Search Results

Search found 16940 results on 678 pages for 'disk drive'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 197/678 | < Previous Page | 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204  | Next Page >

  • Cannot install grub to RAID1 (md0)

    - by Andrew Answer
    I have a RAID1 array on my Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and my /sda HDD has been replaced several days ago. I use this commands to replace: # go to superuser sudo bash # see RAID state mdadm -Q -D /dev/md0 # State should be "clean, degraded" # remove broken disk from RAID mdadm /dev/md0 --fail /dev/sda1 mdadm /dev/md0 --remove /dev/sda1 # see partitions fdisk -l # shutdown computer shutdown now # physically replace old disk by new # start system again # see partitions fdisk -l # copy partitions from sdb to sda sfdisk -d /dev/sdb | sfdisk /dev/sda # recreate id for sda sfdisk --change-id /dev/sda 1 fd # add sda1 to RAID mdadm /dev/md0 --add /dev/sda1 # see RAID state mdadm -Q -D /dev/md0 # State should be "clean, degraded, recovering" # to see status you can use cat /proc/mdstat This is the my mdadm output after sync: /dev/md0: Version : 0.90 Creation Time : Wed Feb 17 16:18:25 2010 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 470455360 (448.66 GiB 481.75 GB) Used Dev Size : 470455360 (448.66 GiB 481.75 GB) Raid Devices : 2 Total Devices : 2 Preferred Minor : 0 Persistence : Superblock is persistent Update Time : Thu Nov 1 15:19:31 2012 State : clean Active Devices : 2 Working Devices : 2 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0 UUID : 92e6ff4e:ed3ab4bf:fee5eb6c:d9b9cb11 Events : 0.11049560 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1 1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1 After bebuilding completion "fdisk -l" says what I have not valid partition table /dev/md0. This is my fdisk -l output: Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00057d19 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 63 940910984 470455461 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sda2 940910985 976768064 17928540 5 Extended /dev/sda5 940911048 976768064 17928508+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 976773168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000667ca Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 63 940910984 470455461 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/sdb2 940910985 976768064 17928540 5 Extended /dev/sdb5 940911048 976768064 17928508+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/md0: 481.7 GB, 481746288640 bytes 2 heads, 4 sectors/track, 117613840 cylinders, total 940910720 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: 0x00000000 Disk /dev/md0 doesn't contain a valid partition table This is my grub install output: root@answe:~# grub-install /dev/sda /usr/sbin/grub-setup: warn: Attempting to install GRUB to a disk with multiple partition labels or both partition label and filesystem. This is not supported yet.. /usr/sbin/grub-setup: error: embedding is not possible, but this is required for cross-disk install. root@answe:~# grub-install /dev/sdb Installation finished. No error reported. So 1) "update-grub" find only /sda and /sdb Linux, not /md0 2) "dpkg-reconfigure grub-pc" says "GRUB failed to install the following devices /dev/md0" I cannot load my system except from /sdb1 and /sda1, but in DEGRADED mode... Anybody can resolve this issue? I have big headache with this.

    Read the article

  • Dedicated hard disk for Informix SE dbname.dbs files & dedicated ramdisk for /tmp files.

    - by Frank Computer
    INFORMIX-SE 7.2: I would like to dedicate a hard disk, exclusively for my dbname.dbs directory which holds all the .dat and .idx files, and create a ramdisk for my /tmp temporary files in order to improve performance. I would also like to strip down the OS from any unecessary files and processes to minimize overhead for my dedicated application. Is this a good idea and are there any roadmaps for accomplishing this?

    Read the article

  • Allow application to access drive while blocking direct access from users in Server 2008r2?

    - by Justin Hawk
    In Windows Server 2008 R2, can I grant permission for a specific application to access a drive, while at the same time blocking users from viewing/browsing/reading that drive? Edit: Additional Info: Users are logged in to a terminal server. The application is a 3rd party rich GUI .exe, launched by the user. It stores large images files on the hard disk. I would like the user to only be able to access these files through the application, not by browsing the disk. The application does not have a service component.

    Read the article

  • Moving files from Public folder to C: takes a minute, even though they are same hard drive and same

    - by Jian Lin
    I have a big file, like 2GB, and would like to move it from Network -> Bookroom -> Users -> Public (this is the computer in the bookroom in the house) to c:\myfiles and they are actually on the SAME hard drive (and same partition). But copying still takes a minute or so? I thought if on the same hard drive and partition, then it is a "move" and it should take 2, 3 seconds only. that public folder also is \\Bookroom\Users\Public Update: Sorry, I actually mean "move" all the way... so it is not copy but move. So that's why I thought it should take 2, 3 seconds only.

    Read the article

  • System failure - need diagnostic recommendation

    - by Ladislav Mrnka
    I have big problem with my computer. Configuration is: Intel i7 + 6x2GB OCZ DDR3 Motheboard: Asus P6T Deluxe V2, HDD controller configured to AHCI Main drive: OCZ Vertex 2 (SSD) - contains all installed programs and system Second drive: Samsung SpinPoint - contains User profiles, ProgramData, virtual machines and databases Third drive: Samsung SpinPoint - data drive + backups OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 I have never had any problem with this computer until now. During weekend my computer completely crashed without any reason. Each time I tried to boot to Windows I got BSOD with message BAD_SYSTEM_CONFIG_INFO and automatic restart (I didn't install any new SW or HW). But after restart main OCZ drive was disconnected (not detected by BIOS). When I turned off and on computer, the drive was again connected. It also happend every single time I tried to repair installation somehow. It ended with some error and after restart drive was disconnected. The only thing which worked was format + fresh install. After installing almost everything I wanted to install Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate (complete installation without SQL Server Express). During installation of VS itself I always get BSOD - it is too fast so I'm not able to read description. After restart it searches for all disk drives for really long time and sometimes it changes boot drive so the system is not able to start - Bootmgr not found. After reconfiguring BIOS the system starts. There is no event describing the failure in Event viewer. Installing VS 2010 is absolutely necessary for me. I need help with diagnostic. I need to find where is the problem - I expect that the problem is in OCZ drive or in HDD controller on motherboard but I don't know how to find it. All components still have valid warranty. Can you recommend me some approach or tools to find the problem? Edit: I'm still looking for source of the problem. New information is that Windows are not able to perform check disk (Chkdsk) on the SSD system drive. After restarting it always starts checking drive and in part where files are checked it fails with BSOD - BAD_SYSTEM_CONFIG_INFO. After next restart and skipping check disk tests the system runs.

    Read the article

  • Copying files from Public folder to C: takes a minute, even though they are same hard drive and same

    - by Jian Lin
    I have a big file, like 2GB, and would like to copy it from Network -> Bookroom -> Users -> Public (this is the computer in the bookroom in the house) to c:\myfiles and they are actually on the SAME hard drive (and same partition). But copying still takes a minute or so? I thought if on the same hard drive and partition, then it is a "move" and it should take 2, 3 seconds only. that public folder also is \\Bookroom\Users\Public

    Read the article

  • How can i set up email alerts for disk failures on a windows server 2012 box?

    - by Leo
    I have a windows 2012 server with 3 storage spaces set up, each containing a mirrored pair of 2TB drives. What is the best way to set up alerting so that i receive an alert when a physical disk fails? Ideally i would like these alerts to be sent via email to a pre-defined address. The current server set up is as follows: Intel Core i7 2600k 3.4GHz Socket 1155 8MB Cache Asrock H77 PRO4/MVP Socket 1155 VGA DVI HDMI 7.1 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard 16GB RAM 1 x 60GB SSD (OS) 6 x 2TB SATA III 7200 HDD (DATA)

    Read the article

  • Has anyone had luck getting an external hard drive working with a PCMCIA USB card?

    - by Carl
    I would like to know if anyone has had any success in getting and external 2.5" IDE hard drive in an external case (w/USB cable) working when plugged into a PCMCIA USB card. My hard drive doesn't work when plugged into my HT-Link Cardbus/PCMCIA USB 2.0 2-port card (NEC / 32-bit). My MP3 player will work fine when plugged into it. I tried plugging in both of the USB cables that are one one end (Y cable), and it doesn't make a difference. I read the problem may be insufficient power.

    Read the article

  • How long does badblocks take on a 1TB drive?

    - by Steven Don
    I'm running badblocks (or rather "e2fsck -c") on a 1TB drive and if the progress indicator is any indication (no pun intended), it's going to take almost forever to complete. Right now it says 0.01% done, 30:20 elapsed which would mean the thing would take 17 weeks or so to complete, which seems rather excessive in my book. Is that a normal amount of time for such a check to take or it simply that my suspicions are correct in that the drive is failing, thus causing the check to take only slightly shorter than eternity? I found this question here, but that pertains to the amount of passes done.

    Read the article

  • Software Raid 10 corrupted superblock after dual disk failure, how do I recover it?

    - by Shoshomiga
    I have a software raid 10 with 6 x 2tb hard drives (raid 1 for /boot), ubuntu 10.04 is the os. I had a raid controller failure that put 2 drives out of sync, crashed the system and initially the os didnt boot up and went into initramfs instead, saying that drives were busy but I eventually managed to bring the raid up by stopping and assembling the drives. The os booted up and said that there were filesystem errors, I chose to ignore because it would remount the fs in read-only mode if there was a problem. Everything seemed to be working fine and the 2 drives started to rebuild, I was sure that it was a sata controller failure because I had dma errors in my log files. The os crashed soon after that with ext errors. Now its not bringing up the raid, it says that there is no superblock on /dev/sda2, even if I assemble manually with all the device names. I also did a memtest and changed the motherboard in addition to everything else. EDIT: This is my partition layout Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243201 cylinders, total 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0009c34a Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 * 2048 511999 254976 83 Linux /dev/sdb2 512000 3904980991 1952234496 83 Linux /dev/sdb3 3904980992 3907028991 1024000 82 Linux swap / Solaris All 6 disks have the same layout, partition #1 is for raid 1 /boot, partition #2 is for raid 10 far plan, partition #3 is swap, but sda did not have swap enabled EDIT2: This is the output of mdadm --detail /dev/md1 Layout : near=1, far=2 Chunk Size : 64k UUID : a0feff55:2018f8ff:e368bf24:bd0fce41 Events : 0.3112126 Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 34 0 spare rebuilding /dev/sdc2 1 0 0 1 removed 2 8 18 2 active sync /dev/sdb2 3 8 50 3 active sync /dev/sdd2 4 0 0 4 removed 5 8 82 5 active sync /dev/sdf2 6 8 66 - spare /dev/sde2 EDIT3: I ran ddrescue and it has copied everything from sda except a single 4096 byte sector that I suspect is the raid superblock EDIT4: Here is some more info too long to fit here lshw: http://pastebin.com/2eKrh7nF mdadm --detail /dev/sd[abcdef]1 (raid1): http://pastebin.com/cgMQWerS mdadm --detail /dev/sd[abcdef]2 (raid10): http://pastebin.com/V5dtcGPF dumpe2fs of /dev/sda2 (from the ddrescue cloned drive): http://pastebin.com/sp0GYcJG I tried to recreate md1 based on this info with the command mdadm --create /dev/md1 -v --assume-clean --level=10 --raid-devices=6 --chunk=64K --layout=f2 /dev/sda2 missing /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdd2 missing /dev/sdf2 But I can't mount it, I also tried to recreate it based on my initial mdadm --detail /dev/md1 but it still doesn't mount It also warns me that /dev/sda2 is an ext2fs file system but I guess its because of ddrescue

    Read the article

  • Why can't I index a SUBST'd drive in Windows7?

    - by Andy
    I've got a SUBST for a folder to drive letter P: I have noticed that exploring these folders from P: is now INCREDIBLY slow, taking up to a minute sometimes to show files. I'm showing them as general files and not thumbnails, so it's not that. Looking at the original folder in explorer is lightning fast. I've checked the indexing options and indeed the folder where my files are stored is checked as indexed. I can see my P: drive in the list, but clicking on the checkbox won't do anything. It's not even checkable. Does anyone have any clues as to how I can fix this? (Running Windows 7 just to be clear).

    Read the article

  • Can I use one virtualbox disk for multiple machines?

    - by mxp
    I'm not sure what search term to use and skimming through the VirtualBox manual didn't help me either, so I ask my two questions here... My setup is this: PC with dual boot into Windows 7 and a Debian operating system (both 64bit). I've created a virtual machine (Kubuntu, 64bit) under Windows and put it's VDI file on a SMB share of my NAS. Then I created a VM under linux using the same settings for memory etc and assigned the existing VDI file to it. My idea was that I could use that virtual machine from Windows and Linux as well. (1) Is this generally something that should work without problems? I noticed that snapshots get me into trouble because they appear to be not visible from the other operating system: The snapshots I took after installing the guest system are not visible under Linux. That's why I shut down the VM after usage and not save its state while it's running. My current problem is this: I have used the VM under Windows first, then under Linux. Now it will only start on Linux. When trying this on Windows the guest OS detects some kind of hard disk error and fails to boot because it cannot mount its drive. Obviously the virtual hard disk won't fail so it must have something to do with me using it under Linux. (2) How can I fix that? Update: It also looks like any changes I made in the VM under Linux have been reset by trying to boot it under Windows. Looks like it's back to the latest snapshot. I'm confused... Update The answer to my first question can be found below. In short: It works, as long as you don't use snapshots. The answer to my second question is this: Under Windows set the VM back to the latest snapshot and then discard the snapshot so it gets merged. There should be no snapshots left at the end. If you have multiple snapshots, discard the earliest ones first (Snapshot 1, then 2, 3, ...). I'm not sure what happens if you start at the end (.., 3, 2, 1). This of course leads to some data loss since you revert all changes since the last snapshot. But at least the VM is usable again.

    Read the article

  • Debian crashed, file system is read-only and cannot backup - How Do I find/mount a USB drive?

    - by Spiros
    We have a Debian server (vm's) here at work and the server crashed after a power failure. I can only boot the system in maintenance mode, and the whole file system is set to read only. I can run fsck though maintenance mode, however I would like to get a backup of some files before I do. Problem: I cannot access the net since there is no network connectivity in maintenance mode, and for some reason I try to add a USB flash drive to the computer but I can't find it through the console. Question: how to you find/mount a usb drive on Debian? I have tried several resources from the internet but nothing worked. Is there any other way I could get a backup of my files? I cannot start networking since the filesystem is set to read only. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • trouble when shutdown or restart in windows xp getting a black screen asking to try and start windows normally or safe mode than it runs a chk disk

    - by Brenda D Thomas
    I recently reinstalled windows xp on my dell latitude d410 laptop, everything works fine as long as I don't shut down, when I do, I get a black screen with a list of choices, it gives me the option of trying to start windows normally or different safe modes, than a blue screen comes up and runs a check disk, it even ask me to pick a restore point the last time, which I did, I'm afraid to turn the computer off or restart it, what could be wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to partition a 1 TB drive for performance on a windows development machine?

    - by dip
    I saw a similar question for linux, but nothing for windows. I'm getting a new 1TB drive for my dev box @ work. The OS will be Windows 7 Pro with 8GB of RAM and just the single 1TB drive. Backups are not a concern, and I won't be storing large multimedia files. I want the fastest possible performance for general windows usage and for compilation. I will defrag nightly with a smart defragger liker perfectdisk. Should I just go with a single partition, or is there some way I can lay things out for the best performance?

    Read the article

  • What is the best file system to use for a second hard drive when dual booting between WinXP and Win7

    - by Corey
    What is the best file system to use for a second hard drive when dual booting between WinXP and Win7? I am dual booting for legacy reasons, and I have a 2nd internal drive that I would like to use from both XP and 7. Should I go with the standard NTFS? (will the secuirty features be an issue, with different SIDs from the different users) Should I go with FAT32? Should I try out the new exFAT? Also, I curently have two of my 3 drives as "dynamic disks" and 1 spaned volume created on them. (i did this from XP) Win7 can see them/it fine. Is this an ok thing to do?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204  | Next Page >