Search Results

Search found 1823 results on 73 pages for 'partitions'.

Page 18/73 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

• Trying to recover deleted Ubuntu partition

  - by user110984

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

  Read the article

• How to run multiple distros using lvm

  - by Mark

  I've seen quite a few posts around about running multiple distros but not sure they apply to using LVM (and without Windows). I'm using a machine that's about 3 years old. Setup: Intel Core i7 2.8GHz 8GB Ram 1TB SATA HDD At this point, I'd like to install 12.10 and Mint 14, leaving the option open to install additional distros down the road. I could be way off, but I'm thinking about creating at least 2 primary /boot partitions (1 for 12.10 and 1 for Mint) and another partition for LVM leaving room for additional /boot partitions. Then creating a VG and separate LVs for Ubuntu 12.10 and Linux Mint 14. I understand I can share partitions between the 2 installs, but I'm only using this for testing and I have tons of space to play with. LVM seemed logical considering I may want to install and test additional distros. I guess I could share the /swap partition across the board without problems, right? I'm unclear about GRUB2. How do I handle the bootloader situation? Install 12.10 and get it running then make changes to grub.cfg after installing Mint? And do I not install GRUB for Mint or do I install it in a different location? Any guidance would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• How to Manage and Use LVM (Logical Volume Management) in Ubuntu

  - by Justin Garrison

  In our previous article we told you what LVM is and what you may want to use it for, and today we are going to walk you through some of the key management tools of LVM so you will be confident when setting up or expanding your installation. As stated before, LVM is a abstraction layer between your operating system and physical hard drives. What that means is your physical hard drives and partitions are no longer tied to the hard drives and partitions they reside on. Rather, the hard drives and partitions that your operating system sees can be any number of separate hard drives pooled together or in a software RAID Latest Features How-To Geek ETC Inspire Geek Love with These Hilarious Geek Valentines How to Integrate Dropbox with Pages, Keynote, and Numbers on iPad RGB? CMYK? Alpha? What Are Image Channels and What Do They Mean? How to Recover that Photo, Picture or File You Deleted Accidentally How To Colorize Black and White Vintage Photographs in Photoshop How To Get SSH Command-Line Access to Windows 7 Using Cygwin How to Kid Proof Your Computer’s Power and Reset Buttons Microsoft’s Windows Media Player Extension Adds H.264 Support Back to Google Chrome Android Notifier Pushes Android Notices to Your Desktop Dead Space 2 Theme for Chrome and Iron Carl Sagan and Halo Reach Mashup – We Humans are Capable of Greatness [Video] Battle the Necromorphs Once Again on Your Desktop with the Dead Space 2 Theme for Windows 7

  Read the article

• Dual booted Windows 7 freezes after login screen

  - by Cathal

  First-time Linux user, using a Packard Bell Easy Note TS laptop. My problem arose after I dual boot installed Ubuntu 12.04 on Windows 7 via WUBI. I backed up all my data, and reinstalled Windows from factory settings on the recovery partition. When I first tried to install Ubuntu I mistakenly closed the lid at the start of the installation, stopping it. After that I rebooted, and my second installation attempt went without a hitch. Ubuntu works perfectly, the data on the partitions seem to be fine. My problem is I can't log back in to Windows 7. After selecting it in GRUB, and then in the Windows 7/ WUBI choice on boot, it loads up perfectly til the user log in screen. After the password is inputted, it stalls on the "Welcome" busy screen. This happens in Safe mode as well. Startup repair can't find a problem and neither can CHKDSK. System restore and Last known good config have no effect either. If anyone could help me out, I'd be real grateful. edit in response to the question below, since I don't know how to comment: Windows was installed first and its partitions are the first on the list. Should I move the windows partitions to after the Linux ones on the disk? Thanks for your help.

  Read the article

• 12.10 install overwrote my windows partition

  - by Niall C

  Recently decided to switch back to Ubuntu. I have a 3TB drive which was running win7. I had 3 partitions. c: for windows d: data e: data Have installed ubuntu before so 'thought' I knew what I was doing. I using netbootin I installed from a usb stick. I didn't choose the default options but I didn't choose the 'manual install' either. I can't remember what option I took but I figured at some stage it would tell me how it was going to partition the disk and at that stage I would see if it had recognised the NTFS partitions and I would be able to abort if it didn't. Unfortunately, it didn't and just went ahead and installed Ubuntu and made up it's own mind on how it was going to partition the disk. Usual story, the two NTFS data partitions weren't backed up. Is there anything I can do to retrieve the ntfs data? I'm currently trying out testdisk and I know I can use photodisk to retrieve certain file types but all the filenames will be lost and it's going to take a hell of a lot of time to rename them all. Any help or assistance would be more than gratefully accepted. Thanks in advance, Niall

  Read the article

• Dual Booting Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04. Partition Sizes?

  - by John F.

  I'm about to reinstall Windows, so I thought that I'd try Ubuntu out on a partition just for fun. My question is, how large should my partitions be for each of them? I know this various depending on what you use, so i'll give you a general idea of what I have, and what I have in mind. I'm currently running: Windows 7 Professional (64bit) RAM: 4GB CPU: 2.5Ghz Quad Core processor HDD: 500GB GPU: 1GB Nvidia GeForce I have around 130GB in Steam games, and some heavier applications like Photoshop CS6, Sony Vegas Pro 11. But other Applications I use are: Chrome Skype Dxtory Fraps OpenOffice BitTorrent and other assorted smaller programs. So, I was thinking that I would give my Windows partition about 150-200GB, my Ubuntu Partition around 20GB, and the rest to shared storage. I'm not really sure if I'd need more or less on Ubuntu, because I've never used it and I'm not really sure what kind of apps i'd be using over there. This would also be a clean install, so I'd be wiping my HDD, creating the Partitions in GParted, then installing Windows with Ubuntu following that. Any critique you could give me? Maybe explanations to what the /root, /boot and /home partitions I hear are about? Thanks in advanced if you actually read this lengthy thing! Any help is appreciated. (x

  Read the article

• Dual boot UEFI Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04 (both 64 bits). W7 entry doesn't appear in GRUB

  - by Joe

  After trying to install both OS during 2 days, I'm confused and getting mad... I have SSD 128 GB and HDD 500 GB both empty. My laptop is Asus K55VM. BIOS support UEFI. What I have done: Install new SSD (Samsung 830 128GB) Use GParted on liveCD to create new table of partitions (GPT) and create 3 partitions (in the SSD) for different purposes: Partition 1: 80 GB (w7); Partition 2: 30 GB (Ubuntu 12.04 -Just / -); Partition 3: 10 GB unused (for future extesion of the other partitions) Install Windows 7 (with UEFI) in Partition 1. This create: /dev/sda1 - 100 MB for System (UEFI boot I guess) - FAT32 /dev/sda2 - 100 MB aprox. for MSR /dev/sda3 - 79.800 MB aprox. for Windows7 data In this point everything works fine. I have W7. Now I install Ubuntu 12.04 amd64 (with UEFI) as follows: Install / in Partition 2 - /dev/sda4 30 GB ext4, and in the hdd I install /home and swap. I select bootloader in /dev/sda1 (where it's supposed to be the UEFI boot). I install updates and reboot. Problem: Now just appears grub menu with Ubuntu entries and not Windows 7. Alternative solution found: When I turn on laptop, before loading GRUB I press ESC key and appear BIOS boot, so I can select to boot the Windows partition, Ubuntu partition, DVD, USB, etc... but I think is not the best way to boot different OS. I've tried: sudo update-grub2 with no success. What can I do??

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 takes too long to boot

  - by msPeachy

  I've recently encountered the following error message: mount: mounting /dev/disk/by-uuid/3f7f5cd9d-6ea3-4da7-b5ec-**** on /root failed: Invalid argument mount: mounting /sys on /root/sys failed: No such file or directory mount: mounting /dev on /root/dev failed: No such file or directory mount: mounting /sys on /root/sys failed: No such file or directory mount: mounting /proc on /root/proc failed: No such file or directory Target file system doesn't have /sbin/init. No init found. Try passing init= bootarg. Busybox v1.18.5 (Ubuntu 1:1.18.5-1ubuntu4) built-in shell (ash) Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands. (initramfs) _ I run sudo fsck /dev/sda2 which is the Ubuntu ext4 root partition via LiveCD. It checked and fixed the file system. The next time I boot, Ubuntu started to load with the Ubuntu logo and the dots underneath for several hours (with the mouse pointer active on the screen), I even let the computer on overnight but still it did not successfully boot or got to the login screen in the morning. I booted again with the LiveCD and checked the NTFS partitions with ntfsfix and again the NTFS partitions was checked and fixed successfully. I also edited my fstab and commented out the lines that auto-mounts the NTFS partitions. The next time I boot, it took almost 20 minutes for Ubuntu to get to the login screen, after typing the password it took an additional 10 minutes for Ubuntu to get to the desktop. On the desktop, it take several minutes to open any program, displaying the Dash alone takes 5 minutes! Is there a fix for this without having to reinstall Ubuntu? I don't see or get any errors, Ubuntu is just taking too long to boot and to run programs. Please help!

  Read the article

• raid advice with SSD and two HDD

  - by Nin

  I have a new machine with one 128GB SSD and two 1TB HDD. On the SSD is the OS and my initial thought was to put the two HDD in RAID 1 for user data. After some more thought I came up with two other setups and now I'm in doubt :) Can someone advise what would be the best setup? 1: single SSD and HDD in RAID 1 (original thought) 2: Create 2 partitions on the HDD (128GB and 872GB). Put the two 872GB in RAID 1 and create another RAID 1 with the SSD and one 128GB HDD partition. 3: Create 2 partitions on the HDD (750/250), put the 705GB in RAID 1 and use the 2 250GB as backup and make automatic snapshots of the SSD to (one of) these partitions. I think the 2 main questions are: Is it advisable to create a raid array with only part of a drive and actively use the other part of that drive or should you always use the full disk? Is it advisable to create a raid 1 array with a SSD and HDD or will that blow the whole speed advantage of the SSD?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 14.04 LTS 64-bit install alongside Windows 7

  - by user289222

  I've tried installing Ubuntu 14.04 LTS alongside my Windows 7 OS, following the exact procedure given by the Ubuntu website and random other tutorials. I've tried with a LiveCD and with a USB stick but I always run into the same problem. When I'm at the screen where I'm allowed to select how I want to install Ubuntu ("alongside", "erase Windows 7", "something else"), the first option says "Install Ubuntu inside Windows 7" instead of "Install Ubuntu alongside Windows 7". From pretty much all tutorials I've seen, the tutorial says that the option should say "alongside". I click "inside" anyway, and Ubuntu doesn't install at all. Instead, my computer just reboots, and goes back to the Try Ubuntu or Install Now screen. This happens regardless of using a LiveCD or a USB stick. I've also tried manually resizing my partitions using "something else". Oddly, I see 4 sda partitions: /dev/sda type size used /dev/sda1 1mb unknown Windows 7 (loader) /dev/sda2 ntsf 208mb unknown Recovery Windows Environment (loader) /dev/sda3 ntsf ~752000mb unknown Recovery Windows Environment (loader) /dev/sda4 ~18000mb unknown I try resizing the largest partition, but some sort of internal error occurs and it doesn't let me resize my partitions. Any ideas on what's going on and how to solve it?

  Read the article

• Analysis Services (SSAS) - Unexpected Internal Error when processing (ProcessUpdate). Workaround/Resolution

  - by James Rogers

  Many implementations require the use of ProcessUpdate to support Type 1 slowly changing dimensions. ProcessUpdate drops all of the affected indexes and aggregations in partitions affected by data that changes in the Dimension on which the ProcessUpdate is being performed. Twice now I have had situations where the processing fails with "Internal error: An unexpected exception occurred." Any subsequent ProcessUpdate processing will also fail with the same error. In talking with Microsoft the issue is corrupt indexes for the Dimension(s) being processed in the partitions of the affected measure group. I cannot guarantee that the following will correct your problem but it did in my case and saved us quite a bit of down time.   Workaround: ProcessIndexes on the entire cube that is being processed and throwing the error. This corrected the problem on both 2008 and 2008 R2.   Pros:  Does not require a complete rebuild of the data (ProcessFull) for either the Dimension or Cube. User access can continue while this ProcessIndexes in underway.   Cons: Can take a long time, especially on large cubes with many partitions, dimensions and/or aggregations. Query Performance is usually severely impacted due to the memory and CPU requirements for Aggregation and Index building   <Batch http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2003/engine"http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2003/engine">  <Parallel>     <Process xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ddl2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2003/engine/2" xmlns:ddl2_2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2003/engine/2/2" xmlns:ddl100_100="http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2008/engine/100/100" xmlns:ddl200="http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2010/engine/200" xmlns:ddl200_200="http://schemas.microsoft.com/analysisservices/2010/engine/200/200">       <Object>         <DatabaseID>MyDatabase</DatabaseID>         <CubeID>MyCube</CubeID>       </Object>       <Type>ProcessIndexes</Type>       <WriteBackTableCreation>UseExisting</WriteBackTableCreation>     </Process>  </Parallel> </Batch>   The cube where the corruption exists can be found by having Profiler running while the ProcessUpdate is executing. The first partition that displays the "The Job has ended in failure." message in the TextData column will be part of the cube/measuregroup that has the corruption. You can try to run ProcessIndexes on just that measure group. This may correct the problem and save additional time if you have other large measure groups in the cube that are not affected by the corruption.   Remember to execute your normal ProcessUpdate batch after the successful completion of the ProcessIndexes. The ProcessIndexes does not pick up data changes.   Things that did not work: ProcessClearIndexes - why this doesn't work and ProcessIndexes does is unclear at this point. ProcessFull on the partition in question. In my latest case, this would clear up the problem for that partition. However, the next partition the ProcessUpdate touched that had data in it would generate and error. This leads me to believe the corruption problem will exist in all partitions in the affected measure group that have data in them.   NOTE: I experience this problem in both a SQL 2008 and SQL 2008 R2 Analysis Services environment, on separate built from the same relational database. This leads me to believe that some data condition in the tables used for the Dimension processing caused the corruption since the two environments were on physically separate hardware. I am waiting on Microsoft to analyze the dumps to give us more insight into what actually caused the corruption and will update this post accordingly.

  Read the article

• How does the Trash Can work, and where can I find official documentation, reference, or specification for it?

  - by MestreLion

  When trying to manage trash can from mounted NTFS volumes, I ended up reading FreeDesktop.org's reference on it. Poking around and doing some tests, I realized Ubuntu/Gnome does not follow the specs 100%. Here's why: For non-/ partitions, it always uses <driveroot>/.Trash-<uid>, It never used <driveroot>/.Trash/<uid>, even when i created it in advance. While this works, it's annoying: if I have 15 users, I end up with 15 /.Trash-xxx folders in my drive, while the other approach would still give a single folder (with 15 sub-folders). That "pollution" in my drives is very unpleasant. And specs say "If an $topdir/.Trash directory is absent, an $topdir/.Trash-$uid directory is to be used". Well, it IS present, so why does it never use it? root trash does not work, at least not out of the box. Open nautilus as root and click on trash; it gives an error. Try to delete any file, it says "it can't move to trash". Ok, I know this can be fixed by creating /root/.local/share. But specs says "A “home trash” directory SHOULD be automatically created for any new user. If this directory is needed for a trashing operation but does not exist, the implementation SHOULD automatically create it, without any warnings or delays.". Why the error then? Bug? Why must I change /etc/fstab entries for mounted volumes, adding options like uid and guid, if the volumes are already mounted as RW for everyone? These are just some examples of deviation from the standard. So, the question is: "If Ubuntu does not adhere 100% to the spec, HOW exactly does the trash work? WHERE can i find a technical reference for Ubuntu's implementation of the trash?" By the way: if Ubuntu does happen to follow specs, please tell me what I am doing wrong, especially regarding the /.Trash-<uid> vs /.Trash/<uid> issue. Thanks! EDIT: Some more info: If a given fs has no support for the sticky bit (VFAT, NTFS), it probably doesn't have for permissions either (at least VFAT surely doesn't). So what prevents one user from purging / restoring other users' ./Trash-xxx ? If one can read/write his own Trash, one can do the same for the whole drive, including other's trashes, correct? Or does Gnome have some kind of "extra" protection on ./Trash-xxx folders on VFAT/NTFS fs? If Linux can "emulate" file permissions on NTFS mounting by editing /fstab uid and gid options, can it also "emulate" the sticky bit? I would really prefer to use /.Trash/xxx format... For the root issue: for the / partition, I can use trash as root, and it goes to /root/.local/shate/Trash. But if I click on Nautilus "Trash" (as root), I get an error. Don't you? So files are correctly trashed, but I can't access it. All I can do is manually "purge" them (by deleting files on /root/.local/shate/Trash), but restoring would be very tricky (opening info files and manually moving, etc.). For non-/ partitions (or at least for VFAT/NTFS), I can not even use trash as root: it does not create a ./Trash-0 folder, it simply says "Cannot trash, want to permanently delete?" Why? About fstab: i use it for a permanent mount for my NTFS partitions. I have several, and if not "pre-mounted" they really clutter the desktop and/or Nautilus. I'd rather have it pre-mounted, integrated in my fs, in mounts like /data , /windows/xp , /windows/vista , and so on, and leave /media and its "mount/unmount" flexibility just for truly removable drives. So, if Ubuntu/Gnome truly follows the spec, is there any way to fix the root issues and to "emulate" the sticky bit for (at least) my fstab'ed NTFS fixed partitions?

  Read the article

• How does Trash Can works? Where can i find official specification / documentation / reference about it?

  - by MestreLion

  When trying to manage trash can from mounted NTFS volumes, I ended up reading FreeDesktop.org's reference on it. Poking around and doing some tests, I realized Ubuntu/Gnome does not follow the specs 100%. Here's why: For non-/ partitions, it always use <driveroot>/.Trash-<uid>, It never used <driveroot>/.Trash/<uid>, even when i created it in advance. While this works, its annoying: if i have 15 users, i end up with 15 /.Trash-xxx folders in my drive, while the other approach would still give a single folder (with 15 sub-folders). That "pollution" in my drives is very unpleasant. And specs say "If an $topdir/.Trash directory is absent, an $topdir/.Trash-$uid directory is to be used". Well, it IS present, so why it never uses it? root trash does not work, at least not out of the box. Open nautilus as root and click on trash, it gives error. Try to delete any file, it says "it cant move to trash". Ok, i know this can be fixed by creating /root/.local/share. But specs says "A “home trash” directory SHOULD be automatically created for any new user. If this directory is needed for a trashing operation but does not exist, the implementation SHOULD automatically create it, without any warnings or delays.". Why error then? Bug? Why do i must change /etc/fstab entries for mounted volumes, adding options like uid and guid, if the volumes are already mounted as RW for everyone? These are just some examples of deviation from standard. So, the question is: "If Ubuntu does not adhere 100% to the spec, HOW exactly does the trash work? WHERE can i find technical reference about Ubuntu's implementation of the trash?" By the way: if Ubuntu does happen to follow specs, please tell me what am i doing wrong, specially regarding the /.Trash-<uid> vs /.Trash/<uid> issue. Thanks! EDIT: Some more info: If a given fs has no support for sticky bit (VFAT, NTFS), it probably dont have for permitions either (at least VFAT surely doesnt). So what prevents one user for purging / restoring other users ./Trash-xxx ? If one can read/write his own Trash, he can also do the same for the whole drive, including other's trashes, isnt it? Or does Gnome has any "extra" protection on ./Trash-xxx folders on VFAT/NTFS fs? If Linux can "emulate" file permitions on NTFS mounting by editing /fstab uid and gid options, can it also "emulate" the sticky bit? I would really want to use /.Trash/xxx format... For the root issue: for the / partition, i can trash as root, and it goes to /root/.local/shate/Trash. But if i click on Nautilus "Trash" (as root), i get an error. Dont you? So files are correctly trashed, but i cant access it. All i can do is manually "purge" them (by deleting files on /root/.local/shate/Trash), but restoring would be very tricky (opening info files and manually moving, etc) For non-/ partitions (or at least for VFAT/NTFS), I can not even trash as root: it does not create a ./Trash-0 folder, it simply says "Cannot trash, want to permantly delete?" Why? About fstab: i use it for a permanent mount for my NTFS partitions. I have several, and if not "pre-mounted" they really cluttter desktop and/or Nautilus. Id rather have it pre mounted, integrated in my fs, in mounts like /data , /windows/xp , /windows/vista , and so on, and leave /media and its "mount/unmount" flexibility just for truly removable drives Si, if Ubuntu/Gnome truly follow the spec, is there any way to fix the root issues and to "emulate" the sticky bit for (at least) my fstab'ed NTFS fixed partitions?

  Read the article

• questions about dual-boot install Ubuntu 10.04 and Windows 7 on same hard drive

  - by Tim

  I'd like to dual-boot install Ubuntu 10.04 on the same hard drive as Windows 7 which has already been installed. As to sources on the internet: I found a website iinet about dual-boot installation of Ubuntu 10.10 and Windows 7 on the same hard drive, which I think more specific than the one on Ubuntu Community without specific version of the OSes. Since I am installing Ubuntu 10.04 instead of 10.10, my question is whether their installers are same or almost same and if I can follow iinet for my dual-boot installation? Or are there better websites for information about dual-boot installtion of Ubuntu 10.04 and Windows 7? As to shrinking Windows partitions to make free space for Ubuntu partitions: iinet uses the partition software in Ubuntu's installer to shrink the Windows partition. But I saw in many website that the partition software in Ubuntu's installer cannot guarantee shrinking Windows 7 partitions successfully, so they recommended in general to shrink Windows partitions under Windows itself using its softwares. For example, in Ubuntu Community, it says: Some people think that the Windows partition must be resized only from within Windows Vista and Windows 7 using the shrink/resize option. ... If you use GParted Partition Editor in the Ubuntu Live CD be careful. So I was wondering which way to go in my situation? As to partition for bootloader files: In iinet, I don't see there is a partition created and dedicated to boot files (i.e. Grub files). However, I saw in many websites strongly suggesting using a boot partition for Grub files, especially for the purpose of separation and protection from installed OS files. I was wondering which way I should choose and why? As to installing bootloader Grub, in iinet, I see that to install Grub it only needs to specify the hard drive device for bootloader installation. However, in ubuntuguide(for more than 2 OSes and Ubuntu 9.04), some commands are needed to run in order to put Grub configuration files in MBR, and OS partition, for the chain-load process (where to find the files for the next stage). In Ubuntu Community, there are some related sentences which I don't quite understand how to do in practice: the only thing in your computer outside of Ubuntu that needs to be changed is a small code in the MBR (Master Boot Record) of the first hard disk. The MBR code is changed to point to the boot loader in Ubuntu. If you have a problem with changing the MBR code, you might prefer to just install the code for pointing to GRUB to the first sector of your Ubuntu partition instead. If you do that during the Ubuntu installation process, then Ubuntu won't boot until you configure some other boot manager to point to Ubuntu's boot sector. Windows Vista no longer utilizes boot.ini, ntdetect.com, and ntldr when booting. Instead, Vista stores all data for its new boot manager in a boot folder. Windows Vista ships with an command line utility called bcdedit.exe, which requires administrator credentials to use. You may want to read http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=112156 about it. Using a command line utility always has its learning curve, so a more productive and better job can be done with a free utility called EasyBCD, developed and mastered in during the times of Vista Beta already. EasyBCD is user friendly and many Vista users highly recommend EasyBCD. In what is quoted above, I was wondering how exactly I should change the MBR code to point to the bootloader in Ubuntu? if I fail to change MBR code, are the other suggested boot managers being bcdedit.exe and EasyBCD in Windows? With the three sources above, which one shall I follow? Thanks and regards

  Read the article

• Must go through Windows Boot Loader to get to Grub

  - by Zach

  I just installed a fresh copy of Precise alongside Windows 7. I have to separate 750GB hard drives; /dev/sda holds the Windows partitions and /dev/sdb holds the Ubuntu partitions. Other than that, these are fresh installs of both Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04. Whenever I boot, Grub doesn't load, instead it goes to a black screen with a single blinking (horizontal bar) cursor in the top right corner. However, if I boot, hit escape right as the BIOS/POST screen finishes up, see the Windows Boot Loader and hit escape to make it go back to the BIOS screen. After the BIOS screen, grub shows up and everything functions normally; I can boot into Ubuntu or Win7. I don't want to have to do the Escape, Escape, Wait, Boot trick every time. I have no idea what would be wrong or what information I could give you guys to help diagnose. I have run a sudo update-grub and it found everything normally. I tried adding nomodeset flag in the /etc/default/grub line GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT which searching around made me think might work. Thoughts on what I could do to fix this? EDIT: I've tried changing the boot order so that both drives in the BIOS (both are labeled as "Internal HDD") have had a try booting first. I think the problem may be that every time I boot, the BIOS boot order is different... and I have to reset it. It seems to not be stable... but I'm not sure how to go about fixing that either. The machine has both traditional BIOS and UEFI. It came standard in "Legacy" mode; so it is currently set to boot through Legacy mode. I've reinstalled Ubuntu now, and now if I hit escape at the end of the BIOS/POST startup screen, it takes me to GRUB menu. Otherwise it automatically loads Windows. It seems like GRUB is now the acting bootloader, it just doesn't automatically start that unless I ask it to open a bootloader. In my other machines, it has always automatically started at the end of BIOS/POST. EDIT2: Using gparted, I just looked at my partitions, it would seem that my linux-swap partition is currently flagged as the boot partition for my Ubuntu install. I currently only have 2 partitions: one of "ext4" with a mount point of "/" and flag " "; and the "linux-swap" with mount point " " and flag "boot." If I change the boot flag to be on "/," it does not reliably solve the problem. After 10 boots: 2 Booted successfully to GRUB 5 Booted directly to Windows 7 3 booted to the black screen with the cursor and hung there Further research makes me think this is an issue of the BIOS not reliably booting hard drives in the same order or not finding both hard drives. If I ask it to create a "boot menu" sometimes it has 2 entries for "Internal HDD," sometimes 1. Also the list it creates changes order every time I bring it up; so it is not following a consistent boot sequence. Will report back if this is not an issue with GRUB.

  Read the article

• Failed to install GRUB on a separate '/boot' partition on a fake RAID 0 (12.04LTS)

  - by gerben

  I'm having some problems getting GRUB configured for Ubuntu 12.04LTS on a fake RAID 0. I can either get the GRUB rescue prompt at startup, or just a GRUB prompt but I cannot boot to Ubuntu manually. How can I configure the GRUB to actually use the Ubuntu install? The steps taken: Installing Ubuntu on fake raid The Ubuntu installer cannot install Ubuntu on the drive. After defining the partitions to use it fails with "Error: ???", pressing OK terminates the installer. Therefore, I used GParted to configure the partitions: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg : (the RAID configuration, created partition): /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1:ext2, 200MiB, (with 'boot' flag) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3:ext2, 67.75GiB, (which will contain Ubuntu) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg2:extended, 1.00GiB, (for swap) Contains: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg5: unknown Because of the fake-RAID, I already mounted the destination partitions before running the Ubuntu installer: > mkdir /mnt/boot > sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 /mnt/boot > mkdir /mnt/ubuntu > sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 /mnt/ubuntu In the installer I chose the following partition usage: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 ext2, mount at /boot (209MB) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 ext2, mount at / (72751MB) /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg5 swap Device for boot loader installation: /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg, linux device-mapper (striped) (74.0GB) This will install Ubuntu, but will fail to install GRUB (it seems to use /dev/sda no matter which one I choose) Installing GRUB with dpkg-reconfigure I followed this guide, but adapted it for two partitions: sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 /mnt/ubuntu sudo mount --bind /dev /mnt/ubuntu/dev sudo mount --bind /proc /mnt/ubuntu/proc sudo mount --bind /sys /mnt/ubuntu/sys sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 /mnt/boot sudo mount --bind /boot /mnt/boot sudo chroot /mnt/ubuntu dpkg-reconfigure grub-pc However, it does not ask where to install GRUB (I should choose /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg somewhere..) After reboot I get the GRUB rescue prompt with message no such device Installing GRUB with grub-install After the same mount commands as above, I continued with: > sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt/boot /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg This gives the following message: /usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for /mnt/boot/boot/grub (is /dev mounted?) It does succeed when mounting just the boot partition : sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg1 /mnt sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt/ /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg This finishes with: Installation finished. No error reported. After reboot I get the GRUB console, with welcome text. Attempting to manually start Ubuntu: ls (hd0) (hd0,msdos3) : (Ubuntu install partition) (hd0,msdos1) : (Ubuntu boot partition) (hd1) (hd1,msdos1) : (Ubuntu live USB) ls (hd0,msdos3)/ contains: - vmlinuz - lib/ - tmp/ - initrd.img - mnt/ - var/ - proc/ - boot/ - root/ - etc/ - run/ - media/ - sbin/ - bin/ - selinux/ - dev/ - srv/ - home/ - sys/ ls (hd0,msdos1)/ contains: -grub/ -boot/ -initrd.img-3.8.0-29-generic -vmlinuz-3.8.0.29-generic -config-3.8 linux (hd0,msdos3)/vmlinuz This returns "error: out of disk" Installing GRUB on Ubuntu partition with grub-install > sudo mount /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg3 /mnt > sudo grub-install --root-directory=/mnt/ /dev/mapper/sil_agadaccfacbg This finishes with message: > Installation finished. No error reported. After reboot get the message "error: out of disk" and the GRUB rescue prompt. Configuring GRUB with grub-mkconfig Attempting to run grub-mkconfig with different destinations results in the same message: /usr/sbin/grub-probe: error: cannot find a device for / (is /dev mounted?). Remarks: Initially I didn't use a separate /boot partition, but the GRUB install then also failed. Because some mention that a small partition at the beginning of the drive is necessary on old machines, I retried with a /boot partition This is a single boot (no other OS's installed/used)

  Read the article

• Grub Rescue Unknown Filesystem Error. Grub Corrupted or Filesystem?

  - by nightcrawler

  Now it has happened twice & have been pulling my hairs now... I have installed xubuntu on my external hardisk & have been using it for about 3 months. It has three partitions, one of 500 mb mounted at /boot, 2nd one of 48gb mounted at / & the rest (out of 160gb) is ntfs partition....used as normal external storage. The last storage supposedly acts as a buffer b/w Linux distributions & Win platform, buffer in the sense that it provides a universal channel for data transfers. I have constantly used this external hardisk for data transfers b/w win7 laptop & xubuntu (on this external hd) without any hassle. However, on of my desktops where I have ubuntu I (for the first time) attached this external drive which let me do data transfers where all three partitions properly mounted....but then nasty thing occurred the same that occurred before. I (as usual) tried booting via this external hd (one having xubuntu, one having being formerly used under Ubuntu) I got error Now I am totally devastated because similar thing happened ~6months before when I had fedora 17 in my external hd (instead of xubuntu) & after it was used under ubuntu the same happened...i didn't reported it because I already had planned towards debian instead of rpm! The mystery is that as long as I don't attach this external hd under ubuntu the data never** corrupts whereas under win xp/7 I can use it as a normal usb storage of coarse linux partitions aren’t available under win platforms... **From corrupts I mean hd fails to boot with the error mentioned however cant say whether data within remains untouched? It seems that my grub & or MBR is corrupted. Please sir guide me to solve this issue also why I cant attach & use linux external hds under linux platform Disk /dev/sdc: 160.0 GB, 160041884672 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders, total 312581806 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: 0x0004e7d0 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdc1 * 2048 976895 487424 83 Linux /dev/sdc2 978942 96874495 47947777 5 Extended /dev/sdc3 96874496 312575999 107850752 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdc5 978944 94726143 46873600 83 Linux /dev/sdc6 94728192 96874495 1073152 82 Linux swap / Solaris I can recall for sure that have seen a thread here when a similar problem occurred & in response someone gave solution of how to mount (now invisible) partitions & recover important data in them. I have misplaced that URL so if any can guide me thither because my important documents resides in / partition What I already have done: Without success I have tried this & related solutions What I plan to do: I believe that filesystem has corrupted & would you recommend solution like this provided I cant recall whether my /boot (500mb) partition was ext4 or ext2 though I am sure that my / (48gb) partition was ext4 UPDATE 1 Attached my external hd under Ubuntu ran followinf command as root grub-install /dev/sdc where /dev/sdc was my external hd containing corrupted xubuntu....it reported all done! I re-ran fdisk -l but to my disappointment it reported Disk /dev/sdc: 160.0 GB, 160041884672 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders, total 312581806 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: 0x1b6b9167 Disk /dev/sdc doesn't contain a valid partition table ...& now I can't even access its ntfs partition (former /dev/sdc3) please help? UPDATE 2 TestDisk (by cgsecurity) failed at founding any partition table :( TestDisk 6.13, Data Recovery Utility, November 2011 Christophe GRENIER <[email protected]> http://www.cgsecurity.org Disk /dev/sdc - 160 GB / 149 GiB - CHS 19457 255 63 Partition Start End Size in sectors

  Read the article

• apt-get update mdadm scary warnings

  - by user568829

  Just ran an apt-get update on one of my dedicated servers to be left with a relatively scary warning: Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ... update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.26-2-686-bigmem W: mdadm: the array /dev/md/1 with UUID c622dd79:496607cf:c230666b:5103eba0 W: mdadm: is currently active, but it is not listed in mdadm.conf. if W: mdadm: it is needed for boot, then YOUR SYSTEM IS NOW UNBOOTABLE! W: mdadm: please inspect the output of /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf, compare W: mdadm: it to /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, and make the necessary changes. W: mdadm: the array /dev/md/2 with UUID 24120323:8c54087c:c230666b:5103eba0 W: mdadm: is currently active, but it is not listed in mdadm.conf. if W: mdadm: it is needed for boot, then YOUR SYSTEM IS NOW UNBOOTABLE! W: mdadm: please inspect the output of /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf, compare W: mdadm: it to /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, and make the necessary changes. W: mdadm: the array /dev/md/6 with UUID eef74de5:9267b2a1:c230666b:5103eba0 W: mdadm: is currently active, but it is not listed in mdadm.conf. if W: mdadm: it is needed for boot, then YOUR SYSTEM IS NOW UNBOOTABLE! W: mdadm: please inspect the output of /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf, compare W: mdadm: it to /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, and make the necessary changes. W: mdadm: the array /dev/md/5 with UUID 5d45b20c:04d8138f:c230666b:5103eba0 W: mdadm: is currently active, but it is not listed in mdadm.conf. if W: mdadm: it is needed for boot, then YOUR SYSTEM IS NOW UNBOOTABLE! W: mdadm: please inspect the output of /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf, compare W: mdadm: it to /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf, and make the necessary changes. As instructed I inspected the output of /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf and compared with /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf and they are quite different. Here is the /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf contents: # mdadm.conf # # Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file. # # by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks. # alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired. DEVICE partitions # auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes # automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system HOMEHOST <system> # instruct the monitoring daemon where to send mail alerts MAILADDR root # definitions of existing MD arrays ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=b93b0b87:5f7c2c46:0043fca9:4026c400 ARRAY /dev/md1 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=c0fa8842:e214fb1a:fad8a3a2:28f2aabc ARRAY /dev/md2 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=cdc2a9a9:63bbda21:f55e806c:a5371897 ARRAY /dev/md3 level=raid1 num-devices=2 UUID=eca75495:9c9ce18c:d2bac587:f1e79d80 # This file was auto-generated on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:32:16 +0100 # by mkconf $Id$ And here is the out put from /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf # mdadm.conf # # Please refer to mdadm.conf(5) for information about this file. # # by default, scan all partitions (/proc/partitions) for MD superblocks. # alternatively, specify devices to scan, using wildcards if desired. DEVICE partitions # auto-create devices with Debian standard permissions CREATE owner=root group=disk mode=0660 auto=yes # automatically tag new arrays as belonging to the local system HOMEHOST <system> # instruct the monitoring daemon where to send mail alerts MAILADDR root # definitions of existing MD arrays ARRAY /dev/md1 UUID=c622dd79:496607cf:c230666b:5103eba0 ARRAY /dev/md2 UUID=24120323:8c54087c:c230666b:5103eba0 ARRAY /dev/md5 UUID=5d45b20c:04d8138f:c230666b:5103eba0 ARRAY /dev/md6 UUID=eef74de5:9267b2a1:c230666b:5103eba0 # This configuration was auto-generated on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:10:00 +1030 # by mkconf 3.1.4-1+8efb9d1+squeeze1 As I understand it I need to replace the four lines that start with 'ARRAY' in the /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf file with the different four 'ARRAY' lines from the /usr/share/mdadm/mkconf output. When I did this and then ran update-initramfs -u there were no more warnings. Is what I have done above correct? I am now terrified of rebooting the server for fear it will not reboot and being a remote dedicated server this would certainly mean downtime and possibly would be expensive to get running again. FOLLOW UP (response to question): the output from mount: /dev/md1 on / type ext3 (rw,usrquota,grpquota) tmpfs on /lib/init/rw type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755) proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) udev on /dev type tmpfs (rw,mode=0755) tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,noexec,nosuid,gid=5,mode=620) /dev/md2 on /boot type ext2 (rw) /dev/md5 on /tmp type ext3 (rw) /dev/md6 on /home type ext3 (rw,usrquota,grpquota) mdadm --detail /dev/md0 mdadm: md device /dev/md0 does not appear to be active. mdadm --detail /dev/md1 /dev/md1: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Sun Aug 14 09:43:08 2011 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 31463232 (30.01 GiB 32.22 GB) Used Dev Size : 31463232 (30.01 GiB 32.22 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 1 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sat Feb 25 14:03:47 2012 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : c622dd79:496607cf:c230666b:5103eba0 Events : 0.24 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1 mdadm --detail /dev/md2 /dev/md2: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Sun Aug 14 09:43:09 2011 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 104320 (101.89 MiB 106.82 MB) Used Dev Size : 104320 (101.89 MiB 106.82 MB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 2 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sat Feb 25 13:20:20 2012 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : 24120323:8c54087c:c230666b:5103eba0 Events : 0.30 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 2 0 active sync /dev/sda2 1 8 18 1 active sync /dev/sdb2 mdadm --detail /dev/md3 mdadm: md device /dev/md3 does not appear to be active. mdadm --detail /dev/md5 /dev/md5: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Sun Aug 14 09:43:09 2011 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 2104448 (2.01 GiB 2.15 GB) Used Dev Size : 2104448 (2.01 GiB 2.15 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 5 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sat Feb 25 14:09:03 2012 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : 5d45b20c:04d8138f:c230666b:5103eba0 Events : 0.30 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 5 0 active sync /dev/sda5 1 8 21 1 active sync /dev/sdb5 mdadm --detail /dev/md6 /dev/md6: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Sun Aug 14 09:43:09 2011 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 453659456 (432.64 GiB 464.55 GB) Used Dev Size : 453659456 (432.64 GiB 464.55 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 6 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Sat Feb 25 14:10:00 2012 State : active Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : eef74de5:9267b2a1:c230666b:5103eba0 Events : 0.31 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 6 0 active sync /dev/sda6 1 8 22 1 active sync /dev/sdb6 FOLLOW UP 2 (response to question): Output from /etc/fstab /dev/md1 / ext3 defaults,usrquota,grpquota 1 1 devpts /dev/pts devpts mode=0620,gid=5 0 0 proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 #usbdevfs /proc/bus/usb usbdevfs noauto 0 0 /dev/cdrom /media/cdrom auto ro,noauto,user,exec 0 0 /dev/dvd /media/dvd auto ro,noauto,user,exec 0 0 # # # /dev/md2 /boot ext2 defaults 1 2 /dev/sda3 swap swap pri=42 0 0 /dev/sdb3 swap swap pri=42 0 0 /dev/md5 /tmp ext3 defaults 0 0 /dev/md6 /home ext3 defaults,usrquota,grpquota 1 2

  Read the article

• Why do I have multiple drives in my backup system image?

  - by bebop

  I have a drive which has 2 partitions. One is where the OS is installed, the other is a data (but not libraries) drive. When I try and create a backup using the built in tool, it wants to include both partitions in the system image. Why does it do this? If I move the os to a separate drive will I be able to back up just this data? Edit: To be more clear. I have 4 disks in the machine. 1 disc has 2 partitions. These are c: and e:, the other disks are d: f: and h:. The OS is installed on c: and libraries are stored on h:. The libraries are already backed up using crashplan, but I want to create a system image so I can easily restore the machine, if it either dies or if I get a SSD drive. When I choose backup (either through the wizard or if I open it through control panel) and check (or click) create a system image it automatically adds both c: and e: to the list of drives that will be backed up, and I cannot change this, the checkboxes to unselect are greyed out. I would like to know why it automatically adds e: to the list (but not h:, where the libraries are) and if I can change some setting so whatever files it has on e: that it thinks need to be backed up as part of the system image are moved to c:. How can I determine what they are? Is it because c: and e: are partitions of the same disk? If I move c: tro a different disk will that mean I only have to back up c:? Thanks Edit 2: I have viewed all files including hidden and system ones on both drives and it seems that I have a suspicous hidden e:\boot\ folder. I think that I might have installed the OS as a VHD at first then installed a seperate version straight on the disk, having dual boot for a while, then used EasyBCD to remove the VHD boot and file. Might this be what is causing my issue? How might I go about removing this? is it safe to just delete the boot folder?

  Read the article

• Quantifying the effects of partition mis-alignment

  - by Matt

  I'm experiencing some significant performance issues on an NFS server. I've been reading up a bit on partition alignment, and I think I have my partitions mis-aligned. I can't find anything that tells me how to actually quantify the effects of mis-aligned partitions. Some of the general information I found suggests the performance penalty can be quite high (upwards of 60%) and others say it's negligible. What I want to do is determine if partition alignment is a factor in this server's performance problems or not; and if so, to what degree? So I'll put my info out here, and hopefully the community can confirm if my partitions are indeed mis-aligned, and if so, help me put a number to what the performance cost is. Server is a Dell R510 with dual E5620 CPUs and 8 GB RAM. There are eight 15k 2.5” 600 GB drives (Seagate ST3600057SS) configured in hardware RAID-6 with a single hot spare. RAID controller is a Dell PERC H700 w/512MB cache (Linux sees this as a LSI MegaSAS 9260). OS is CentOS 5.6, home directory partition is ext3, with options “rw,data=journal,usrquota”. I have the HW RAID configured to present two virtual disks to the OS: /dev/sda for the OS (boot, root and swap partitions), and /dev/sdb for a big NFS share: [root@lnxutil1 ~]# parted -s /dev/sda unit s print Model: DELL PERC H700 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 134217599s Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 63s 465884s 465822s primary ext2 boot 2 465885s 134207009s 133741125s primary lvm [root@lnxutil1 ~]# parted -s /dev/sdb unit s print Model: DELL PERC H700 (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 5720768639s Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 34s 5720768606s 5720768573s lvm Edit 1 Using the cfq IO scheduler (default for CentOS 5.6): # cat /sys/block/sd{a,b}/queue/scheduler noop anticipatory deadline [cfq] noop anticipatory deadline [cfq] Chunk size is the same as strip size, right? If so, then 64kB: # /opt/MegaCli -LDInfo -Lall -aALL -NoLog Adapter #0 Number of Virtual Disks: 2 Virtual Disk: 0 (target id: 0) Name:os RAID Level: Primary-6, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-3 Size:65535MB State: Optimal Stripe Size: 64kB Number Of Drives:7 Span Depth:1 Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Current Cache Policy: WriteThrough, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Access Policy: Read/Write Disk Cache Policy: Disk's Default Number of Spans: 1 Span: 0 - Number of PDs: 7 ... physical disk info removed for brevity ... Virtual Disk: 1 (target id: 1) Name:share RAID Level: Primary-6, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-3 Size:2793344MB State: Optimal Stripe Size: 64kB Number Of Drives:7 Span Depth:1 Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Current Cache Policy: WriteThrough, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU Access Policy: Read/Write Disk Cache Policy: Disk's Default Number of Spans: 1 Span: 0 - Number of PDs: 7 If it's not obvious, virtual disk 0 corresponds to /dev/sda, for the OS; virtual disk 1 is /dev/sdb (the exported home directory tree).

  Read the article

• RAID for a home PC

  - by Mennon

  I have a home PC with two identical physical drives (SATA), ASUS P5Q-EM motherboard and Windows 7. HDD 1 has two partitions C: and D:, Windows is installed on C: and everthing else is on D:. Now the task is to organize some kind of RAID to mirror all data from HDD 1 to HDD 2 (at the moment HDD 2 is empty, no partitions), so HDD 2 is a backup copy of HDD 1. I've never had chance before to work with RAID, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• RAID for a home PC

  - by Mennon

  I have a home PC with two identical physical drives (SATA), ASUS P5Q-EM motherboard and Windows 7. HDD 1 has two partitions C: and D:, Windows is installed on C: and everthing else is on D:. Now the task is to organize some kind of RAID to mirror all data from HDD 1 to HDD 2 (at the moment HDD 2 is empty, no partitions), so HDD 2 is a backup copy of HDD 1. I've never had chance before to work with RAID, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Multiple nt52 entries in bootmgr

  - by SLaks

  I have a machine with Windows XP, Server 2003 R2, and Server 2008 R2. Right now, bootmgr has one entry for Server 2008 R2 and one entry for ntldr, which then leads to the ntldr boot.ini menu. Is it possible to add two different nt52 entries on two partitions so that I can access all three OSes from the bootmgr menu? Right now, Server 2008 and XP are in logical drives on an extended partition, but (I assume) I can image them onto basic partitions if necessary.

  Read the article

• Moving Windows XP from ICH10R RAID 5 to single disk using Linux [migrated]

  - by tudor

  A friend's machine running Windows XP refused to boot recently which is running 3 SATA disks on RAID 5 (which was previously upgraded from RAID 1 not by me). I have determined there to be a disk failure. The disks have been replaced many times in the past few years. I wish to backup the RAID5 partition before I try anything to fix it. The RAID chipset used is ICH10R/DO. So, I plugged in an extra IDE drive and an Ubuntu USB key and looked at the RAID. The partitioning is a mess, but I did find at least one degraded but working RAID array with two partitions, one 79GB and the other 86GB. Then I: 1) Partitioned my IDE disk using fdisk to have a partition of 80GB and bootable, and marked as NTFS. 2) dd the contents of the array to the partition 3) disconnected everything else 4) inserted a Windows XP CD and ran fixboot, fixmbr, and bootcfg. They all run ok and claim that they worked. (e.g. bootcfg detects the Windows partition, fixboot returns saying that it was written correctly.) However, I'm still getting an error like "DISK FAILURE, BOOT DISK NOT FOUND". I have tried running the GRUB rescue disk, which also runs ok, but won't boot into Windows. It just stops with a flashing cursor after chainloader +1, boot. One clue may be that the partitions appear to be wack. One disk has a 79GB RAID partition on a 500GB drive with a offset, the second disk has a 320GB RAID partition across the whole drive. Additionally, the BIOS lists the RAID size as being 149GB. I don't see how this works. How are they even assembling the array when the partitions are so different? I have also tried running the Windows XP automated repair tool, but that didn't work either. I'm presuming this is something simple. Perhaps Windows is attempting to boot into RAID and, upon not finding it, simply crashing? Perhaps the 79GB partitions offset means that it's looking into the disk by that much? Please help!! To clarify: I want to make the single IDE disk bootable with a copy of the array so that I can prove/disprove that it's just that Windows has become corrupted, and use windows tools to correct it before attempting the same thing on the RAID array. That way I have a working backup and can show the process I used to fix it.

  Read the article

• Snow Leopard not reading NTFS

  - by dtmunir

  I just upgraded a brand new Macbook Pro that I bought with 10.5 installed to Snow Leopard. After doing the upgrade I am trying to access NTFS partitions on my external hard drive but they are just not showing up. I went ahead and installed Windows 7 using Parallels, and I can access the NTFS partitions from within Windows, but not from Mac OS X. I know that Snow Leopard should be able to at least read NTFS drives, so what is going on here?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >