Search Results

Search found 10748 results on 430 pages for 'disk encryption'.

Page 121/430 | < Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >

• Linux virtual disk stripping or multi-path samba share?

  - by wachpwnski

  I am trying to build a file storage box for media. It needs to span two or more directories or partitions as one share. There are a few solutions but reasons why I want to avoid them, among these are: Using LVM2 for stripping. I don't really have the resources to back up everything on the volumes incase one HDD goes south. I would end up loosing everything. Maybe there is a better option for this to prevent data loss with hot swappable drives or some kind of raid. Using symbolic links in the share. This will get tedious every time a new sub-directory is added. Is there some kind of software raid I can use to merge two directories virtually? I am aware of the issue where /dev/hda1/media/file.1 and /dev/hdb1/media/file.1 both exist. But I'm sure there are some creative solutions for this.

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2005 Disk Configuration: Single RAID 1+0 or multiple RAID 1+0s?

  - by mfredrickson

  Assuming that the workload for the SQL Server is just a normal OLTP database, and that there are a total of 20 disks available, which configuration would make more sense? A single RAID 1+0, containing all 20 disks. This physical volume would contain both the data files and the transaction log files, but two logical drives would be created from this RAID: one for the data files and one for the log files. Or... Two RAID 1+0s, each containing 10 disks. One physical volume would contain the data files, and the other would contain the log files. The reason for this question is due to a disagreement between me (SQL Developer) and a co-worker (DBA). For every configuration that I've done, or seen others do, the data files and transaction log files were separated at the physical level, and were placed on separate RAIDs. However, my co-workers argument is that by placing all the disks into a single RAID 1+0, then any IO that is done by the server is potentially shared between all 20 disks, instead of just 10 disks in my suggested configuration. Conceptually, his argument makes sense to me. Also, I've found some information from Microsoft that seems to supports his position. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc966414.aspx In the section titled "3. RAID10 Configuration", showing a configuration in which all 20 disks are allocated to a single RAID 1+0, it states: In this scenario, the I/O parallelism can be used to its fullest by all partitions. Therefore, distribution of I/O workload is among 20 physical spindles instead of four at the partition level. But... every other configuration I've seen suggests physically separating the data and log files onto separate RAIDs. Everything I've found here on Server Fault suggests the same. I understand that a log files will be write heavy, and that data files will be a combination of reads and writes, but does this require that the files be placed onto separate RAIDs instead of a single RAID?

  Read the article

• Using a degrading corrupted hard disk with a brand new one. Is this ok?

  - by EApubs

  My old 500 GB hard drive started to give bad sectors. Its slowly going down. So, I bought a new 1TB Seagate drive. I first attached the 500GB drive as the first primary drive and installed Windows. I want Windows boot loader to be placed in the old drive so it won't conflict with the Linux system. But the actual Windows system (Including the C drive) is placed on my new hard drive. After this, I attached the new drive as the primary and installed Linux. Now if I want to re install windows, I can do it without any issues by simply setting the old drive as the primary. So the Linux system will be untouched. But is it a good idea to set things like this? Will the old degrading drive have an impact on the new one? The old drive is slower than the new one. Won't I be able to get the maximum speed out of the new drive even when its used to install everything (including the OS)? PS : When I ran the Windows Experience Index, I was using the old drive as the primary. Did it got the hard drive ratings from the old drive? What if I run it now with the new drive as the primary?

  Read the article

• Installed Windows 7 without formatting disk? Possible?

  - by ile

  I've just installed Win7 but I'm little confused. When booting from XP cd, there is an option to format hard drive. After choosing which partition to format, format process takes usually not less than hour (depends on size of partition), but when I clicked on Format when in Windows 7 installation interface, I received some message (I cant remember what was it, but it was not any error message or something like that) and that was it. After that I choose to install Windows 7 and installation began. "Expanding Windows Files" was the longest process of installation. Was that the part when the hard drive was formatted? I don't understand what happened? Is it possible that my hard drive was not formatted but still installation was successful?

  Read the article

• Hard disk failure. Can I recover my "move"d folders?

  - by Doug

  I am in the process of moving all my files from an old laptop to new one. I just moved 11gb of data from my old laptop to a hard drive (external) and then upon moving it out to the new hard drive, the hard drive is getting a CRC (Data Error (Cyclic Redundancy Check). Now I am looking for a solution to recover the files that I moved on my old laptop (not the external). I understand they they are just marked for potential overwriting to free up space. I was getting ready to test out GetDataBack, but it says to install it on a healthy windows and use the recover-needed drive as an external. However, I don't want to turn off my computer without first getting the okay since it is in a "moved" state. Please help! What can I do to recover the Moved files. I haven't touched the computer since it has been moved. What can I use to recover them?

  Read the article

• What does 'Can't sync file './database_name/…frm' to disk (Errcode: 28)' mean?

  - by cool_cs

  I am getting this error message whenever I try to create a new index or a new table in my mysql server. Does anyone know what the reason is? This is the ouput after I run df -a Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda2 13G 7.3G 4.5G 63% / /dev/sda1 251M 27M 212M 12% /boot tmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /dev/shm 10.156.248.29:/vol/pharos_pnxd_data_01/env_empty_sbid_27133_qdcprod 30G 30G 32K 100% /app

  Read the article

• How do I restore a Windows 8 iso image to a USB disk in OS X?

  - by duci9y

  I am on OS X and have a Windows 8 Consumer Preview x64 image. My computer doesn’t have a CD drive (MacBook Air). I have a 4 GB USB drive. I want to restore that image to the USB drive. There are many tools to do that on Windows, but I can’t finger out how to do it in OS X. Please note that I can’t run a VM, as my Air is a limited use machine. What I’ve tried: Simply restore to USB. Convert the image to img and use dd. These don’t work. How do I go about doing this?

  Read the article

• How do brand laptop manufacturers restrict hard disk drive?

  - by user176705

  I'm curious to know, when I bought a brand new laptop there are limitations to create or change the HDD partitions, except the following partitions: c:\ drive (Main partition + OS drive) NTFS. 400 Gb. Recovery drive NTFS. 15 Gb. Tools drive FAT32. 2 Gb. System drive NTFS. 0.3 Gb. My questions are: How do manufacturers restrict HDDs ? What is the term for these restrictions? Can this be applied to desktop PCs? Is it possible to modify the restrictions by an end-user?

  Read the article

• Why might one hard disk perform slower than another?

  - by Styne666

  I have just bought two WD 3TB Reds (WD30EFRX) for a FreeNAS box and whilst doing burn-in testing it seems like one is consistently taking about 10% longer than the other. So far I've done: a dd read test of the whole device, a long SMART test and it's currently halfway through a badblocks -wvs. The second device is lagging behind the first on all of them. I'm running these commands on Debian stable in two Konsole tabs. Is there a reason this could be considered normal behaviour or is it worth running the tests independantly? They're both plugged in to the LSI 2308 (IT mode) on a Supermicro X10SL7-F.

  Read the article

• How to install linux from hard disk(not in vmware or alike)?

  - by wamp

  I've already downloaded the fedora image here, and the OS is windows XP, how to I install it without inserting a CD ?

  Read the article

• How to install linux from hard disk(not in vmware or alike)?

  - by wamp

  I've already downloaded the fedora image here, and the OS is windows XP, how to I install it without inserting a CD ?

  Read the article

• How do I mount a "DiskSecure Multiboot" partition?

  - by ????

  For a hard drive that has 4 or 5 partitions, I was able to mount one of them using Ubuntu LiveCD: sudo mount /dev/sda1 /mnt but is there a way to mount to the other partitions? (if using sudo fdisk -l, it only shows /dev/sda) GParted's snapshot is: Right now, the fdisk info is as follows: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 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: 0x1aca8ea5 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 284993226 350602558 32804666+ 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT and then ubuntu@ubuntu:/mnt$ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda1 Disk /dev/sda1: 33.6 GB, 33591978496 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4083 cylinders, total 65609333 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: 0x2052474d This doesn't look like a partition table Probably you selected the wrong device. Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1p1 ? 6579571 1924427647 958924038+ 70 DiskSecure Multi-Boot /dev/sda1p2 ? 1953251627 3771827541 909287957+ 43 Unknown /dev/sda1p3 ? 225735265 225735274 5 72 Unknown /dev/sda1p4 2642411520 2642463409 25945 0 Empty Partition table entries are not in disk order Per @lgarzo's request, parted info is: ubuntu@ubuntu:/mnt$ sudo parted /dev/sda print Model: ATA ST3320820AS (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 320GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 146GB 180GB 33.6GB primary ntfs boot The command sudo mount /dev/sda1p2 /mnt won't work.

  Read the article

• Oracle Database Security Protecting the Oracle IRM Schema

  - by Simon Thorpe

  Acquiring the Information Rights Management technology in 2006 was part of Oracle's strategic security vision and IRM compliments nicely the overall Oracle security set of solutions. A year ago I spoke about how Oracle has solutions that can help companies protect information throughout its entire life cycle. With our acquisition of Sun this set of solutions has solidified and has even extended down to the operating system and hardware level. Oracle can now offer customers technology that protects their data from the disk, through the database to documents on the desktop! With the recent release of Oracle IRM 11g I was tasked to configure demonstration and evaluation environments and I thought it would make a nice story to leverage some of the security features in the latest release of the Oracle Database. After building these environments I thought I would put together a simple video demonstrating how both Database Advanced Security and Information Rights Management combined can provide a very secure platform for protecting your information. Have a look at the following which highlights these database security options.Transparent Data Encryption protecting the communication from the Oracle IRM server to the Database server. Encryption techniques provide confidentiality and integrity of the data passing to and from the IRM service on the back end. Transparent Data Encryption protecting the Oracle IRM database schema. Encryption is used to provide confidentiality of the IRM data whilst it resides at rest in the database table space. Database Vault is used to ensure only the Oracle IRM service has access to query and update the information that resides in the database. This is an excellent method of ensuring that database administrators cannot look at or make changes to the Oracle IRM database whilst retaining their ability to administrate the database. The last thing you want after deploying an IRM solution is for a curious or unhappy DBA to run a query that grants them rights to your company financial data or documents pertaining to a merger or acquisition.

  Read the article

• Understand how the TLB (Translation Lookaside buffer) works and interacts with pagetable and addresses

  - by Darxval

  So I am trying to understand this TLB (Translation Lookaside Buffer). But I am having a hard time grasping it. in context of having two streams of addresses, tlb and pagetable. I don't understand the association of the TLB to the streamed addresses/tags and page tables. a. 4669, 2227, 13916, 34587, 48870, 12608, 49225 b. 12948, 49419, 46814, 13975, 40004, 12707 TLB Valid Tag Physical Page Number 1 11 12 1 7 4 1 3 6 0 4 9 Page Table Valid Physical Page or in Disk 1 5 0 Disk 0 Disk 1 6 1 9 1 11 0 Disk 1 4 0 Disk 0 Disk 1 3 1 12 How does the TLB work with the pagetable and addresses? The homework question given is: Given the address stream in the table, and the initial TLB and page table states shown above, show the final state of the system also list for each reference if it is a hit in the TLB, a hit in the page table or a page fault. But I think first i just need to know how does the TLB work with these other elements and how to determine things. How do I even start to answer this question?

  Read the article

• Spinup time failure

  - by bioShark

  I am not sure this is a real question or a bug I should report Ubuntu. Using: Ubuntu 11.10, on a Intel Q6600, Samsung Spinpoint F4 2TB. I have set my PC on Suspend and after I came back, pressed Enter and after logging in everything was back to normal. However, I had a message from Disk Utility that one disk reports errors. I entered Disk Utility, and my Samsung 2TB disk, the one on which my Ubuntu is installed, had the SMART Status turned red, with error message on it. The error was: Spinup time failed Value 21, Threshold value was 25 (so the error was reported because 21 < 25) I restarted and booted up in Windows to see what HD Tune is reporting. Unfortunately it was exactly the same 21/25. After reading up on Wiki about SMART and the errors, I discovered that Spinup time is the time required for the disk to reach full spinning speed in milliseconds. Then it hit me that, in Ubuntu I had Suspended the system, making essentially all my hardware stop. And when I rebooted to Windows, the hardware doesn't really stop, so SMART's reading of the Spinup time was still from Ubuntu's suspension. So I did a full PC stop and then booted up again, both in Ubuntu and Windows to see if there are different readings. Both reported successful Spinup time, 68 (a little better then 21 :) ), although in Disk Utility I have a nice message: Failed in the Past So now I am pretty sure that Ubuntu didn't handle the Suspend correctly, but then again should I worry about Imminent hardware failure ? Am I missing some drivers? Should I report this as a bug to Ubuntu? Sorry if this was a bad place to ask this question.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu installation does not recognize drive partitioning

  - by Woltan

  I have a 1TB drive and installed Windows 7 on a 128GB partition. When I now try to install Ubuntu 11.04 it does not recognize the Windows partition but offers the complete 1TB drive to install Ubuntu on instead. It displays: However, in the Ubuntu Disk Utility the Windows partitions are recognized. What do I need to do in order for Ubuntu to recognize the Windows 7 partition and install Ubuntu as a dual boot? Response to comments The following commands were executed and the results are shown below: fdisk -l WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sda'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 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: 0x34a38165 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 13 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 13 16318 130969600 7 HPFS/NTFS Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0x14a714a6 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 60801 488384001 83 Linux parted -l Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr0 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr0 has been opened read-only. Error: /dev/sr0: unrecognised disk label

  Read the article

• How to mount an external HDD?

  - by Slash

  I have Ubuntu Linux 12.04 version the latest right now.I want to mount an external HDD NTFS 1TB.I have followed many guides but still no success.The error I'm getting is this: Failed to read last sector (1953523119): Invalid argument HINTS: Either the volume is a RAID/LDM but it wasn't setup yet, or it was not setup correctly (e.g. by not using mdadm --build ...), or a wrong device is tried to be mounted, or the partition table is corrupt (partition is smaller than NTFS), or the NTFS boot sector is corrupt (NTFS size is not valid). Failed to mount '/dev/sdb1': Invalid argument The device '/dev/sdb1' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS. Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around? Using Storage Device MAnager i get this error:Error mounting: mount exited with exit code 1: helper failed with: mount: only root can mount /dev/sdb1 on /media/Skliros_Diskos {external disk name} When I use sudo fdisk -l, this is the output: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 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: 0x000e0bc6 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 618854399 309426176 83 Linux /dev/sda2 618856446 625141759 3142657 5 Extended /dev/sda5 618856448 625141759 3142656 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000202043392 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121600 cylinders, total 1953519616 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: 0x0002093a Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 2048 1953525167 976761560 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT

  Read the article

• unknown filsystem with grub rescue caption cannot boot

  - by Dom

  I just recently partitioned my hard drive and I got this error when booting Ubuntu on that drive. unknown filesystem. With the grub rescue terminal. I did some research and tried to download super grub disk but I cant seem to fix it with that. I have two hard disks. One with Windows Vista on it and the other with Ubuntu which is the one I partitioned. There was 100GB reserved for all the Ubuntu partitions that I needed and the rest was split into two partitions, one for backup folders for my Windows machine and the other for music production which is the one that I created. The space used to created that was shrunk from my backup partition so I didn't mess with any of the Ubuntu partitions. As of now there are a total of 5 partitions. I also downloaded Rescatux which is another Super Grub Disk for Grub 2 not knowing which grub I had. It still didn't work. In Super Grub Disk I tried to swap the hard disk because that was what was said to do in order to fix the grub, that didn't work it said it was unsuccessful. I even tried to unplug the Windows hard disk and run Super Grub Disk and that wasn't successful either. Is there another way I can fix this? Please any help would be greatly appreciated. I would like to have a nice step by step response.

  Read the article

• Unknown filesystem with GRUB rescue caption cannot boot

  - by Dom

  I just recently partitioned my hard drive and I got this error when booting Ubuntu on that drive. unknown filesystem followed by the GRUB rescue terminal. I did some research and tried to download super grub disk but I cant seem to fix it with that. I have two hard disks. One with Windows Vista on it and the other with Ubuntu which is the one I partitioned. There was 100 GB reserved for all the Ubuntu partitions that I needed and the rest was split into two partitions, one for backup folders for my Windows machine and the other for music production which is the one that I created. The space used to created that was shrunk from my backup partition so I didn't mess with any of the Ubuntu partitions. As of now there are a total of 5 partitions. I also downloaded Rescatux which is another Super GRUB Disk for GRUB 2 not knowing which grub I had. It still didn't work. In Super Grub Disk I tried to swap the hard disk because that was what was said to do in order to fix the grub, that didn't work it said it was unsuccessful. I even tried to unplug the Windows hard disk and run Super GRUB Disk and that wasn't successful either. Is there another way I can fix this? Please any help would be greatly appreciated. I would like to have a nice step by step response.

  Read the article

• Raid Shows Up as Multiple Drives - Can't Mount

  - by manyxcxi

  I have a single hard drive that the OS is installed on and I have Sil raid card installed with two matching 500GB hdds set up in Raid 0 and formatted- they're completely empty. For whatever reason they are showing up as /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc and not as a single hard drive. I used fdisk to format both raid drives as Linux raid auto (fd) but I cannot mount either device and dmraid doesn't seem to want to work, what step am I missing? When I installed 9.04 oh so long ago it seems like it recognized and automatically did everything that needed to be done, now I'm stuck. dmraid Output root@tripoli:~# dmraid -r /dev/sdc: sil, "sil_biaebhadcfcb", stripe, ok, 976771072 sectors, data@ 0 /dev/sdb: sil, "sil_biaebhadcfcb", stripe, ok, 976771072 sectors, data@ 0 root@tripoli:~# dmraid -ay RAID set "sil_biaebhadcfcb" already active fdisk Output root@tripoli:~# fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0x000b9b01 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 32 248832 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 32 60802 488134657 5 Extended /dev/sda5 32 60802 488134656 8e Linux LVM Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0x6ead5c9a Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0xe6e2af28 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 1 60801 488384001 fd Linux raid autodetect

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10: Filesystem check or mount failed

  - by SamHuckaby

  I attempted to upgrade from Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10 today, and mid upgrade the system started flaking out, and eventually locked up entirely. I was forced to restart the computer, and am now unable to get the computer to boot up at all. When I boot currently, it takes me to the GRUB menu, and I can choose to boot normally, or boot in an older version. I have tried several things, which I list below, but no matter what, when I try to finish booting into Ubuntu, I receive the following error: Filesystem check or mount failed. A maintenance shell will now be started. CONTROL-D will terminate this shell and continue booting after re-trying filesystems. Any further errors will be ignored root@ubuntu-computername:~# I have fun fsck -f and everything appears correct, no errors are reported. and it passes all 5 checks. If I run fdisk -l then I get the following information: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00010824 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 608456703 304227328 83 Linux /dev/sda2 608458750 625141759 8341505 5 Extended Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. /dev/sda5 608458752 625141759 8341504 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0fb4b7e8 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 8192 625139711 312565760 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT I am considering just installing a new OS on the other disk, that currently has nothing on it, and then just attempting to scrape my data off the old disk (thankfully I didn't encrypt the files). Really my question is this: Can I salvage this Ubuntu install, or should I give up and just reinstall?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu installation does not recognize drive partinioning

  - by Woltan

  I have a 1TB drive and installed Windows 7 on a 128GB partition. When I now try to install Ubuntu 11.04 it does not recognize the Windows partition but offers the complete 1TB drive to install Ubuntu on instead. It displays: However, in the Ubuntu Disk Utility the Windows partitions are recognized. What do I need to do in order for Ubuntu to recognize the Windows 7 partition and install Ubuntu as a dual boot? Response to comments The following commands were executed and the results are shown below: fdisk -l WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sda'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 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: 0x34a38165 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 13 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 13 16318 130969600 7 HPFS/NTFS Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 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: 0x14a714a6 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 60801 488384001 83 Linux parted -l Warning: Unable to open /dev/sr0 read-write (Read-only file system). /dev/sr0 has been opened read-only. Error: /dev/sr0: unrecognised disk label

  Read the article

• UDF Partition reported full when it is not

  - by Capt.Nemo

  I was using these instructions to setup an external hard disk with udf. I have been able to setup a multi-partition system using those instructions, but I seem to have hit a wall, where the partition is reported as full while writing to the disk. Every other tool available to me reports it as free. Relevant lshw output Here's a screenshot showing the disk: Both the output of df and the file manager (caja) report the disk as free. Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda9 9.0G 7.6G 910M 90% / udev 974M 12K 974M 1% /dev /dev/sda1 50G 47G 295M 100% /media/Data /dev/sda6 49G 41G 5.9G 88% /home /dev/sda2 155G 127G 29G 82% /media/Entertainment /dev/sda8 14G 13G 516M 96% /media/Stuff /dev/sdb2 120G 1.9G 112G 2% /media/3c887659-5676-4946-875b-b797be508ce7 /dev/sdb3 11G 2.6G 7.7G 25% /media/108b0a1d-fd1a-4f38-b1c6-4ad1a20e34a3 /dev/sdb1 802G 34G 768G 5% /media/disk I seem to have hit a wall near the 35GB mark. Despite being shown as 35gb/860gb used everywhere, the following happens on a write attempt: [2017][/media/Dory]$ echo D>>echo bash: echo: write error: No space left on device Writing byte by byte, the maximum I can take it to is 34719248K. The most weird part is that on mounting it Windows, Windows can write to the disk easily, and the writes are being read fine back in Ubuntu. However, the used-bytes remains at 34719248K in Ubuntu (It goes higher on Windows, however).

  Read the article

• Unable to mount USBDRIVE Error creating moint point: Permission denied

  - by steve

  Whenever I plug a usb into my computer a window pops up and says Unable to mount [Name of USB] Error creating moint point: Permission denied steve@goliath:/$ uname -a Linux goliath 3.2.0-32-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 26 21:33:09 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux steve@goliath:/$ sudo fdisk -l WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sda'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sda: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 14593 cylinders, total 234441648 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: 0x0f716ee1 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 234441647 117220823+ ee GPT WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sdb'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sdb: 1500.3 GB, 1500301910016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 182401 cylinders, total 2930277168 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: 0x0f710ee1 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 1 2930277167 1465138583+ ee GPT Disk /dev/sdc: 16.0 GB, 16005464064 bytes 74 heads, 10 sectors/track, 42244 cylinders, total 31260672 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: 0xc3072e18 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 8064 31260671 15626304 c W95 FAT32 (LBA) steve@goliath:/$ sudo mkdir /media/external mkdir: cannot create directory `/media/external': Permission denied steve@goliath:/$ sudo mkdir /media/usb0 mkdir: cannot create directory `/media/usb0': Permission denied steve@goliath:/$ sudo ls -l / | grep media drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Oct 3 22:48 media steve@goliath:/$ ls /media/ -a . .. MediaShare MediaShare is the the directory on my server that has all my movies and music. If there is any information I left out please let me know.

  Read the article

• Why does Ubuntu 13.10 not detect my Win7 partition?

  - by goutham

  I'm trying to install Ubuntu 13.10 alongside Windows 7 on my DELL INSPIRON 14z 5423 laptop and I'm new to all of this. I'm using the Ubuntu 13.10 64-bit ISO burned onto a CD. The first time I tried to install it, Ubuntu said it did not detect any other OS, which meant I only had 4 options: Erase disk and install Ubuntu (I don't want to do this) Encrypt new Ubuntu. Use LVM. Something else. If I choose the Something else option, it brings me to the partition menu and says that I have 1 disk with free space of (500Gb), but that's not true because I have Windows 7. I restarted the laptop several times and booted the CD again and I got exactly the same as I did previously. How do fix this problem and install Ubuntu alongside Windows 7? After executing "sudo fdisk -l" command in terminal ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sda'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. 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 / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0xd2b811c5 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 206848 314574847 157184000 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 314574848 629147647 157286400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 629147648 976771071 173811712 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT After removing one partition I executed command once again ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sda'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. 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 / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0xd2b811c5 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 206847 102400 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 206848 629145599 314469376 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 629147648 976771071 173811712 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >