Search Results

Search found 4580 results on 184 pages for 'faster'.

Page 136/184 | < Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143  | Next Page >

• What is the quickest reliable way to backup a NAS drive to a USB drive?

  - by Tim Murphy

  How would you backup 600+ GB of data on a NAS (Network-Attached Storage) drive to a USB external drive? The NAS drive does not contain mission critical data nonetheless I wish to make weekly copies of it just in case. The NAS drive is almost exclusively used as an archive dump and is rarely updated. However the backup strategy used must have a simple restore procedure so I can confidently say the data now on the NAS drive is exactly how it was at the time of backup. I did try xcopy but seemed like it would take many-many hours and eventually crashed with insufficient memory. http://www.ctunion.com/node/114 suggests I would need to use xxcopy instead due to folder/file name lengths. My concern with xcopy/xxcopy is the length of time it takes. Hoping something else is faster. NAS drive is DLink DNS-313. 1TB drive installed. Connected to router via Ethernet cable. USB drive is Seagate 1TB. Can be connected to Windows Vista (preferred) or Windows 7 PCs. Both PCs are usually connected Wirelessly however ethernet cable can be used during backup to speed up the process.

  Read the article

• Starting my own server - basic recommendations and questions [closed]

  - by Ilia Rostovtsev

  Possible Duplicate: Can you help me with my capacity planning? I'm planning to start my own high-performance server and then use collocation services for keeping it up and running. I'm planning to USE it for processing videos and keeping big video site up! (using FFMpeg, MENcoder and etc.) I just need recommendations on whether listed hardware is good enough and will work together well and fast enough. Do I need anything else (missed something). I remember about CPU coolers though! ;) I'm planning to use SSD drives so please tell me if it's going to work just as regular HDDs (but much faster)? Are they going to be used as RAID (is this possible for SSDs)? Here is what I would like to get: Intel ® Server System SR1600URHSR (Urbanna) or Intel® Server System SR1695WBAC 2 x Intel Xeon X5650 4 x 16Gb DDR-III 1333MHz Kingston ECC Reg (KVR13R9D4/16) 3 x (or maybe 4x) 480Gb SSD Intel 520 Series (SSDSC2CW480A3K5) Which server system would be better? Is listed hardware new/good enough and worth buying it at the moment? Should I probably take a look at something slightly more expensive but more up to date and powerful, may be? After all as software I would like to use CentOS 6 64 bit + WHM/CPanel? Any other suggestions on maybe cheaper and same/more powerful server management system but WHM? What most important points to keep in mind when starting/maintaining your own server?

  Read the article

• SQL Server Backup modes, and a huge log file

  - by Matt Dawdy

  Okay, I'm not a server administrator, a network guy, or a DBA. I'm merely a programmer helping out a small company. They have IT guy who isn't MS centric (most stuff is on Mac) and he and I are trying to figure out a solution here. We've got 1 main database. We run nightly full backups. I know they are full backups because I can take the latest file, or any of the daily backups, and go to a completely new machine and "restore" the backup to an empty database and our app runs perfectly fine off of this backup. The backups have grown from 60 MB to 250MB over 4 months. When running, then log file is 1.7 GB, and the data file is only 200-300 MB. Yes, recovery model is set to full. So, my question, after all of that, if we are keeping daily backups, and we don't have the need / aren't smart enough to roll the DB back to a certain time, if I change the recovery mode to simple, am I really losing anything? And, if I do change it to simple, will it completely dump the log file or at least reduce it way the hell down? And, will that make our database run faster? I know that it'll make my life easier when I copy a relatively recent backup to my local machine to do development and testing...

  Read the article

• Private staff network within public network

  - by pianohacker

  I'm the sysadmin at a small public library. Since I got here a few years ago, I've been trying to set up the network in a secure and simple way. Security is a little tricky; the staff and patron networks need to be separated, for security reasons. Even if I further isolated the public wireless, I'd still rather not trust the security of our public computers. However, the two networks also need to communicate; even if I set up enough VMs so they didn't share any servers, they need to use the same two printers at the very least. Currently, I'm solving this with some jerry-rigged commodity equipment. The patron network, linked together by switches, has a Windows server connected to it for DNS and DHCP and a DSL modem for a gateway. Also on the patron network is the WAN side of a Linksys router. This router is the "top" of the staff network, and has the same Windows server connected on a different port, providing DNS and DHCP, and another, faster DSL modem (separate connections are very useful, especially as we heavily depend on some cloud-hosted software). tl;dr: We have a public network, and a NATed staff network within it. My question is; is this really the best way to do this? The right equipment would likely make my job easier, but anything with more than four ports and even rudimentary management quickly becomes a heavy hit on our budget. (My original question was about an ungodly frustrating DHCP routing issue, but I thought I'd ask whether my network was broken rather than asking about the DHCP problem and being told my network was broken.)

  Read the article

• VMWare converter performance

  - by bellocarico

  Hello, I have a question about my test lab. It's more to understand the concept more than apply this into production: I have an ESXi with few VMs linux/windows configured and I'd like to use VMWare converter to create backups. To speedup the process I decided to create a Windows VM on the same ESXi host where I've installed Windows 7 and VMWare Converter. The Host has a gigabit card but it's currently connected to a 100Mb FD port. Windows 7 sees a 1gb card connected. When I do the backup using VMWare converter I specify the host IP as source and destination, so I thought the copy could be faster then use my laptop across the network. Well, to cut a long sotry short: I get dreadful performance (4Mb/sec). I'm a buit confused on this because despite the fact that the host is running 100Mb communication between VMs and hosts shouldn't (correct me if I'm wrong) have any limitation instead. I did tweak windows 7 to optimise network performane but I got just a little improvement. i still need 4 hours to back up a 50Gb (thin) VM. Additionally I wanted to ask: Would jumbo frame help in this? I know that jumbo frame have to be supported end to end, and the network switch where the host is currently connected doesn't support this, but I was wondering: 1) Does ESXi host support jumbo frames at all? 2) Can I enable it somehow? 3) If I do so, I guess bulk transfert between VMs and host would improve, but would this affect the communication going through the real switch as this doesn't do jumbo? Thanks for reading

  Read the article

• CloudFlare dashboards empty, or performance issues

  - by Katafalkas

  I wanted to test CloudFlare performance so I set my image gallery domain on it and started testing. I have added PageRules for caching. And chose the Security: Essentially Off. I checked NS check tools and they say that my domain name is propagated with CloudFlare. For testing purpose I created a link that loads 200 images from that server, and was using loads.in website to determine how much it is faster. After trying few regions, I noticed that there were no improvement in loading speed. So I looked up the dashboards, and it was empty. I am not sure if I am doing something wrong, or made some error in my setup, or it takes few days to start caching or working properly, but at the moment - after a day of testing - dashboards are empty. Also the NS check tools sais that all name servers are propagated to CloudFlare and working fine. So I assume I got a bad performance because it is simply not working. I sent a letter to CloudFlare support team, but did not get any straight answer. So essentially my question is: Anyone has any experience with CloudFlare ? How long does it take for it to start caching static content to CDN ? Or there is simply something I am doing wrong ?

  Read the article

• Bandwidth Suggestion

  - by Campo

  I have been asked to analyze the bandwidth usage of a company and make a recommendation for upgrading their Internet connection(s). Here is the layout 3 DLS lines so it is 3x(6 Down, 1 Up Each) into a load balancer out to the office's network. 30 VOIP phones run on a T1 (1.5 Down, 1.5 Up) The users at the company are heavily uploading. It is my suspicion that the issue in slowdown is being cause by multiple people uploading and others not being able to get requests out for even simple http requests. My initial idea is to get them a fiber line with a 10 down and 10 up. What do others think on this plan? Will that be enough to host their network traffic? What do I do about the VOIP line afterward? The fiber is expensive and I know the T1 does a great job for their VOIP so I do not want to suggest a DSL line because I know it may not be sufficient. I would also like to save them some money if I can. Maybe even get a faster fiber line and forgo the T1. Though I know their load balance/switch can only handle 20MB/S throughput. Looking for some confirmation/suggestions on my plan. I am planning on going in to get some real diagnostic numbers. Any suggestions on software to use for that? Preferably Windows software.

  Read the article

• Which is the fastest way to move 1Petabyte from one storage to a new one?

  - by marc.riera

  First of all, thanks for reading, and sorry for asking something related to my job. I understand that this is something that I should solve by myself but as you will see its something a bit difficult. A small description: Now Storage = 1PB using DDN S2A9900 storage for the OSTs, 4 OSS , 10 GigE network. (lustre 1.6) 100 compute nodes with 2x Infiniband 1 infiniband switch with 36 ports After Storage = Previous storage + another 1PB using DDN S2A 990 or LSI E5400 (still to decide) (lustre 2.0) 8 OSS , 10GigE network 100 compute nodes with 2x Infiniband Previous experience: transfered 120 TB in less than 3 days using following command: tar -C /old --record-size 2048 -b 2048 -cf - dir | tar -C /new --record-size 2048 -b 2048 -xvf - 2>&1 | tee /tmp/dir.log So , big problem here, using big mathematical equations I conclude that we are going to need 1 month to transfer the data from one side to the new one. During this time the researchers will need to step back, and I'm personally not happy with this. I'm telling you that we have infiniband connections because I think that may be there is a chance to use it to transfer the data using 18 compute nodes (18 * 2 IB = 36 ports) to transfer the data from one storage to the other. I'm trying to figure out if the IB switch will handle all the traffic but in case it just burn up will go faster than using 10GigE. Also, having lustre 1.6 and 2.0 agents on same server works quite well, with this there is no need to go by 1.8 to upgrade the metadata servers with two steps. Any ideas? Many thanks Note 1: Zoredache, we can divide it in two blocks (A)600Tb and (B)400Tb. The idea is to move (A) to new storage which is lustre2.0 formated, then format where (A) was with lustre2.0 and move (B) to this lustre2.0 block and extend with the space where (B) was. This way we will end with (A) and (B) on separate filesystems, with 1PB each.

  Read the article

• Why is my connection slow?

  - by Jay R.

  I have a Dell Precision T5400 with a Broadcom 1Gb onboard NIC. For some strange reason, when I access machines on our local network, the best I can get is around 125KB/s download speed. My laptop that has a 10/100Mb NIC onboard usually gets around 300KB/s or better from the same network resource. Both machines are plugged into the same 1Gb switch which connects to our local network wall jack at 100Mb half duplex. There is also a printer plugged into the same switch at 100Mb full. The resource I'm using for the test is a 30MB zip file copied from a jetty webserver that is running as part of a cruisecontrol installation. The cruisecontrol installation is running WindowsXP with full real-time antivirus and Altiris patch management and inventory running. That stuff on its own is eating some of the download speed. I've seen the laptop reach into the multiple MB/s download speed before, but the desktop never seems to get past 125KB/s to 130KB/s. In WindowsXP, before I upgraded the driver in the desktop, it was that slow. In Fedora, it is still slow even though it appears to be using the same driver version as the upgraded Windows driver. The upgraded Windows driver is faster, but still not nearly as fast as the laptop. What gives? Any insight to improve the situation would be appreciated. Could it be that the BroadCom board just isn't that good, or the driver in linux is just not as good as the Windows one?

  Read the article

• How many reverse proxies (nginx, haproxy) is too many?

  - by Alysum

  I'm setting up a HA (high availability) cluster using nginx, haproxy & apache. I've been reading great things about nginx and haproxy. People tend to choose one or the other but I like both. Haproxy is more flexible for load balancing than nginx's simple round robin (even with the upstream-fair patch). But I'd like to keep nginx for redirecting non-https to https among other things right at the point of entry to the cluster. On the other hand, nginx is a lot faster for serving static contents and would reduce the load on the powerful apache which loves to eat a lot of RAM! Here is my planned setup: Load balancer: nginx listens on port 80/443 and proxy_forwards to haproxy on 8080 on the same server to load balance between the multiple nodes. Nodes: nginx on the node listens to requests coming from haproxy on 8080, if the content is static, serve it. But if it's a backend script (in my case PHP), proxy forward to apache2 on the same node server listenning on a different port number. Technically this setup works but my concerns are whether having the requests going through several proxies is going to slow down requests? Most of the requests will be PHP requests as the backends are services (which means groing from nginx - haproxy - nginx - apache). Thoughts? Cheers

  Read the article

• RDP or SSH connection trough Windows 2008 server VPN hang after a while

  - by xt4fs

  I have been experiencing a very strange issue with our VPN setup on Windows Server 2008. That server is running as a Xen Virtual Machine. We use it for two purposes, permit our mobile workers to connect to another server hosted somewhere else that only allow that ip, and use it to RDP or ssh to many other virtual machine on the same server. The server has no performance issue and still a load of memory free. All other virtual machine has no problem whatsoever. Many of those virtual machine have public IP (web servers) and all their firewall are set to allow only ssh connection or RDP connection from their local interface. When I am connecting directly with either ssh or RDP to one of the other virtual machine everything run without any issues. However, when I am doing so through the VPN after some time the connection just hang, it usually continue after some time (5 or 10 minutes). It seems as more there is network usage more often it happen to a point where it is completely unusable. The worst thing I can do to hang it faster is to actually ping the vpn client IP from the local network, after some time the latency increase until it hang. This happen even if I do RDP to the local ip of the VPN server trough the VPN. The server report no problem and if I disconnect to the vpn and reconnect right away everything is alright. There is nothing wrong in the VPN server log. I have taught at the beginning that it could have been an issue with the Host server so I try to RDP,ssh directly to the guest and I have experience no issue while doing this, so it really seems to be a problem with the VPN server on Windows server 2008. Another very weird thing is it does not seems to be of any issue if you only do Internet (NAT) without trying to connect to any local ips.

  Read the article

• APC (php accelerator). What situations should I use this?

  - by matthewsteiner

  So I've just got a small vps. I've installed apc, which sped up normal pages by 20% - 30%. I was reading about memcached and came to the conclusion that I can use apc for the same thing (caching objects from database results) if I'm not distributing over other servers. Since I only have the one server, apc will be just as beneficial for caching things in memory. I'm still in development mode, and I'm sure it's hard to tell what would be best for production mode. The thing is, my database queries seem pretty fast (between .0008 and .02). None of my pages are way database intensive. Would it be beneficial to me to cache results in memory? If the database is running well right now, is it going to be having a hard time later? Also, is connecting to the database at all something that costs speed (even if I cache most of my queries, every page has to have a little database interaction for session data). So, basically if I have a limited ram, and one machine, will using apc rather than just letting the database be uncached be much faster? Ideas?

  Read the article

• Bash Parallelization of CPU-intensive processes

  - by ehsanul

  tee forwards its stdin to every single file specified, while pee does the same, but for pipes. These programs send every single line of their stdin to each and every file/pipe specified. However, I was looking for a way to "load balance" the stdin to different pipes, so one line is sent to the first pipe, another line to the second, etc. It would also be nice if the stdout of the pipes are collected into one stream as well. The use case is simple parallelization of CPU intensive processes that work on a line-by-line basis. I was doing a sed on a 14GB file, and it could have run much faster if I could use multiple sed processes. The command was like this: pv infile | sed 's/something//' > outfile To parallelize, the best would be if GNU parallel would support this functionality like so (made up the --demux-stdin option): pv infile | parallel -u -j4 --demux-stdin "sed 's/something//'" > outfile However, there's no option like this and parallel always uses its stdin as arguments for the command it invokes, like xargs. So I tried this, but it's hopelessly slow, and it's clear why: pv infile | parallel -u -j4 "echo {} | sed 's/something//'" > outfile I just wanted to know if there's any other way to do this (short of coding it up myself). If there was a "load-balancing" tee (let's call it lee), I could do this: pv infile | lee >(sed 's/something//' >> outfile) >(sed 's/something//' >> outfile) >(sed 's/something//' >> outfile) >(sed 's/something//' >> outfile) Not pretty, so I'd definitely prefer something like the made up parallel version, but this would work too.

  Read the article

• Why do hosts prefer Linux to Windows Server?

  - by iconiK

  So far I see a HUGE majority of hosts provide only Linux shared hosting, providing Windows only to VPS (or even to only dedicated servers). Why is it so? While Windows is a lot more expensive than Linux (though it depends on a lot of factors, not just initial and support license cost), it also provides ASP.NET, IIS and of course, Microsoft SQL Server. I know in the past it might have been because of cPanel being Linux only but now they have a Windows version. But still, why is Linux predominantly used on shared hosting? PHP works on both systems. IIS can be (and probably is) faster. MySQL runs on both systems as well. cPanel has a Windows version. Python, Perl, Ruby, all run on Windows as well. You even have MS SQL Server Express, which I find more superior than MySQL in both speed and features. Access is there for low usage requirements, as is SQLite (which is so great for quick small stuff). And with PowerShell you have a good alternative to the Unix shell. EDIT: I am looking for common reasons, I realize each hosting company (and/or it's clients) may have different needs. This becomes very important when you get to VPS or Cloud which give you a full operating system to use.

  Read the article

• SSD/HDD not exceeding 120 MB/s

  - by skiwi

  SO here is the situation: First this was my old PC, it had a 2x 1TB RAID 0 and a Corsair Force 3 SSD in it. This were the old speeds, measured by HDTune Pro. 2x 1TB RAID 0: Corsair Force 3 SSD Then my dad got my PC and we had several issues, in the end turned out both RAID and SSD controller were malfunctioning causing BlueScreens on 100% load. Removed the RAID 0, but leaving the HDD's intact and bought an Samsung 840 EVO 120GB, though the Corsair SSD is still in the system, just not as sytem disk anymore. 1TB HDD (one of them): Corsair SSD: Samsung SSD: We did not assemble the PC ourselves, so answering some technical questions might be more difficult, though we will do our best. First thing we noticed is that the Samsung 840 EVO is no where reaching it's advertised speed, even an Samsung 840 250GB (non-EVO) is reaching 350 MB/s in my own PC. Then we noticed that both SSD's are capped at 120 MB/s exactly, not sure if this is being caused by HDTune Pro, but very unlikely. And even worse, the Corsair Forza 3 was running faster before the system got reassembled. Does anyone have any clue what is going on?

  Read the article

• Small TCP Window on WAN between 2 Locations

  - by Brent

  Site A: Denver datacenter. 60MBPS. Site B: Chicago. 100MBPS. ICMP pings: Packets: Sent = 176, Received = 176, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 74ms, Maximum = 94ms, Average = 75ms File transfer between sites that never goes past ~7MBPS: Windows Update download at 60MBPS+: Site to site: IPSec VPN using two Cisco 5520's. CPU at 3-4% and lots of memory to spare. The latency between to two sites is very acceptable so I can't see an issue why it is performing so slow when transferring between the two sites. I have found that any type of transfer (FTP, HTTP, Windows file shares) will never go above ~7MBPS. When the WAN was first setup, I was able to get transfers at 50-60MBPS, which is what is expected due to the WAN connection at the Site A at 60MBPS. Then a few days later, I was not able to get anything going faster than ~7MBPS. Is there a upstream router between Denver and Chicago causing this? I want to take the blame away from our setup as downloads from Windows Update go blazing fast and for the first few days after the site to site VPN came up, I was transferring VM images at 50-60MBPS. Our stack: HP P2000 MSA - HP C7000 Chassis - HP Flex-10 - Cisco Gigabit switch - Cisco ASA - WAN

  Read the article

• New to building computers worried about temps

  - by dave

  I'm new to building my own computers and I was wondering about maximum temperatures. I understand that the room temp can affect the computers temp but how relevent is it? I understand that if my room temp is 20°C none of my computer parts could be lower than that. But if my room is 27°C instead of 20°C would this cause my computers parts to heat up more/faster? My new computer I built myself for gaming is i7 2600k 16gb ram ddr3 1600 hd6970 2 gb 240gb ssd ( bought a nas with 3 2tb drives in raid 5 for my home network ) 850w modular psu I also have my old hp computer i3 2120 8gb ram hd6770 1tb hdd I also have 3 laptops in my household, but I am not worried about their temps, they heat up my legs but they are never under stress. Due to size and money reasons I used an old case and it only has one of the sides left on it. Is this bad for the computer and will the extra dust cause problems? Or should I leave it this way or take the missus wrath and buy a case? If so is there any certain case I should get? I don't care about looks I just want card reader and usb slots and for it to run as cool or cooler than now, my case has 1 fan. Also what are the max temps for my new and old computer parts? Is 40°C under load ok for my CPU, what about 70°C for my GPU is that ok too, or should I worry? What are normal and safe temps for my components? I have looked around but there seem to be lots of different answers. I know that 100°C is bad but I want my parts to last as long as possible and this site always seems to give good replies without arguing or flaming.

  Read the article

• How important is dual-gigabit lan for a super user's home NAS?

  - by Andrew

  Long story short: I'm building my own home server based on Ubuntu with 4 drives in RAID 10. Its primary purpose will be NAS and backup. Would I be making a terrible mistake by building a NAS Server with a single Gigabit NIC? Long story long: I know the absolute max I can get out of a single Gigabit port is 125MB/s, and I want this NAS to be able to handle up to 6 computers accessing files simultaneously, with up to two of them streaming video. With Ubuntu NIC-bonding and the performance of RAID 10, I can theoretically double my throughput and achieve 250MB/s (ok, not really, but it would be faster). The drives have an average read throughput of 83.87MB/s according to Tom's Hardware. The unit itself will be based on the Chenbro ES34069-BK-180 case. With my current hardware choices, it'll have this motherboard with a Core i3 CPU and 8GB of RAM. Overkill, I know, but this server will be doing other things as well (like transcoding video). Unfortunately, the only Mini-ITX boards I can find with dual-gigabit and 6 SATA ports are Intel Atom-based, and I need more processing power than an Atom has to offer. I would love to find a board with 6 SATA ports and two Gigabit LAN ports that supports a Core i3 CPU. So far, my search has come up empty. Thus, my dilemma. Should I hold out for such a board, go with an Atom-based solution, or stick with my current single-gigabit configuration? I know there are consumer NAS units with just one gigabit interface (probably most of them), but I think I will demand a lot more from my server than the average home user. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Enterprise class storage best practices

  - by churnd

  One thing that has always perplexed me is storage best practices. Filesystems brag about how they can be petabytes or exabytes in size. Yet, I do not know many sysadmins who are willing to let a single volume grow over several terrabytes. I do know the primary reason behind this is how long it would take to rebuild the array should a drive fail. The more drives in a single LUN, the longer this takes and the greater your risk of losing another drive while the rebuild is taking place. Then there's usage reasons. Admins will carve out a LUN based on how much space they think needs to be allocated to the project. It seems more practical to me for the LUN to be one large array and to use quotas. I understand this wouldn't satisfy every requirement (iSCSI), but I see a lot of NAS systems (NFS) managed this way. I also understand that the underlying volumes can be grown/shrunk as needed quite easily, but wouldn't it be less "risky" to use quotas rather than manipulating volumes and bringing possible data loss into the equation? There may be some other reasons I'm missing, so please enlighten me. Can we not expect filesystems to ever be so large? Are we waiting for the hardware to get faster to cut down on rebuild times?

  Read the article

• Best practices for thin-provisioning Linux servers (on VMware)

  - by nbr

  I have a setup of about 20 Linux machines, each with about 30-150 gigabytes of customer data. Probably the size of data will grow significantly faster on some machines than others. These are virtual machines on a VMware vSphere cluster. The disk images are stored on a SAN system. I'm trying to find a solution that would use disk space sparingly, while still allowing for easy growing of individual machines. In theory, I would just create big disks for each machine and use thin provisioning. Each disk would grow as needed. However, it seems that a 500 GB ext3 filesystem with only 50 GB of data and quite a low number of writes still easily grows the disk image to eg. 250 GB over time. Or maybe I'm doing something wrong here? (I was surprised how little I found on the subject with Google. BTW, there's even no thin-provisioning tag on serverfault.com.) Currently I'm planning to create big, thin-provisioned disks - but with a small LVM volume on them. For example: a 100 GB volume on a 500 GB disk. That way I could more easily grow the LVM volume and the filesystem size as needed, even online. Now for the actual question: Are there better ways to do this? (that is, to grow data size as needed without downtime.) Possible solutions include: Using a thin-provisioning friendly filesystem that tries to occupy the same spots over and over again, thus not growing the image size. Finding an easy method of reclaiming free space on the partition (re-thinning?) Something else? A bonus question: If I go with my current plan, would you recommend creating partitions on the disks (pvcreate /dev/sdX1 vs pvcreate /dev/sdX)? I think it's against conventions to use raw disks without partitions, but it would make it a bit easier to grow the disks, if that is ever needed. This is all just a matter of taste, right?

  Read the article

• Is my OCZ SSD aligned correctly? (Linux)

  - by Barney Gumble

  I have an OCZ Agility 2 SSD with 40 GB of space. I use it as a system drive in Debian Linux (Squeeze) and in my opinion it's really fast. But I've read a lot on aligning partitions and file systems... And I'm not sure if I succeeded in aligning the partitions correctly. Maybe the SSD could be even faster?? ;-) I use ext4 and here is the output of fdisk -cul: Disk /dev/sda: 40.0 GB, 40018599936 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4865 cylinders, total 78161328 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: [...] Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 73242623 36620288 83 Linux /dev/sda2 73244670 78159871 2457601 5 Extended /dev/sda5 73244672 78159871 2457600 82 Linux swap / Solaris My partitions were created just by the Debian Squeeze setup assistant. So I didn't care about the details of partitioning. But now I think maybe the installer didn't align it correctly? Actually, 2048 looks good to me (better than odd values like 63 or something like that) but I've no idea... ;-) Help plz! According to some "SSD Alignment Calculator" I found on the web, the OCZ SSDs have a NAND Erase Block Size of 512kB and their NAND Page Size is 4kB. 2048 is divisible by 4 and 512. So are the partitions aligned correctly?

  Read the article

• Why is a SUBST'd drive inaccessible via shortcut or Run menu, but works fine from My Computer?

  - by Kev

  I have shortcuts to C:, D:, and E: in my quick launch bar. C and E work fine when I click on them, but D does nothing (that I can see) when I click on it. D and E are both SUBST'd drives pointing to folders that happen to be network shares. (I do this rather than mapping them so it doesn't have to go through the network layer--that way it works faster and I still get recycle bin functionality, etc.) If I go Start-Run and type D: or D:\, I get an error box saying This file does not have a program associated with it for performing this action. Create an association in the Folder Options control panel. If I go to My Computer and double-click the D drive, it comes up fine. Also, if I type \\servername\sharename pointing to the same place, it comes up fine. This just started happening this morning, out of the blue. It has been working fine ever since I set it up. Why might this be?

  Read the article

• External SATA drive does not work without the optional USB cable *also* connected

  - by Software Monkey

  I have Vantec NST-260SU external eSATA/USB drive enclosure (which came with an optional separate power supply) connected to a relatively new Windows 7 computer. The drive should work as a SATA drive with either the separate power supply or using a USB cable solely for power. I would prefer to use the external power supply because I have used all my rear USB ports. Now, if I connect both the eSATA and USB cable, then: The drive shows in the BIOS list of AHCI drives (and not in the list of attached USB devices). Everything I can see about it in Computer Management seems to show it as a SATA driver (for example, it shows as "Location 0 (Channel 5, Target 0, Lun 0)" like my other SATA drives (and not "on USB Mass Storage Device" like my USB flash-drives). It seems very fast, very much faster than my USB flash drives. However, if I disconnect the USB cable and attach the power adapter instead, the drive does not show in the BIOS list and cannot be seen by Windows. The power LED on the enclosure is lit, and the drive enclosure becomes warm after running for a bit, so I am sure it is receiving power. Does anyone know if this device requires both the USB and eSATA cable, and if so, why? Or is there possibly something I need to do to reset the enclosure to not need the USB - the install instructions are pretty clear that you must connect the SATA cable before connecting the USB cable in order for the drive to function as SATA, which I am sure I did. PS: I have reviewed the small manual which came with it, which has not been of help.

  Read the article

• Scaling databases with cheap SSD hard drives

  - by Dennis Kashkin

  Hey guys! I hope that many of you are working with high traffic database-driven websites, and chances are that your main scalability issues are in the database. I noticed a couple of things lately: Most large databases require a team of DBAs in order to scale. They constantly struggle with limitations of hard drives and end up with very expensive solutions (SANs or large RAIDs, frequent maintenance windows for defragging and repartitioning, etc.) The actual annual cost of maintaining such databases is in $100K-$1M range which is too steep for me :) Finally, we got several companies like Intel, Samsung, FusionIO, etc. that just started selling extremely fast yet affordable SSD hard drives based on SLC Flash technology. These drives are 100 times faster in random read/writes than the best spinning hard drives on the market (up to 50,000 random writes per second). Their seek time is pretty much zero, so the cost of random I/O is the same as sequential I/O, which is awesome for databases. These SSD drives cost around $10-$20 per gigabyte, and they are relatively small (64GB). So, there seems to be an opportunity to avoid the HUGE costs of scaling databases the traditional way by simply building a big enough RAID 5 array of SSD drives (which would cost only a few thousand dollars). Then we don't care if the database file is fragmented, and we can afford 100 times more disk writes per second without having to spread the database across 100 spindles. . Is anybody else interested in this? I've been testing a few SSD drives and can share my results. If anybody on this site has already solved their I/O bottleneck with SSDs, I would love to hear your war stories! PS. I know that there are plenty of expensive solutions out there that help with scalability, for example the time proven RAM-based SANs. I want to be clear that even $50K is too expensive for my project. I have to find a solution that costs no more than $10K and does not take much time to implement.

  Read the article

• Alienware Aurora R2 Slow Boot Up

  - by James R

  I have an Aurora R2 bought a few years ago, and recently I decided a RAM update and new Samsung SSD would be good for speed. So now it's super fast, with the exception of booting up. It still takes good 2 minutes to get past the first splash screen on the BIOS, it's only the BIOS, after that it's like lightning. I've Googled the issue, and the usual problem is the BIOS trying to boot from anything it can, with the fix being to change the boot menu. However I've changed it now, and it's still slow. When I disconnect the USB devices it speeds up, but I can't do that every time I want to boot the PC up! The only other option I can think of is upgrading the BIOS, however it seems that A04 is the recommended on for Aurora R2s, so I don't know if upgrading the BIOS could cause issues, especially not if it doesn't solve the issue. Also, when I disable my original hard drive in the boot menu, the PC won't boot up. Despite the Samsung one being fine to boot from, and the original not being needed as far as I know for starting Windows, it gives me an error message and makes me restart the PC, with a new boot configuration (with the original drive as second choice). Any ideas on how to make the BIOS boot faster? And why I need to have my original drive in the boot menu?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143  | Next Page >