Search Results

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

Page 10/133 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Cant install 12.04.1 or 12.10 in Asus GT75VW laptop

    - by Software companies in perth
    I got this new laptop that comes with a 256 GB ssd drive 128 GB are used for the preinstalled Windows 7 I want to install Ubuntu on the other 128 Gb. I first installed 12.10, it worked and booted once into the OS bu then it started booting onto a black screen so i tried with 12.04.1, i tried installing it a few times with the normal and alternate installer but after saying the installation was OK, it boots onto this distorted graphics screen with a purpelish background where you can't do anything.... What do i do?

    Read the article

  • How to partition hard drive that has no os installed?

    - by Sarang Patil
    I have 500 GB hard drive. The laptop came with windows 7 pre installed in it. Now as I am installing Windows 8, I have deleted the C drive. So I have 460 GB free unused space where I can install Windows 8. But the Windows 8 installer does not give me any option to partition the 460 GB. The only option available are "Refresh" and "Load driver" or just selecting the 460 GB HDD and installing Windows 8 in it. So how can I partition this 460 GB before I install Windows 8 in it? Edit: Can you suggest me some tools that partition the hard drive and RUN independently (as I do not have any OS installed) from a USB ?

    Read the article

  • Google sitemap HrefLang tag without the main site url

    - by Rashmi Pandit
    We have websites with multilingual content. e.g. http://www.example.com/about-us/ http://www.example.com/en-HK/about-us/ http://www.example.com/en-GB/about-us/ http://www.example.com/zn-CH/about-us/ We need to configure the hreflang tags in sitemap for Google to know that there are alternate links for the same pages in different languages. I know for the above example that my sitemap url tag would look like this: <url> <loc>http://www.example.com/about-us</loc> <xhtml:link rel="alternate" hreflang="en-GB" href="http://www.example.com/en-GB/about-us"/> <xhtml:link rel="alternate" hreflang="en-HK" href="http://www.example.com/en-HK/about-us"/> <xhtml:link rel="alternate" hreflang="zn-CH" href="http://www.example.com/zn-CH/about-us"/> <changefreq>daily</changefreq> <priority>0.8</priority> </url> However, if I don't have the main url but just the last three ones with en-HK, en-GB and zn-CH, then how should my url tag look? Should I just skip the loc tag and keep the three xhtml:link tags? Or can I specify any url in the loc tag and put the remaining two in xhtml:link tags? I am new to Google sitemaps. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Rashmi Edit: From the answer posted on http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18423624/sitemap-for-domain-with-multilanguage-site/18423803#18423803, for my example with sites in en-HK, en-GB and zn-CH, should there be three url tags, with each of them assigned to loc with the other two in xhtml:link?

    Read the article

  • Hide icons encrypted file system partitions in Nautilus

    - by Eddy Pronk
    I've installed Ubuntu 10.04 from the alternate CD. It has an encrypted root and swap partition. The root partition is visible in Nautilus as 'File Syste' icon. There is another icon "216 GB Filesystem". If I click it says: Unable to mount 216 GB Filesystem. /dev/mapper/sda5_crypt is mounted. Then there is another icon "6.1 GB Swap Space". If I click it it says: Unable to mount 6.1 GB Swap Space. Not a mountable file system. How can I hide these last two icons? Partition layout: $ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda [sudo] password for eddyp: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0xa6e92df4 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 11749 94373811 7 HPFS/NTFS /dev/sda2 11871 38914 217219073 5 Extended /dev/sda3 * 11750 11871 976896 83 Linux /dev/sda5 11871 38167 211220480 83 Linux /dev/sda6 38167 38914 5997568 83 Linux Partition table entries are not in disk order Mounted as: $ mount /dev/mapper/sda5_crypt on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro) proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw) none on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw) none on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw) none on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,mode=0755) none on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,noexec,nosuid,gid=5,mode=0620) none on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev) none on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755) none on /var/lock type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /lib/init/rw type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755) /dev/sda3 on /boot type ext4 (rw) binfmt_misc on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/eddyp/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,user=eddyp) /dev/sda1 on /media/S3A6595D003 type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other,blksize=4096,default_permissions)

    Read the article

  • Resize the disk space of Ubuntu 12.04

    - by lara
    I m using Wubi 12.04. While I installed, the disk size was 18 GB. Now I m almost running out the space. But I have enough space in Windows drive in which I installed Wubi. I tried to increase the size of Ubuntu from this link https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ResizeandDuplicateWubiDisk But It gives the msg wubi-resize.sh: The new size (5 GB) isn't sufficient to hold your wubi-resize.sh: existing install (18 GB) plus a freespace buffer What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Trying to recover deleted Ubuntu partition

    - by user110984
    I made a mistake in logging into my 200 GB Ubuntu partition. I could not access Grub after that. Using a live CD I then ran Boot_Repair and apparently deleted the partition, I guess because I ran it from my 70 GB Windows partition. I can send the results of boot_info before that and of Boot_Repair. Then I ran TestDisk, which apparently found only dev/sda/ -320GB / 298 / GiB - WDC - WD3200BEVT-22A23T0 (Was there any more I could have done with TestDisk? I looked at the TestDisk_Step_By_Step example and found no way forward given that no other partitions turned up) I have run gpart and found this: /sda1 - 15 GB /sda2 - system reserved /sda3 - 70.15 GB /sda4 - extended 212.84 unallocated - 209.10 /sda5 - unknown 3.74 . I have been told I can recover the partition using gparted's Rescue start end command, but I don't know what to enter for start and end. [--EDIT: TestDisk Deeper Search stated that "the following partitions can't be recovered" and listed a 220-GB Linux partition 6 times. Then it stated that "The current number of heads per cylinder is 255 but the correct value may be 128" and I could try to change it in the Geometry menu (because apparently these are overlapping partitions) So should I do that?--]

    Read the article

  • Error while trying to dual boot Ubuntu alongside Windows 8

    - by Brian
    I recently purchased a new Toshiba Ultrabook that comes pre-installed with Windows 8. I'm trying to dual boot 12.10 with it and I have run into a problem with the installer. When I get to the page to pick the partitions I get this: No drives are listed and the only thing in that device drop down is /dev/sda. If I click Install Now or +/-/change I get an "Ubuntu has stopped working" error message. I'm trying to install off a 12.10 64-bit USB drive in UEFI mode, and I have tried it with secure boot both enabled and disabled with the same results. The hard drive set up is as follows: 500 GB main drive windows recovery (primary) EFI boot section (primary) Windows' partion (280 GB I believe) (primary) unallocated space I created for Ubuntu partition (200ish GB) another Windows recovery partition (primary) 12 GB solid state drive all unallocated space Could it be a problem with the number of primary partitions? I think I read somewhere about a max of 4.

    Read the article

  • 14.04 default locales

    - by Seán Ó Séaghdha
    After a new install of 14.04 I have quite a few extra locales/languages. Is this normal? I installed using English (GB) I think since en_AU isn't an option. At some point apt offered a list of unused files which I removed. Now when I open Language Support it warns me that "Language support is not installed completely" and offers to reinstall this list... kde-l10n-zhcn thunderbird-locale-en-gb thunderbird-locale-es libreoffice-l10n-en-gb libreoffice-help-es libreoffice-help-en-gb wspanish thunderbird-locale-zh-cn myspell-es ibus-sunpinyin mythes-en-au kde-l10n-es libreoffice-l10n-zh-cn fonts-arphic-uming ibus-table-wubi thunderbird-locale-es-es thunderbird-locale-zh-hans libreoffice-l10n-en-za thunderbird-locale-es-ar hunspell-en-ca libreoffice-l10n-es libreoffice-help-zh-cn kde-l10n-engb fonts-arphic-ukai So are Spanish and Chinese installed by default in all installations now? Why do I need Canadian English spellchecking installed?

    Read the article

  • install Ubuntu and remove Windows 7

    - by dani
    I'm using Windows 7 on my laptop (2GB RAM, 250 GB HDD). I want to install Ubuntu and remove Windows 7. I have Partitioned my laptop into 2 partitions: , C Drive - 105 GB and D Drive - 145 GB. I want to install Ubuntu on C drive all my data in D drive, no backup I have already selected the "Try something else option " /dev/sdb /dev/sdb1 ntfs 104855 MB unknown C drive /dev/sdb5 ntfs 145192 MB unknown D drive I need help using the "Try Something Else" Option My course of action: laptop power on bootubuntu nextsomething elsepartition.

    Read the article

  • RAID1: can't replace faulty spare (marked again as 'faulty spare' within seconds)

    - by user212475
    I got a problem that I cannot solve: Our fileserver runs XUbuntu and 3 RAID1s. One has a problem since monday: it consists of sdb and sdc. sdb was marked as faulty by mdadm for unknown reasons. I used --remove to remove it from the RAID and then to add it by --add. All was fine, re-syncing started but never got above 0% and after a few seconds, sdb was again marked as 'faulty spare' (and therefore the RAID degraded, but clean). So I saved the first 512 byte of the old sdb to a file, bought a new HDD of same size (4TB), shut down the computer and replaced sdb physically, switched the computer back on and wrote the 512 byte back to the new drive to have the same partition info as the old drive (both are the same type, from same company). But the new drive shows the same behaviour as the old: I can add, re-syncing starts and after a few seconds its marked as 'faulty spare'. Here exactly what i did: mdadm --remove /dev/md/1 /dev/sdb maadm --detail /dev/md/1 gives me: /dev/md/1: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sat Jun 8 22:32:05 2013 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Used Dev Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 1 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 7 06:56:13 2013 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 Name : File-Server:1 (local to host File-Server) UUID : 44ed561f:b733e946:e69820f4:aba9b223 Events : 2424 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc mdadm --add /dev/md/1 /dev/sdb mdadm --detail /dev/md/1 gives me: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sat Jun 8 22:32:05 2013 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Used Dev Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 7 06:57:49 2013 State : clean, degraded, recovering Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Rebuild Status : 0% complete Name : File-Server:1 (local to host File-Server) UUID : 44ed561f:b733e946:e69820f4:aba9b223 Events : 2431 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 2 8 16 0 faulty spare rebuilding /dev/sdb 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc and after a few seconds: /dev/md/1: Version : 1.2 Creation Time : Sat Jun 8 22:32:05 2013 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Used Dev Size : 3906887360 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 7 06:57:50 2013 State : clean, degraded Active Devices : 1 Working Devices : 1 Failed Devices : 1 Spare Devices : 0 Name : File-Server:1 (local to host File-Server) UUID : 44ed561f:b733e946:e69820f4:aba9b223 Events : 2436 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 0 0 0 removed 1 8 32 1 active sync /dev/sdc 2 8 16 - faulty spare /dev/sdb same behaviour if I zero the superblock (mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdb) before adding sdb. I do all commands as root and the system holds 3 more 4TB drives, ie the mainboard can handle them. The old harddrive was checked for errors using badblocks, but all is fine. Does anybody have any idea, what the problem is?

    Read the article

  • How to use unused space in ubuntu

    - by Ravi.Kumar
    I installed ubuntu on my machine with only 80 GB of memory anticipating that I will remove it later but now I want to keep it forever (until I am frustrated with linux). I have 500 GB in my machine and now I want to use that raw 420 GB of space. How I can I do that ? with "space/memory" I am referring to secondary memory not Ram. Here is output of : sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000dcb77 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 136718335 68358144 83 Linux

    Read the article

  • "Failed to mount Windows share" error in Samba

    - by Ranjith R
    This is the situation. There are 3 machines in the office. The Operating systems on them are respectively, Linux mint Ubuntu 12.04 Windows Vista The Ubuntu (#2) machine is supposed to be the common file server between the machines #1 and #3. Machine #2 has two hard disks. One is a 500 GB NTFS empty drive and the other is a 160 GB ext4 drive. My plan is to make the 500 GB as the file sharing disk. When I share a folder like ~/Documents using Nautilus context menu on machine #2, I can access the files easily on both #1 and #3, but when I try to share some folder on 500 GB disk, I get an error on machine #1 that says Failed to mount windows share I do not mind formatting the drive to ext4 if needed, but I am sure that something simple is wrong. EDIT I took @Marty's comment as a hint and used ntfs-config to configure automount of that partition. It is working now. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why does Windows 7 x64 work faster than an x86 edition on my PC?

    - by Jasper
    Why does Windows 7 x64 work faster than an x86 edition on my PC even though I mostly use x86 things in it? What's wrong with me, and what am I missing? Majority of the things I use is x86 (e.g. DAWs, games, media players). A considerable amount of them, however, are x64 (although their x86 counterparts work just fine). I've tried using the same things on the same system but always ended up finding Windows 7 x64 working slightly faster than x86. I'm very observant. I even notice the tiniest window animations. System: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93 GHz RAM: 2 GB x 2 = 4 GB DDR2 @ 332 MHz Motherboard: Intel D945GCNL Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4350 @ 1 GB Dedicated Audio: M-Audio FastTrack Pro HDD: Samsung HD753LJ 733 GB & Samsung HD160JJ 156 GB As you can see, my system is old.

    Read the article

  • The application compiz has closed unexpectedly

    - by suhaas
    I have installed Ubuntu 12.10 on my desktop. (Pentium 4, 80 GB hard disk, 2 GB RAM, 32-bit CPU.) And I have installed Windows XP. I made a 40 GB partition for windows and 40 GB for Ubuntu. I installed Ubuntu and it said "installation is complete" and asked me to restart. I restarted the PC and logged in. After 1 minute I get a message like this: The application compiz has closed unexpectedly. Then I closed it. After that it just stays in blank screen nothing shows up. What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Windows partition UNKNOWN after Ubuntu installation attempt at dual boot - How to fix?

    - by user285645
    The idea was to install Win 7 and Ubuntu with dual boot. However, after installation, Gparted shows a /dev/sda1 as an 'unknown' filesystem and its size is 278 GB. All my windows files, data are in this partition. THen, there's /dev/sda2 with 'EXT4' filesystem (size-9.54 GB) - created during Ubuntu install. Then, there's /dev/sda3 with 'extended' filesystem (size- 10.5 GB) - created during Ubuntu install. Then, there's /dev/sda5 with 'linux swap' filesystem (size- 2 GB) - created during Ubuntu install. Then, there's /dev/sda6 with 'ext4' filesystem (size- 8.5 GB) - created during Ubuntu install. MY questions are: What exactly does this Gparted output above mean? How to recover my previous Windows 7 installation that's in /dev/sda1 (NTFS). I have some important files I need. Also, I had a PGP encryption on the disk before installing Ubuntu. Now, it just boots straight into Ubuntu... why? How to uninstall Ubuntu (the Try ubuntu and uninstall did not work. the boot-repair did not work) I have read other topics but noone has provided a proper step by step answer to how to recover my 278GB WIndows partition. The testdisk step by step procedure did not work. It says the NTFS disk is unrecognized.

    Read the article

  • Should we install the OS on an SSD or not when running virtual machines?

    - by Raghu Dodda
    I have a new Dell Mobile Precision M6500 laptop with 8 GB RAM. it has two hard drives - 500 GB @7200 RPM and a 128 GB SSD. The main purpose of these laptop is software development in virtual machines. The plan is to install the base OS (Windows 7) and all the programs in the 500 GB drive, and let the SSD only contain the virtual machine images. It is my understanding that the we get most performance from the virtual machines if the images are on a separate hard drive than the base OS. Is this the way to go, or should I install the OS on the SSD as well? What are the pros and cons? The virtual machine images would be between 20 - 30 GB, and I might run 1 or 2 at a time.

    Read the article

  • Can I extend my total RAM by buying more, and what kind do I need to buy

    - by Xeon06
    I currently have 4 GB total RAM and I would like to get some more, to bring it to a total of 8 GB. Is it possible to simply buy another 4 GB and bring it to 8? If so, what kind should I be buying? There is a lot of different possibilities, DDR3, DDR2, clock speed, etc. I am kind of lost among all this. My current setup goes like this: ACER EG43M mainboard Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz 4 total RAM slots, 2 occupied by 2 GB sticks According to CPU-Z, my memory type is DDR3 (not sure how reliable that is) Full CPU-Z dump Windows 7 64-bit So basically, I want to know whether it's possible to extend my current RAM to get 8 GB total by buying another 4, and if so, what kind of RAM do I need? Note that I am not looking for shopping recommendations. I'm worried about the hardware compatibility.

    Read the article

  • Missing hard drive total space in Windows

    - by bluedot951
    I have an HP Pavilion DM4 with a 750 GB hard drive. A few days ago, I installed Windows 8 on it, so I am now dual booting Win7 and Win8 (and I also have a 100 MB system reserved partition). I noticed that I am only able to see 700 GB of hard disk space (169 for Win 8 and 529 for Win 7). I booted of an Ubuntu 11.04 LiveCD and in the disk utility it said that my Win 8 partition is 182 GB and my Win 7 partition is 568 GB, correctly adding up to 750 GB. I would like to reclaim the missing space in its respective partitions. Any advice on how to go about doing this?

    Read the article

  • Like to Upgrade My PC (7 year old) - for animation and hardcore gaming ! - help me [closed]

    - by sri
    I like to buy a new computer for my studies and as well as gaming. My old pc has 1.5 GB RAM with 512MB Graphics card. And it is very old to run Adobe CS5 version and other high end animation software. My budget will be INR 20k-25k. I have 500GB hard disk, keyboard and mouse new. So apart from this, I like to buy : Intel or AMD is good ? My idea is : Corei5 or Corei7 = which is best and economy ? Which mother board. 4 GB RAM with upto 8 GB RAM slot for future upgrade. 1 GB or 2 GB Graphic card - which one ? If I am wrong - please suggest me

    Read the article

  • CoreStore Encryption Error on Mac Lion

    - by Michael
    I am trying to encrypt an external drive using diskutil CoreStorage on Mac Lion 10.7.4. I thought the only requirements were that the drive have GUID partition scheme and Journaled HFS+ file system. I think my drive is configured accordingly but when I type the following command I get an error message back: Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil cs convert disk2 -passphrase TestPassword Error converting disk to CoreStorage: The given file system is not supported on Core Storage (-69756) Here are the details reported for the drive in question: Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil list disk2 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *500.1 GB disk2 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk2s1 2: Apple_HFS Test1 499.8 GB disk2s2 Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil list disk2 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *500.1 GB disk2 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk2s1 2: Apple_HFS Test1 499.8 GB disk2s2 Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil info disk2s2 Device Identifier: disk2s2 Device Node: /dev/disk2s2 Part of Whole: disk2 Device / Media Name: Test1 Volume Name: Test1 Escaped with Unicode: Test1 Mounted: Yes Mount Point: /Volumes/Test1 Escaped with Unicode: /Volumes/Test1 File System Personality: Journaled HFS+ Type (Bundle): hfs Name (User Visible): Mac OS Extended (Journaled) Journal: Journal size 40960 KB at offset 0xe8e000 Owners: Disabled Partition Type: Apple_HFS OS Can Be Installed: Yes Media Type: Generic Protocol: FireWire SMART Status: Not Supported Volume UUID: 1024D0B8-1C45-3057-B040-AE5C3841DABF Total Size: 499.8 GB (499763888128 Bytes) (exactly 976101344 512-Byte-Blocks) Volume Free Space: 499.3 GB (499315826688 Bytes) (exactly 975226224 512-Byte-Blocks) Device Block Size: 512 Bytes Read-Only Media: No Read-Only Volume: No Ejectable: Yes Whole: No Internal: No I'm a little concerned that the "Partition Type: Apple_HFS" entry is causing the problem, but I don't know how to change that. I only seem to be able to control the "File System Personality: Journaled HFS+" in Disk Utility. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

    Read the article

  • JAVASCRIPT ENABLED

    - by kirchoffs415
    HI, I hope somebody can help, i keep getting the following message when i log on-- Your Javascript is disabled. Limited functionality is available. it will stay for maybe a day sometimes two.I have uninstalled javascript and reinstalled but still the same. Iam using chrome. any help would be gratefull many thanks Dominic p.s. my system spec is as follows System InformationOS Name Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium Version 6.0.6002 Service Pack 2 Build 6002 Other OS Description Not Available OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation System Name DOM-PC System Manufacturer Dell Inc. System Model Inspiron 1545 System Type X86-based PC Processor Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU T4200 @ 2.00GHz, 2000 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s) BIOS Version/Date Dell Inc. A05, 25/02/2009 SMBIOS Version 2.4 Windows Directory C:\Windows System Directory C:\Windows\system32 Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume3 Locale United Kingdom Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.0.6002.18005" User Name DOM-PC\DOM Time Zone GMT Standard Time Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 3.00 GB Total Physical Memory 2.96 GB Available Physical Memory 1.38 GB Total Virtual Memory 5.89 GB Available Virtual Memory 4.25 GB Page File Space 3.00 GB Page File C:\pagefile.sys My System Specs

    Read the article

  • How to use most of memory available on MySQL

    - by Zilvinas
    I've got a MySQL server which has both InnoDB and MyISAM tables. InnoDB tablespace is quite small under 4 GB. MyISAM is big ~250 GB in total of which 50 GB is for indexes. Our server has 32 GB of RAM but it usually uses only ~8GB. Our key_buffer_size is only 2GB. But our key cache hit ratio is ~95%. I find it hard to believe.. Here's our key statistics: | Key_blocks_not_flushed | 1868 | | Key_blocks_unused | 109806 | | Key_blocks_used | 1714736 | | Key_read_requests | 19224818713 | | Key_reads | 60742294 | | Key_write_requests | 1607946768 | | Key_writes | 64788819 | key_cache_block_size is default at 1024. We have 52 GB's of index data and 2GB key cache is enough to get a 95% hit ratio. Is that possible? On the other side data set is 200GB and since MyISAM uses OS (Centos) caching I would expect it to use a lot more memory to cache accessed myisam data. But at this stage I see that key_buffer is completely used, our buffer pool size for innodb is 4gb and is also completely used that adds up to 6GB. Which means data is cached using just 1 GB? My question is how could I check where all the free memory could be used? How could I check if MyISAM hits OS cache for data reads instead of disk?

    Read the article

  • Need clear steps on how to convert a Windows 2000 Server to a XenServer VM

    - by Jay
    The source system is not local. The target host running XenServer is not local. The source system is running Windows 2000 Server SP4 and has 1 disk split into 6 partitions, all NTFS: C: 6 GB (boot) D: 15 GB E: 6 GB F: 6 GB G: 5 GB H: 26 GB Most of the partitions are mostly mostly full ( 60%). What is the most straightforward way to do a P2V migration of the server? I can do minor database & data syncs after the P2V is successful & running as a VM within XenServer, it's just getting to that point which is not clear. The option of installing a Windows 2000 Server from scratch is not available, I need to convert the existing physical server as-is into a VM to be hosted within a XenServer environment. I've looked at XenConvert but it maxes out on converting only 4 partitions in one shot, and I'm not certain how to account for the 2 extra partitions. I'm not familiar with XenServer but it's my only option right now to go P2V.

    Read the article

  • Need clear steps on how to convert a Windows 2000 Server to a XenServer VM

    - by Jay
    The source system is not local. The target host running XenServer is not local. The source system is running Windows 2000 Server SP4 and has 1 disk split into 6 partitions, all NTFS: C: 6 GB (boot) D: 15 GB E: 6 GB F: 6 GB G: 5 GB H: 26 GB Most of the partitions are mostly mostly full ( 60%). What is the most straightforward way to do a P2V migration of the server? I can do minor database & data syncs after the P2V is successful & running as a VM within XenServer, it's just getting to that point which is not clear. The option of installing a Windows 2000 Server from scratch is not available, I need to convert the existing physical server as-is into a VM to be hosted within a XenServer environment. I've looked at XenConvert but it maxes out on converting only 4 partitions in one shot, and I'm not certain how to account for the 2 extra partitions. I'm not familiar with XenServer but it's my only option right now to go P2V.

    Read the article

  • Apt pin and self hosted apt repo

    - by Hamish Downer
    We have our own apt/deb repository with a handful of packages where we want to control the version. Crucially this includes puppet, which can be sensitive to versions being different. I want our desktops to only get puppet from our repository, but also for people to be able to add their own PPAs, enable backports etc. The current problem we have is backports on Ubuntu Lucid. Some important lines from /etc/apt/sources.list: deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid main restricted universe multiverse deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates main restricted universe multiverse deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security main restricted universe multiverse deb http://deb.example.org/apt/ubuntu/lucid/ binary/ And in /etc/apt/preferences.d/puppet: Package: puppet puppet-common Pin: release a=binary Pin-Priority: 800 Package: puppet puppet-common Pin: release a=lucid-backports Pin-Priority: -10 Currently policy says: $ sudo apt-cache policy puppet puppet: Installed: (none) Candidate: (none) Package pin: 2.7.1-1ubuntu3.6~lucid1 Version table: 2.7.1-1ubuntu3.6~lucid1 -10 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-backports/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 2.6.14-1puppetlabs1 -10 500 http://deb.example.org/apt/ubuntu/lucid/ binary/ Packages 0.25.4-2ubuntu6.8 -10 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates/main Packages 500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security/main Packages 0.25.4-2ubuntu6 -10 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid/main Packages If I use n= instead of a= then I get Package pin: (not found) I'm just plain confused at this point as to what I should use. Any help appreciated.

    Read the article

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