 247.495. Also the disk queue lengh of 14.454/4 = 3.614. So to the question, am I wrong in thinking this array has a very high disk IO? Edit I got the chance to review it again this morning under normal/high load. This time with even bigger numbers and IOPS in excess of 600 for about 5 minutes then it died down again. But I also took a look at the Avg sec/Transfer, %Disk Time, and %Idle Time. These number were taken when the reads/writes per sec were only 332.997/17.999 respectively. %Disk Time: 219.436 %Idle Time: 0.300 Avg Disk Queue Length: 2.194 Avg Disk sec/Transfer: 0.006 Pages/sec: 2927.802 % Processor Time: 21.877 Edit (again) Looks like I have that issue solved. Thanks for the help. Also for a pretty slick parser I found this: http://pal.codeplex.com/ It works pretty well for breaking down the data into something usable.

  Read the article

• Reread partition table without rebooting?

  - by Teddy

  Sometimes, when resizing or otherwise mucking about with partitions on a disk, cfdisk will say: Wrote partition table, but re-read table failed. Reboot to update table. (This also happens with other partitioning tools, so I'm thinking this is a Linux issue rather than a cfdisk issue.) Why is this, and why does it only happens sometimes, and what can I do to avoid it? Note: Please assume that none of the partitions I am actually editing are opened, mounted or otherwise in use. Update: cfdisk uses ioctl(fd, BLKRRPART, NULL) to tell Linux to reread the partition table. Two of the other tools recommended so far (hdparm -z DEVICE, sfdisk -R DEVICE) does exactly the same thing. The partprobe DEVICE command, on the other hand, seems to use a new ioctl called BLKPG, which might be better; I don't know. (It also falls back on BLKRRPART if BLKPG fails.) BLKPG seems to be a "this partition has changed; here is the new size" operation, and it looked like partprobe called it individually on all the partitions on the device passed, so it should work if the individual partitions are unused. However, I have not had the opportunity to try it.

  Read the article

• Disk (EXT4) suddenly empty without any sign of why

  - by Ohnomydisk

  I have a Ubuntu 10.04 server with several disks in it. The disks are setup with a union filesystem, which presents them all as one logical /home. A few days ago, one of the disks appears to have suddenly 'become empty', for lack of better explanation. The amount of data on the /home mount almost halved within minutes - the disk appears to have had just over 400 GB of data prior to 'becoming empty'. I have absolutely no idea what happened. I was not using the server at the other time, but there are half a dozen other users who may have been (without root access and without the ability to hose a whole disk). I've ran SMART tests on the disk and it comes back clean. The filesystem checks fine (it has 12 GB used now, as some user software continued downloading after the incident). All I know is that around around midnight on October 19, the disk usage changed dramatically: The data points are every 15 minutes, and the full loss occured between captures: 2012-10-18 23:58:03.399647 - has 953.97/2059.07 GB [46.33 percent] 2012-10-19 00:13:15.909010 - has 515.18/2059.07 GB [25.02 percent] Other than that, I have not much to go off :-( I know that: There's nothing interesting in log files at that time Nobody appeared to be logged in via SSH at the time it occured (most users do not even use SSH) The server was online through whatever occured (3 months uptime) None of the other disks were affected and everything else on the server looks completely normal I have tried using "extundelete" on the disk and it didn't really find anything (some temporary files, but they looked new anyway) I am completely at a loss to what could have caused this. I was initially thinking maybe root escalation exploit, but even if someone did maliciously "rm" the disk contents, it would take more than 15 minutes for 400 GB?

  Read the article

• Deleted Partition Recovery

  - by ankur.trapasiya

  Recently i was installing ubuntu 12.04 on my system. There were 4 partitions on my system and i selected one of the four partition for the installation and chose the option of re sizing the partition. Initially my partition was of size 100+GB and i created another partition out of it of size 15GB (EXT4). Now the moment i changed this partition structure my original partition got lost along with its data and i am left with 50GB partition and 50GB unallocated free space. Now the data that i have lost is meant a lot to me and i want to recover that data. So is there any way i can recover it ? And i haven't checked "format" option while resizing the partition. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Calculate minimum ext3 partition size for certain amount of data

  - by Daniel Beck

  These following ext3 partitions contain identical data. As we can see, the larger the partition size, the more space is required for the same files: Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/loop11 3965777 561064 3199964 15% [...] /dev/loop19 573029 543843 29186 95% [...] Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/loop11 3.8G 548M 3.1G 15% [...] /dev/loop19 560M 532M 29M 95% [...] Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/loop11 1024000 1656 1022344 1% [...] /dev/loop19 1024000 1656 1022344 1% [...] I start with a partition of fixed size that possibly wasted a lot of space and I want to create a partition that is able to hold that data but with (almost) minimal size. How can I reliably calculate that minimal partition size needed for storing a certain amount of data? The amount of data changes over time, and I need to automate these calculations.

  Read the article

• Resize Partition with gparted

  - by arian

  I wanted to create more space for Ubuntu on my hard disk in favor of my windows partition. I booted the livecd and resized the ntfs partition to 100gb. Then I wanted to resize my ubuntu (ext4) partition to fill up the created unallocated space. A screenshot of my current disk. (With the livecd there's no 'key' icon after sda6) My first thought was just right click on sda6 ? move/resize ? done. Unfortunately I cannot resize or move the partition. However I can resize the ntfs partition. I guess it is because the extended sda4 partition is locked. I couldn't see an unlock possibility though… So how do I resize the ext4 partition anyway, probably by unlocking the extended partition, but how? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• How to set up an inter-OS partition?

  - by Confuzzled Persun

  I need a working partition configuration for use and accessibility on both Ubuntu and Windows. I have an 8GB USB flash drive onto which I am installing Ubuntu 11.10 so that I can have a personal bootable OS wherever I go. I've installed Ubuntu several times, but I just can't seem to get this one partition right. This is my own configuration: Partition 1: Primary - 200MB - Beginning - Ext4 - /boot Partition 2: Primary - 1300MB - End - swap area Partition 3: Logical - 5200MB - Beginning - Ext4 - / Partition 4: Logical - 1258MB - Beginning - Ext4 - /home Partition 5: Logical - 42MB - End - FAT32? - /windows? What I want to do is to get partition 5 configured so I can access it on both the installed Ubuntu system and a Windows system (when the USB drive is connected while Windows is booted). Basically, what I want is Ubuntu installed on the USB drive along with a partition that I can access with other operating systems. I'm thinking I just need the technical configuration of "Use as:" and "Mount point:" for my final partition. But I don't know. Any help with this is appreciated. And any other tips are appreciated as well.

  Read the article

• MegaCli newly created disk doesn't appear under /dev/sdX

  - by Henry-Nicolas Tourneur

  After having successfully added 2 new disks in a new RAID virtual drive (background initialization done), I would have exepected it to appear under /dev/sdh but it's not there (so, unusable). The system is running a CentOS 5.2 64 bits, HAL and udev daemons are running, not records of any sdh apparition under the messsage log file or in dmesg, only MegaCli do see that virtual drive. Any idea ? Some data: [root@server ~]# ./MegaCli -LDInfo -LALL -a0 Adapter 0 -- Virtual Drive Information: Virtual Disk: 0 (target id: 0) Name: RAID Level: Primary-1, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-0 Size:139392MB State: Optimal Stripe Size: 64kB Number Of Drives:2 Span Depth:1 Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAheadNone, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Current Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAheadNone, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Access Policy: Read/Write Disk Cache Policy: Disk's Default Virtual Disk: 1 (target id: 1) Name: RAID Level: Primary-1, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-0 Size:285568MB State: Optimal Stripe Size: 64kB Number Of Drives:2 Span Depth:1 Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAheadNone, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Current Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAheadNone, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Access Policy: Read/Write Disk Cache Policy: Disk's Default [root@server ~]# ls -l /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-360* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36001ec90f82fe100108ca0a704098d09 -> ../../sda lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36001ec90f82fe100108ca0a704098d09-part1 -> ../../sda1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36001ec90f82fe100108ca0a704098d09-part2 -> ../../sda2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fe07e78f94940c0000a0ee -> ../../sdf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fe07e78f94940c0000a0ee-part1 -> ../../sdf1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fe972a3f91240a0000005f -> ../../sdb lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fe972a3f91240a0000005f-part1 -> ../../sdb1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fea7e18f94640c000020ec -> ../../sde lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fea7e18f94640c000020ec-part1 -> ../../sde1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0feb7da8f94340c0000203d -> ../../sdd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0feb7da8f94340c0000203d-part1 -> ../../sdd1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fed7d78f94040c000080b7 -> ../../sdc lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a028e0fed7d78f94040c000080b7-part1 -> ../../sdc1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a05830145e58e0b9c479000010a1 -> ../../sdg lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Nov 17 2010 /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-36090a05830145e58e0b9c479000010a1-part1 -> ../../sdg1

  Read the article

• The partition table is corrupt

  - by Tim

  I have a corrupt the partition table on the laptop that is running Ubunutu 10.4. Before the partition table was corrupt I had the following partitions: 2 primary partitions: 1st - NTFS 2nd - Extended 4 logical partitons that are built within 2nd extended: 1st NTFS (68 Gib) 2nd Linux (19 Gib) 3rd Swap (1.4 Gib) 4th Linux (24 Gib) The physical order of these partitions was the following: ( 4th Linux ) - ( 1st NTFS ) - ( 2nd Linux ) - ( 3rd Swap ) The logical order of the partition was different: ( 1st NTFS ) - ( 2nd Linux ) - ( 3rd Swap ) ( 4th Linux ) NTFS partition was big and it resided between 2 Linux partitions, neither of these partitions had enough space to install Oracle 11g. Therefore, I decided to a) either move the NTFS partion to the left or b) remove it completely and extend partition where Linux resides. As I tool I have chosen GParted. But unfortunately it was not able to move the partition because he found that in NTFS partition there are some blocks that are referenced multiple times. Also it was not able to remove the partition neither, because in this case the partitions that follow it ( 2nd Linux ) - ( 3rd Swap ) have to be in his opinion also removed, because the organization of extended partition is a linked list. Since GParted was not able to do such thing I was trying to find another tool. I found diskdrake tool on PSLinuxOS distribution of linux. That tool silently deleted ( 1st NTFS ) partition and I thought that everything was fine. But diskdrake has damaged the partition in a way that I am not able either to boot from the hard disk nor to see the partitions with GParted and even with diskdrake itself! Fortunately I have a live CD of Ubuntu 8.10 and I am able to boot and see hard disk. I have 2 ideas how I can solve the problem: 1) Manually change disk partitions and point them to the correct partitions. 2) Create partition table with GParted that as much as possible is the same with the previous one I find the 2nd approach less time consuming but some data will be lost because of it is not possible to place borders of the partitions exactly how it was before. And moreover I am not sure if such approach would work, for example, if the OS is able to locate files after repartitioning. I feel like that it will but not 100% sure. Are there some ideas how the problem may be solved?

  Read the article

• Step by step guide to partition an external HDD in two file formats

  - by Mysterio

  I just purchased an external HDD (1TB) which I want to partition with two different file formats - NTFS and FAT32 (this partition is for my PS3 backups). At the moment it's a giant 943mb NTFS partition and at the end of the operation I want it to be like: 643 MB NTFS partition (as my main partition) 300 MB FAT32 partition (to house my PS3 backups) Please can someone help me out? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Looking for a Windows 7 compatible Partition Manager!

  - by NoCanDo

  Since Acronis Disk Director Suite 10.0 is no longer compatible with Windows 7, I'm in need of an alternative. I'm not interested in Acronis Disk Director Suite workarounds, particularly not an application as dangerous as a partition manager. I don't want to mess it up my partitions due to incompatibality. Anyone got any ideas? Open Source, Commercial or Freeware, doesn't mater!

  Read the article

• "Misaligned partition" - Should I do repartition (how?)

  - by RndmUbuntuAmateur

  Tried to install Ubuntu 12.04 from USB-stick alongside the existing Win7 OS 64bit, and now I'm not sure if install was completely successful: Disk Utility tool claims that the Extended partition (which contains Ubuntu partition and Swap) is "misaligned" and recommends repartition. What should I do, and if should I do this repartition, how to do it (especially if I would like not to lose the data on Win7 partition)? Background info: A considerably new Thinkpad laptop (UEFI BIOS, if that matters). Before install there were already a "SYSTEM_DRV" partition, the main Windows partition and a Lenovo recovery partition (all NTFS). Now the table looks like this: SYSTEM_DRV (sda1), Windows (sda2), Extended (sda4) (which contains Linux (sda5; ext4) and Swap (sda6)) and Recovery (sda3). Disk Utility Tool gives a message as follows when I select Ext: "The partition is misaligned by 1024 bytes. This may result in very poor performance. Repartitioning is suggested." There were couple of problems during the install, which I describe below, in the case they happen to be relevant. Installer claimed that it recognized existing OS'es fine, so I checked the corresponding option during the install. Next, when it asked me how to allocate the disk space, the first weird thing happened: the installer give me a graphical "slide" allocate disk space for pre-existing Win7 OS and new Ubuntu... but it did not inform me which partition would be for Ubuntu and which for Windows. ..well, I decided to go with the setting installer proposed. (not sure if this is relevant, but I guess I'd better mention it anyway - the previous partition tools have been more self-explanatory...) After the install (which reported no errors), GRUB/Ubuntu refused to boot. Luckily this problem was quite straightforwardly resolved with live-Ubuntu-USB and Boot-Repair ("Recommended repair" worked just fine). After all this hassle I decided to check the partition table "just to be sure"- and the disk utility gives the warning message I described.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >