Search Results

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

Page 105/460 | < Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >

  • What is the best way to shutdown hard disk?

    - by Sunil
    Right Now I'm using hdparm command in unix to shut down the hard disk but there are few issues with it. when it wakes back up it consumes lots power. Is there any other way to do it? Many times when I put my hard disk to sleep, I can see few bursts at the beginning and then after a while it goes to sleep. I think its because of the journaling system in ubuntu (which I use) Have anybody encountered that? What would be the best linux/unix operating system (eg: ubuntu/centos/redhat) to work on extensive hard disk operations? I would highly appreciate if you could share the problems you encountered while doing this operation.

    Read the article

  • How can I run fsck on a disk image via Mac Terminal?

    - by mvizual
    I want to run fsck on a disk image before I use it to restore (replace) a corrupted volume. Using Terminal, what would be the proper command, syntax, and options for this operation? I've just recently become acquainted with Terminal and line commands, so syntax and specific options aren't part of my computing vocabulary. I'm using Terminal 2.1.2, bash, OS 10.6.8. Ultimately, I'm trying to restore an image to a secondary startup volume (external drive). The image is mounted on my desktop and I want to check it for errors before I use it. Disk Utility runs "repair disk" successfully but the integrity of the image is suspect.

    Read the article

  • Vmware Workstation 10 connect remote server (Debian, Guest-Windows XP) Does not allow raw disk access nor shared folders

    - by Alex
    The setup: Ubuntu with local Vmware Workstation 10 (everything works locally) Connects(File- Connect to Server) Debian server with the same Vmware Workstation 10 (Windows XP Guest) Debian setup does not allow raw disk access nor shared folders (most options does not exist) No shared folder No physical disk option I use root user for this machine. Default install. I've tried to add shared folder from command line - it does not work. How to enable shared folders or raw disk access? I have created new Windows 8 64 bit template from scratch - I cannot use physical HDD either, and no SharedFolder option. I think this is something about security policy of remote server.

    Read the article

  • Why does Ubuntu refuse to execute files from an NTFS partition?

    - by Ivan
    I mount an NTFS partition (where I've got some Linux binaries and scripts alongside with Win32 and data files) with the following fstab line: /dev/sda5 /mnt/dat ntfs-3g rw,dev,exec,auto,async,users,umask=000,uid=1000,gid=1000,locale=en_US.utf8, errors=remount-ro 0 0 All files seem to have executable attribute set then, but if I try to actually execute them, I get "Permission denied" error. Even with sudo. Even while execute (as well as read and write) permissions are granted to everyone and all the files owner is set to the user. So how do I set the system up to be able to run Linux binaries from NTFS?

    Read the article

  • Downgrade to LTS version, preserving /home partition: Should I expect this to work?

    - by Archelon
    Specifically, I'm installing Kubuntu 12.04 over 13.04. And in fact I've already done it, and it seems to have at least mostly worked, but I'm wondering whether this one anomaly is likely to be attributable to the downgrade; to wit: I have no window borders|decorations, but only wide, featureless, white---or sometimes black---margins around all my windows. None of the settings in System Settings (the window border and decorations options are in Workspace Appearance) seem to have any effect. Is this likely to be fixable, or should I cut my losses and reinstall (formatting the /home partition and restoring any data with rsync)?

    Read the article

  • Why is my partition claiming to be out of space?

    - by Dr C
    My file system claims to only have 4.5 GB left. While my OS (a folder with in file system) still has 75.2 GB left. I put something near 130 GB on my Ubuntu partition, it should have enough space. I confirmed that I can put things in OS that exceed the space in available file systems, but that makes no sense, OS is listed as a folder inside of file system, why would it have more space than it's parent folder? What is going on? Here is the output of df: Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda5 113773200 103741440 4252408 97% / udev 2004600 4 2004596 1% /dev tmpfs 804756 848 803908 1% /run none 5120 0 5120 0% /run/lock none 2011884 436 2011448 1% /run/shm /dev/sda2 127526908 54045584 73481324 43% /media/OS /dev/sda3 39144708 89016 39055692 1% /media/DATA`

    Read the article

  • Recommended storage scheme for home server? (LVM/JBOD/RAID 5...)

    - by j-g-faustus
    Are there any guidelines for which storage scheme(s) makes most sense for a multiple-disk home server? I am assuming a separate boot/OS disk (so bootability is not a concern, this is for data storage only) and 4-6 storage disks of 1-2 TB each, for a total storage capacity in the range 4-12 TB. The file system is ext4, I expect there will be only one big partition spanning all disks. As far as I can tell, the alternatives are individual disks pros: works with any combination of disk sizes; losing a disk loses only the data on that disk; no need for volume management. cons: data management is clumsy when logical units (like a "movies" folder) are larger than the capacity of any single drive. JBOD span pros: can merge disks of any size. cons: losing a disk loses all data on all disks LVM pros: can merge disks of any size; relatively simple to add and remove disks. cons: losing a disk loses all data on all disks RAID 0 pros: speed cons: losing one drive loses all data; disks must be same size RAID 5 pros: data survives losing one disk cons: gives up one disk worth of capacity; disks must be same size RAID 6 pros: data survives losing two disks cons: gives up two disks worth of capacity; disks must be same size I'm primarily considering either LVM or JBOD span simply because it will let me reuse older, smaller-capacity disks when I upgrade the system. The runner-up is RAID 0 for speed. I'm planning on having full backups to a separate system, so I expect the extra redundancy from RAID levels 5 or 6 won't be important. Is this a fair representation of the alternatives? Are there other considerations or alternatives I have missed? And what would you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Why do I get "No root file system is defined" when I try install in one partition?

    - by Emilio
    The thing is that I have 3 partitions on my computer. /dev/sda1 Type: ntfs (size 104MB; 35MB in use) [This is Windows Loader] /dev/sda2 Type: ntfs (size 144598MB; 64536MB in use) [Here I want to install UBUNTU] /dev/sda3 Type: ntfs (size 105353MB; 20227MB in use) [This my backup partition I don't wan't to delete anything from here, I have all my necessary information] So the problem is when I select "Device for boot loader installation" "/dev/sda2" Pops out: "No root file system is defined. Please correct this from the partitioning menu." How can I resolve this? :)

    Read the article

  • ubuntu 12.04 can't find root partition (it doesn't look for btrfs partitions) end up with kernel-panic [closed]

    - by zalesz
    Possible Duplicate: There's an issue with an Alpha/Beta Release of Ubuntu, what should I do? I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 from kernel v. 3.2.0-17 with all partitions formatted as BTRFS. It was everything ok till kernel 3.2.0-18/19. Now system don't load, after trying to run it with recovery there is a msg that kernel panic occurred cause there is no partition with ext3/4 and some other partitions but I don't see any btrfs alike type. Any ideas how to fix it? Best

    Read the article

  • How can I handle "NTFS partition is in unsafe state"?

    - by user211040
    Error mounting /dev/sda3 at /media/franklcohen/OS: Command-line `mount -t "ntfs" -o "uhelper=udisks2,nodev,nosuid,uid=1000,gid=1000,dmask=0077,fmask=0177" "/dev/sda3" "/media/franklcohen/OS"' exited with non-zero exit status 14: Windows is hibernated, refused to mount. Failed to mount '/dev/sda3': Operation not permitted The NTFS partition is in an unsafe state. Please resume and shutdown Windows fully (no hibernation or fast restarting), or mount the volume read-only with the 'ro' mount option. i get this error i have disabled fast start up in windows 8. what can i do i shut down my computer 4 times in windows and disabled fast start in windows 8. i'm using Ubuntu 13.10. please help thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to recover disk and files after 10.04 boot failure?

    - by K R Jawaharlal
    I have a 1TB HDD with four Windows XP partitions and a 120GB HDD with 10.04. While working in Ubuntu, due to delay and failure to shutdown, I switched off the system. Next it failed to boot in Ubuntu and stopped at initramfs. After that, I tried to repair from the booting stage. By mistake instead of hdd no I used partition no. This damaged the Windows also. Then Windows XP was reloaded and is running. When I boot with 12.04, it is able to detect the 120GB HDD, but, it is unable to mount. I am unable to access the files. I would like to revive the disk and recover files. Would appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • How to transfer a windows disk, to another partition? (details within)

    - by TardisGuy
    So i have a new SSD... and its like... SOOO fast (but tiny, 128Gig). But it seems to be WAY faster in linux. (bonus: whats the best Filesystem?) Now, am i correct in assuming that if I Gparted copy paste the {Boot MSreserved_][__NTFS___] in to (1st Empty space, same partition) and it will be bootable right? Oh and... how do I disable "Journaling" i read that I should do that. Feel free to link any additional mods/apts/hacks/tweaks

    Read the article

  • Linux fsck.ext3 says "Device or resource busy" although I did not mount the disk.

    - by matnagel
    I am running an ubuntu 8.04 server instance with a 8GB virtual disk on vmware 1.0.9. For disk maintenance I made a copy of the virtual disk (by making a copy of the 2 vmdk files of sda on the stopped vm on the host) and added it to the original vm. Now this vm has it's original virtual disk sda plus a 1:1 copy (sdd). There are 2 additional disk sdb and sdc which I ignore.) I would expect sdb not to be mounted when I start the vm. So I try tp do a ext2 fsck on sdd from the running vm, but it reports fsck reported that sdb was mounted. $ sudo fsck.ext3 -b 8193 /dev/sdd e2fsck 1.40.8 (13-Mar-2008) fsck.ext3: Device or resource busy while trying to open /dev/sdd Filesystem mounted or opened exclusively by another program? The "mount" command does not tell me sdd is mounted: $ sudo mount /dev/sda1 on / type ext3 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro) proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) /sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) varrun on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,mode=0755) varlock on /var/lock type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,mode=1777) udev on /dev type tmpfs (rw,mode=0755) devshm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) /dev/sdc1 on /mnt/r1 type ext3 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro) /dev/sdb1 on /mnt/k1 type ext3 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro) securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw) When I ignore the warning and continue the fsck, it reported many errors. How do I get this under control? Is there a better way to figure out if sdd is mounted? Or how is it "busy? How to unmount it then? How to prevent ubuntu from automatically mounting. Or is there something else I am missing? Also from /var/log/syslog I cannot see it is mounted, this is the last part of the startup sequence: kernel: [ 14.229494] ACPI: Power Button (FF) [PWRF] kernel: [ 14.230326] ACPI: AC Adapter [ACAD] (on-line) kernel: [ 14.460136] input: PC Speaker as /devices/platform/pcspkr/input/input3 kernel: [ 14.639366] udev: renamed network interface eth0 to eth1 kernel: [ 14.670187] eth1: link up kernel: [ 16.329607] input: ImPS/2 Generic Wheel Mouse as /devices/platform/i8042/serio1/ kernel: [ 16.367540] parport_pc 00:08: reported by Plug and Play ACPI kernel: [ 16.367670] parport0: PC-style at 0x378, irq 7 [PCSPP,TRISTATE] kernel: [ 19.425637] NET: Registered protocol family 10 kernel: [ 19.437550] lo: Disabled Privacy Extensions kernel: [ 24.328857] loop: module loaded kernel: [ 24.449293] lp0: using parport0 (interrupt-driven). kernel: [ 26.075499] EXT3 FS on sda1, internal journal kernel: [ 28.380299] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds kernel: [ 28.381706] EXT3 FS on sdc1, internal journal kernel: [ 28.381747] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. kernel: [ 28.444867] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds kernel: [ 28.445436] EXT3 FS on sdb1, internal journal kernel: [ 28.445444] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. kernel: [ 31.309766] eth1: no IPv6 routers present kernel: [ 35.054268] ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team mysqld_safe[4367]: started mysqld[4370]: 100124 14:40:21 InnoDB: Started; log sequence number 0 10130914 mysqld[4370]: 100124 14:40:21 [Note] /usr/sbin/mysqld: ready for connections. mysqld[4370]: Version: '5.0.51a-3ubuntu5.4' socket: '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' port: 3 /etc/mysql/debian-start[4417]: Upgrading MySQL tables if necessary. /etc/mysql/debian-start[4422]: Looking for 'mysql' in: /usr/bin/mysql /etc/mysql/debian-start[4422]: Looking for 'mysqlcheck' in: /usr/bin/mysqlcheck /etc/mysql/debian-start[4422]: This installation of MySQL is already upgraded to 5.0.51a, u /etc/mysql/debian-start[4436]: Checking for insecure root accounts. /etc/mysql/debian-start[4444]: Checking for crashed MySQL tables.

    Read the article

  • How does the EFI partition work and can I boot an x86 OS with a bootx64.efi file?

    - by Ian
    I have a Thinkpad X230 laptop and I want to install Linux Mint Debian Edition along side Windows 7 on my GPT formatted SSD with the BIOS in UEFI mode. The problem is that I don't understand how EFI booting works. There seems to be an EFI partition involved with some folders and binary files in it. GRUB 2 seems to be able to make more folders in it (I followed this guide http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/UEFI_Firmware), but it appears that the only file that does anything is the bootx64.efi file in the /efi/boot folder of the EFI partition (I am not sure if this is always the case, but it appears to be the case for my laptop http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:X220). Here is what I have been able to do: I can install Linux Mint Debian Edition x86 with the BIOS in BIOS mode on my SSD. I can then install grub-efi and follow the guide linked above. The problem is that I don't get a GRUB prompt when I switch the BIOS to UEFI mode. It just boots Windows. It appears that I can either boot from the SSD or something called "Windows Boot Manager". If I replace the bootx64.efi with the file created by GRUB, I can no longer boot directly from the SSD. Booting from "Windows Boot Manager" still works fine. I realize that the guide says to use x64 Linux, but Linux Mint Debian Edition x64 hangs during the install process. I am really confused. What should I do? Can anyone explain how the EFI boot partition works? Can a bootx64.efi boot an x86 OS? Should I just give up with using UEFI? I haven't been able to find very much useful information about using Debian based operating systems with UEFI. Thanks, Ian

    Read the article

  • copying an lvm partition to a smaller disk, and renaming volume groups.

    - by dlamblin
    I was trying to shrink a vmdk (VMWare disk image) file to be as small as possible, and found two recommendations. The first is to cat /dev/zero into the fs then delete it, and run VMWare tools' shrink. This works okay. The second is to copy everything into a new vmdk. I went the second route. I did not use dd because I actaully want to use as few blocks as possible, instead of having a block-by-clok copy. Any unlinked files will still have blocks that aren't zeroed out. Secondly the centos image was mostly lvm, except for the boot partition, and my target was going to be 4gb instead of 8gb. I did use dd for the first 40mb to get the boot blocks and partition copied. I then used parted to create an identical primary boot, and smaller primary lvm. Then I used pvcreate on that device sdb2, vgcreate, and lvcreate to create a root and swap. I used mkfs.ext3fs on the root partition and then rsync -av / /2root excluding /proc /sys /2root /dev. So far everything went fine. My problem is that: The result is 2.7 GB while the source was 2.1 GB. This is weird to me. The second vgroup is called VolGroup01, while the original was called VolGroup00. How can I rename the VolGroup01 to VolGroup00 and swap it out after all this?

    Read the article

  • What is the fastest way to resize a large partition?

    - by Jook
    Due to a new HDD-Configuration I am currently handling larger backup/resize tasks with partitions between around 900MB, wich are 70-90% full. some background: First thing I've noticed was, that the Acronis-WesternDigital TrueImage was extremly slow while running it under Windows 7, even though on high priority. To create a normal backup for 650gb of data (900gb partition), it would have taken 3 days! The same task done with the boot-cd version of this acronis version took about 2 hours (SATA3 copy from one disk to another, both around 110MB/s). Now, after I have done all my backups, I've wanted to remove some obsolete partitions and resize the leftovers to full hdd size. Of course, usually this takes quite some time - in this case for this 900gb partition, to extend it to 931 (30gb+ from front, 1gb+ from end), it will take around 6 hours (using gparted)! Had I new that erlier, I would have just restored the image. But no - first it showed a reasonable time of 1:45h and 0 of 1 operations, but after finishing 1:45h it started again, only this time with 4h to go, still 0 of 1 operations, but now it was copying instead of moving. Question: However, why has it to be this slow to resize a partition? I am asking for a good explanaition. This has bugged me, since I started partitioning - why does it require to copy all the data around, can't it just stay in place?!

    Read the article

  • Cannot find FIS partition 'initramfs'......... need help!!!

    - by vikramtheone
    Hi Guys, I have a Ubuntu 9.04 Linux running on Freescale's i.MX515(ARM Cortex based) board with me. There were about 250 updates pending and I did that today, well some of the updates failed because of the infamous errors: E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' to correct the problem. E: Couldn't rebuild package cache E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' to correct the problem. So, when I do the 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' I get new errors related to FIS partition: Cannot find FIS partition 'initramfs' User postinst hook script [/usr/sbin/flash-kernel] exited with value 1 dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.28-18-imx51 (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-imx51: linux-image-imx51 depends on linux-image-2.6.28-18-imx51; however: Package linux-image-2.6.28-18-imx51 is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing linux-image-imx51 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-imx51: linux-imx51 depends on linux-image-imx51 (= 2.6.28.18.23); however: Package linux-image-imx51 is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing linux-imx51 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ... update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.28-18-imx51 Cannot find FIS partition 'initramfs' dpkg: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Whats going wrong here, need help!!! I'm a newbie. Regards Vikram

    Read the article

  • Should I partition my main table with 2 millions rows?

    - by domribaut
    Hi, I am a developer and would need some DBA-advices. We are starting to get performance problem with a MSSQL2005 database. The visible effects of the incidents is mainly CPU-hog on the server but operations reported that it was also draining resources from the SAN (not always). the main source of issues is for sure in some application but I am wondering if we should partition some of the main tables anyway in order to relax the I/O pressure. The base is about 60GB in one file. The main table (order) has 2.1 Million rows with a 215 colones (but none is huge). We have an integer as PK so it should be OK to define a partition function. Will we win something with partitioning? will partition indexes buy us something? Here are some more facts about the DB and the table database_name database_size unallocated space My_base 57173.06 MB 79.74 MB reserved data index_size unused 29 444 808 KB 26 577 320 KB 2 845 232 KB 22 256 KB name rows reserved data index_size unused Order 2 097 626 4 403 832 KB 2 756 064 KB 1 646 080 KB 1688 KB Thanks for any advice Dom

    Read the article

  • Why can't I mount an image hosted on a read-only HFS+ partition via Boot Camp?

    - by deceze
    I have come across the following phenomenon and would like to know how leaky Windows' file system abstraction is or if there's something else involved. I partitioned the hard disk of my MacBook Pro and installed Windows 7 (64 bit). The Boot Camp driver package includes file system drivers that enable Windows to access the Mac OS HFS+ partition. It's read-only access, but it works. Now, I have some disk images of stuff I usually install, so I grabbed a copy of Daemon Tools to mount them. When I mount an image saved on the HFS+ partition, about two out of three installers on these disks (usually InstallShield) crash with all sorts of weird errors. Most are just gibberish that lead to all sorts of non-solutions on Google, one was "This application is not the right type for your computer, check if you need 32 or 64 bit versions." When moving the image files to another Windows 7 computer on the network and mounting them from the network share, they work fine. My question now is, why do applications behave differently depending on whether the read-only image file, which should be abstracted away through the read-only virtual Daemon Tools drive, is located on a read-only HFS+ partition or on a Windows network share? And I'll just roll this into the question as well since I was wondering: Does the file system of a network share matter? Does the client system need to understand the file system of the share host or is that abstracted away in SMB?

    Read the article

  • Why do disk images hosted on a read-only HFS+ partition behave differently?

    - by deceze
    I have come across the following phenomenon and would like to know how leaky Windows' file system abstraction is or if there's something else involved. I partitioned the hard disk of my MacBook Pro and installed Windows 7 (64 bit). The Boot Camp driver package includes file system drivers that enable Windows to access the Mac OS HFS+ partition. It's read-only access, but it works. Now, I have some disk images of stuff I usually install, so I grabbed a copy of Daemon Tools to mount them. When I mount an image saved on the HFS+ partition, about two out of three installers on these disks (usually InstallShield) crash with all sorts of weird errors. Most are just gibberish that lead to all sorts of non-solutions on Google, one was "This application is not the right type for your computer, check if you need 32 or 64 bit versions." When moving the image files to another Windows 7 computer on the network and mounting them from the network share, they work fine. My question now is, why do applications behave differently depending on whether the read-only image file, which should be abstracted away through the read-only virtual Daemon Tools drive, is located on a read-only HFS+ partition or on a Windows network share? And I'll just roll this into the question as well since I was wondering: Does the file system of a network share matter? Does the client system need to understand the file system of the share host or is that abstracted away in SMB?

    Read the article

  • Why is windows not able to create a system partition?

    - by hughes
    I'm reinstalling Windows 7 64 bit, and I encountered an issue I've never seen before. I have a legit copy of Win 64 Professional, and I've installed it probably a half dozen times on this machine in the past without a problem. Googling the error only brings me to issues with people who are upgrading to win7. The drive itself seems to not have a problem. I can mount it on other systems and I can create an NTFS partition on it on other machines. I can install Ubuntu on it without any issues. Additionally, if I try using my alternate backup hard drive, the installer gives the same error. I have run diskpart from the setup page and clean seems to report that all is well. However, I cannot get past the screen below, which says Setup was unable to create a new system partition or locate an existing system partition. This happens regardless of whether or not the disk space is already allocated. What is causing this? How do I solve or get past this?

    Read the article

  • How To Completely Move Users/Program Files/Program Files (x86)/ProgramData (Folders) To Another Partition(s) On Windows 8?

    - by Enigma83
    I am attempting to move folders Users Program Files Program Files (x86), ProgramData (at the root of the C drive) to at least 2 other partitions, preferably on a fresh install. I have read that there are methods for doing this post-install, but it seems like it would be a bit more tedious to do things that way. I want to move the 2 Program Files folders to another partition on the same HDD, and Users/ProgramData will go to yet another partition on same HDD. I have done a bit of research on this, read up on some things that involved booting into Audit Mode, using the RoboCopy command to copy folders via booting into my Windows 8 USB drive, creating NTFS junctions/symbolic links, Registry edits, as well as accomplishing this automatically by creating an auto-attend file which Windows Setup processes automatically before the user is ever booted in for the 1st time. I tried this morning and now have a basic installation in which programs like Internet Explorer fail to open, certain files can't be found/opened (even if I click on them directly), an example is Regedit. Also, I can't run the Command/DOS (CMD) prompt as Administrator (or otherwise, as any other user), can't activate the real Administrator account or open any of the Administrative Tools (despite having added them to my Start Screen). So far I have only tried RoboCopy-ing Program Files and Program Files (x86) so far, creating junction points for them, and editing the Registry in the relevant locations. This is what I'm left with now. I also found the following blog article which describes how to do this for Windows 7 So, where should I go from here and where can I find more information? And how can this be done without disabling the Metro apps, which I've read will stop working if you move ProgramData. Once I have everything moved, where do I install programs to? Do I tell them to install to C:\Program Files\Program Files (x86) or to the junctioned/symbolic-linked partition/drive? I plan to test in VMware virtual machines from here on until things are working correctly, while using a baseline default install for daily tasks.

    Read the article

  • Will Windows repair my multi-boot when I format the 1st physical partition with boot sector?

    - by user2353806
    Due to historical reasons I got a laptop with Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008R2 partitions. (boot from external wasn´t that viable) Nothing (Windows Repair, bootrec /whateveroption) worked when I restored only the Windows 7 and WS2k8 with Acronis TrueImage. Don´t ask me through what idiotic error messages I went during repair tries. (Wrong Windows version,...) So I grudgingly restored all three - with the little additional excursion that I thought changing the active partition to the Windows 7 partition would move the boot sector and let me format the Vista part... Oh no. Seems too logical for MS. (Dunno what I changed, but today it will let me format!) So the real question is: Will formatting the Vista part trash things again beyond comprehension or will Windows Repair bring back the boot rec and remove Vista from the boot options? Or should I just erase all the files to avoid trashing the boot? Where will the boot rec be (after repair) when I format the Vista? On 1st or 2nd partition? And if I get drunk and install Windows 8.1 on the 1st, will anything work? ;-) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why Doesn’t Disk Cleanup Delete Everything from the Temp Folder?

    - by The Geek
    After you’ve used Disk Cleanup, you probably expect every temporary file to be completely deleted, but that’s not actually the case. Files are only deleted if they are older than 7 days old, but you can tweak that number to something else. This is one of those tutorials that we’re showing you for the purpose of explaining how something works, but we’re not necessarily recommending that you implement it unless you really understand what’s going on. Keep reading for more Latest Features How-To Geek ETC The How-To Geek Guide to Learning Photoshop, Part 8: Filters Get the Complete Android Guide eBook for Only 99 Cents [Update: Expired] Improve Digital Photography by Calibrating Your Monitor The How-To Geek Guide to Learning Photoshop, Part 7: Design and Typography How to Choose What to Back Up on Your Linux Home Server How To Harmonize Your Dual-Boot Setup for Windows and Ubuntu Hang in There Scrat! – Ice Age Wallpaper How Do You Know When You’ve Passed Geek and Headed to Nerd? On The Tip – A Lamborghini Theme for Chrome and Iron What if Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner were Human? [Video] Peaceful Winter Cabin Wallpaper Store Tabs for Later Viewing in Opera with Tab Vault

    Read the article

  • How do you limit root partition disk access to allow drive to go into stanby mode?

    - by Casey
    When there are no users on my system, I would like the hard disk to spindown to low-power state. I realize that this might not be 100% achievable for a straight 24 hours, but it seems reasonable that the system could remain idle for a few hours at a time when it is not in use. My system is headless and running a limited number of services. The primary services are: exim4, mythtv-backend, nfs, samba, cups, apt-cacher-ng Assume that drives are already enabled to go into standby mode. Also, its not acceptable to increase the write-back timeout, since my system is not on a UPS.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >