Search Results

Search found 3461 results on 139 pages for 'drives'.

Page 2/139 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Ubuntu installer does not show drives

  - by Tanweer Rashid

  I am trying to install Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on my Inspiron laptio, but the installer does not show any drives. My system has a 1TB SATA drive and a 32GB SSD. As far as I can figure, the boot files are kept on the SSD for fast startup (for Windows). During Win7 installation, I had to manually load drivers for RAID controller to see all available drives. Running fdisk -l from the live CD shows the following: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders, total 1953525168 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: 0x234b4782 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 63 80324 40131 de Dell Utility /dev/sda2 * 81920 41627647 20772864 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 41627648 357019647 157696000 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda4 357019648 1953517567 798248960 f W95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sda5 672415744 1312966655 320275456 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda6 1312968704 1953517567 320274432 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT Disk /dev/sdb: 32.0 GB, 32017047552 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3892 cylinders, total 62533296 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: 0x234b474b Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 2048 16775167 8386560 84 OS/2 hidden C: drive ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ In the Ubuntu installer, I can only choose /dev/sdb for "Device for boot loader installation", and sdb doesn't show any drives. I cannot select /dev/sda. Any ideas anyone? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Does Hard Drive Orientation Affect Its Lifespan?

  - by Jason Fitzpatrick

  Many cases allow you to mount drives in vertical or horizontal configurations and external drives can be easily repositioned. Does the orientation of the hard drive affect the performance and longevity of the drive? Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-drive grouping of Q&A web sites. 6 Ways Windows 8 Is More Secure Than Windows 7 HTG Explains: Why It’s Good That Your Computer’s RAM Is Full 10 Awesome Improvements For Desktop Users in Windows 8

  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

• Adding more drives to a drive array

  - by Mystere Man

  I have a friend who has two servers, a Dell 1800 and an HP 350 ML G5, both have SAS drive arrays. The Dell is a 3.5" and the HP is a 2.5". They currently only have 3 drives in each array. We want to add additional drives, but they do not appear to have caddies, just "fake" covers. I haven't been able to take a good look at them, so I'm not sure what I need to do here. Are the "sockets" just there, and I can buy additional caddies and just stick them in? Or do I have to buy some kind of caddy adapter? Also, i'm thinking of just going 2.5" in the new server, so is there a 2.5" adapter caddy that will fit in the 3.5" chassis for the Dell, so I can use 2.5" drives in the 3.5" chassis? Can I buy 6GB/s drives and add them to the 3GB/s controller? The reason is that we're going to replace both computers in a year or so, and we want to bring the drives with. So rather than buy 3GB/s drives, we just want to buy 6GB/s drives so they can be used in the new server.

  Read the article

• Matched or unmatched drives for RAID arrays?

  - by Will

  Looking around there is conflciting information on this, with some strongly suggesting one or the other. From my understanding the issue with matched drives is that the wear on both drives is more or less the same, so the potential for the second drive failing with or very soon after the first is pretty high. People also claim matched drives give substianatally higher performance however assuming the unmatched drives are more or less the same (eg 2, 1 TB STATA II 7200rpm drives with 32MB cache), would the minor differences between say a Seagate and a Western Digital one (say one has a 128MB/s read rate, and the other a 150MB/s read rate, as well as I guess various other minor differences) actually cause any notable performance loss, ie potentialy worse than two matched 128MB/s drives, or does RAID not really care and give you essentially an optimal solution (eg upto 278MB/s total read speed for RAID 0 and 1) and similar for other RAID with more "unmatched" drives (5 and 1+0 come to mind as possibilities)? Also I couldnt find much info on how this is different on different RAID setups, eg RAID 0 or RAID 1, software or hardware RAID, etc. I'm assuming such things have an effect, and thats it's not all the same for RAID in general?

  Read the article

• Matched or unmatched drives for RAID arrays?

  - by Will

  Looking around there is conflciting information on this, with some strongly suggesting one or the other. From my understanding the issue with matched drives is that the wear on both drives is more or less the same, so the potential for the second drive failing with or very soon after the first is pretty high. People also claim matched drives give substianatally higher performance however assuming the unmatched drives are more or less the same (eg 2, 1 TB STATA II 7200rpm drives with 32MB cache), would the minor differences between say a Seagate and a Western Digital one (say one has a 128MB/s read rate, and the other a 150MB/s read rate, as well as I guess various other minor differences) actually cause any notable performance loss, ie potentialy worse than two matched 128MB/s drives, or does RAID not really care and give you essentially an optimal solution (eg upto 278MB/s total read speed for RAID 0 and 1) and similar for other RAID with more "unmatched" drives (5 and 1+0 come to mind as possibilities)? Also I couldnt find much info on how this is different on different RAID setups, eg RAID 0 or RAID 1, software or hardware RAID, etc. I'm assuming such things have an effect, and thats it's not all the same for RAID in general?

  Read the article

• Mount drives at `/drivename` from nautilus

  - by Anwar Shah

  I want to mount my other drives (mostly ntfs and fat) on /drivename by clicking on the drive icon in the nautilus side pane, where "drivename" refers to the label of the drive. By default nautilus (actually the udisks program) mounts drives in /media/ folder with drive name. How can I achieve this?. Note: Please do not suggest doing this by editing /etc/fstab file. I want this feature in nautilus and after clicking the drive should also be seen in the side pane. (should not be hidden). Edit: Seems to be some have misunderstood this. I don't want to mount in / but as /Main, where "Main" is the label of my ntfs partition. To make it clear, suppose I have two partitions named as "Work" and "Main". I want them to mount at /Work and /Main respectively, when clicked on their icon in nautilus

  Read the article

• Solid State Drives Find Way to Enterprise Apps

  SSDs can improve database and file system performance, but various issues msut be addressed to make the most of the pricey drives.

  Read the article

• Windows XP with Ubuntu 14.04 on 2 separate hard drives

  - by maplenet2

  I am new to Ubuntu. I have Windows XP Professional 32-bit on one 300GB IDE hard drive and Ubuntu 14.04 running on another 61GB IDE hard drive, and I cannot get my Windows XP to boot with Grub! When I select Windows XP from the boot menu, Grub just restarts my computer. The computer I have with those two hard drives is a Dell Optiplex GX240, so the hardware is old, and its BIOS won't let me change the boot priority on the two IDE hard drives. What can I do now? Is there a step I missed when installing Ubuntu? Can I edit Grub to boot Windows XP without messing with the BIOS? Do I have to downgrade to an older release of Ubuntu to make it work? I am willing to reinstall Ubuntu, if that's what it takes.

  Read the article

• How to remove all LVs VGs and Partitions On All Drives Before Installing 12.04

  - by Mark

  I have 2 hard drives that had been used for Ubuntu Server 11.10. Now I would like to start from scratch with 12.04 but I'm having some trouble with the existing logical volumes and volume groups. Erasing data during install looks like it's going to take days. Is there a quick and simple way to wipe out all volumes/groups/partitions so I can start with 2 empty drives? When I set this up on 11.04 it took me a while to learn how to do it and I've since forgotten most of what I learned. For what it's worth, I'm only using this box to try and learn about Linux. Thanks in advance, Mark

  Read the article

• Unable to Install GRUB in /dev/sda on raid drives

  - by Henry

  I'm trying to install 12.04LTS on a server but keep running into the unable to install grub error like so "Unable to Install GRUB in /dev/sda". The drives are in raid1 and I'm using fakeraid on a supermicro motherboard, which according to the manual is fully supported. I've tried installing both from USB and CD-R but still no luck. I'm not dual booting with any other OS, just using 2x320gb drives and have been choosing to install using the entire disk. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong or can do to fix this? Thanks

  Read the article

• How To Use USB Drives With the Nexus 7 and Other Android Devices

  - by Chris Hoffman

  The Nexus 7 may not have a lot of storage space – especially the original 8 GB model – but you can connect a USB drive to it if you want to watch videos or access other files. Unfortunately, Android doesn’t automatically mount USB drives by default. You’ll need to root your device to enable support for USB drives. Why Does 64-Bit Windows Need a Separate “Program Files (x86)” Folder? Why Your Android Phone Isn’t Getting Operating System Updates and What You Can Do About It How To Delete, Move, or Rename Locked Files in Windows

  Read the article

• Windows Azure X-Drives: Configure and Mounting at Startup of Web Role Lifecycle

  An approach for configuring and mounting Windows Azure X-Drives at Startup of Web Role Lifecycle through callbacks RoleEntryPoint.OnStart() and Global.Application_Start().

  Read the article

• How to: Use FileSystemWatcher to listen to local drives

  In this article we will see how to listen to your files system and report of any changes happening to your local drives.

  Read the article

• Can't open any of my drives/devices(not USB drive)

  - by Anontu

  I can't open any of my computer drives (:c/,:d/.....) Every time i tried to open the drives, the following notice appeared: (i'm new in Ask Ubuntu,so,i can't upload the snapshot,i need 10 reputations to do that) **Unable to access "__ Volume"** error mounting/dev/sda7at/media/MyPC/__Volume:Command-Line 'mount-t "ntfs"-o "uhelper=udisk2,nodev,nosuid,uid=1000,gid=1000,dmask=0077,fmask=0177""/ dev/sda7""/media/MyPC/__Volume"' exited with non-zero exit status 14:The disk contains an unclean file system (0,0).| Metadata Kept in Windows cache,refused to mount. Failed to mount '/dev/sda7':Operation not permitted The NTFS partition is in an unsafe state.Please,resume and shutdown Windows fully(no hibernation or fast restarting),or mount the volume read-only with the 'ro' mount option. I have Windows side by side Ubuntu 13.04 in my computer and i have done (like-Shutting down Windows properly...) things as these in the notice. But it's not working.

  Read the article

• HP DL 380G7 Raid swap drives

  - by dean

  disks 0 and 1 are raid redundant (OS) and the remaining 6 drives are in raid 5 I believe. i would like to pull out disks 0 and 1 and install new drives to build a new OS. I need to be able to reinsert the old drives and reboot back to the original OS. (swap) I had a serious problem in the past attempting this. does the raid require (look for) the drives based on a serial number or something? just dont want to lose data. thanks

  Read the article

• Optimal disk partitions for database setup (15 Drives)

  - by Jason

  We are setting up a new database system and have 15 drives to play with (+2 on-board for the OS). With a total of 15 drives would it be better to setup all 14 as one RAID-10 block (+1 hot spare) OR split into two RAID-10 sets one for Data (8 disks) and one for logs/backups (6 disks). My question boils down to the following: is there a specific point where having more drives in a RAID-10 setup will out preform having the drives broken into smaller RAID-10 sets.

  Read the article

• downsides to running RAID on unmatched drives?

  - by NoCarrier

  I've got some generic RAID controller built into my motherboard and I want to build either a RAID 5 or RAID 0+1 array. What are the disadvantages of running unmatched drives? Like 4 different brand 7200rpm 500gb drives? This would determine whether I look around for whatever used drives I could get my hands on vs. paying extra for a set of matched identical drives.

  Read the article

• ubuntu automount: only mounting drives as root?

  - by glisignoli

  I'm sharing the /mount dir with smb so users on my network can access use drives added to my linux box. Users are able to read files but not write, modify or delete files or directories. I'm using ubuntu 10.04 server edition with halevt installed for usb auto mounting. Afaik halevt is automounting the drives to /media/ but the drives are showing up as: drwxrwxr-x 1 root root 20480 2010-12-29 20:40 disk drwxrwxr-x 1 root root 24576 2010-12-21 17:20 Sparta mount gives me: /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw) /dev/sdb1 on /media/disk type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,sync,allow_other,blksize=4096,default_permissions) /dev/sdc1 on /media/Sparta type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,sync,allow_other,blksize=4096,default_permissions) When I umount the drives, the folders /media/disk and /media/Sparta are both removed. I tried changing the permissions with chown to nobody:nogroup but it doesn't work (which I assume is because they are ntfs drives).

  Read the article

• SQL Server: One 12-drive RAID-10 array or 2 arrays of 8-drives and 4-drives

  - by ben

  Setting up a box for SQL Server 2008, which would give the best performance (heavy OLTP)? The more drives in a RAID-10 array the better performance, but will losing 4 drives to dedicate them to the transaction logs give us more performance. 12-drives in RAID-10 plus one hot spare. OR 8-drives in RAID-10 for database and 4-drives RAID-10 for transaction logs plus 2 hot spares (one for each array). We have 14-drive slots to work with and it's an older PowerVault that doesn't support global hot spares.

  Read the article

• How to show disconnect network drives

  - by Jake

  Windows 7 and Vista laptops in my company domain has network drives set up by Win2k8 Server GPO. Normally, when the laptops has ethernet cable plugged in before boot, the network drives connect and appear as expected at the end of startup sequence. However, when the laptop has ethernet cable unplugged, the network drives are not connected, which is fine, but the disconnected icons disappear as well. i.e. the drives are not set up. At the end of the startup sequence, upon reaching desktop, the wireless adapters will connect to the network and the laptop will be able to find the network drive. Hence I want the drives to be setup nonetheless, so that the next attempt to connect, say, via a desktop shortcut, will reestablish the network drive connection. How can this be done?

  Read the article

• How to set default permissions for automounted FAT drives in Ubuntu

  - by piman

  I've got many FAT32 drives that I'd like to mount in Ubuntu such that they have permission mode 700 for directories and 600 for all other files. By default, they have 755 for all files, which is not particularly useful since almost no non-directories should be executable, and it screws up version control repos hosted on the drives. "Back in the day" I would have had the drives listed in /etc/fstab with the umask/dmask I want and there was no such thing as a default. These days, drives automount under their volume names. Which is great, except now I have no idea how to set the default. I have tried changing the /system/storage/default_options/vfat/mount_options gconf key with no apparently effect. It was 077 initially but the mounted drive reflected a default of 022; changing it and re-inserting the drives resulted in the files still having permission bits of 755.

  Read the article

• Transfer Raid Drives to External Enclosure

  - by dubbeat

  I have 2 raid disks (a grand total of 360GB) in my laptop. I'm fast running out of space and want to install new drives. I've a pretty good idea how to do this. My question is what can I do with the drives that I remove? I've got lots of media files on these drives that I'd like to keep and maybe transfer back onto my laptop once I have the new drives installed. Bearing in mind that I know next to nothing about hardware how do you suggegst I go about reusing the removed drives somehow? Thanks,

  Read the article

• Certain drives in RAID 5 set intermittently are not recognized

  - by hydroparadise

  I have a curious problem in that 1 (sometimes 2) drives do not get recognized in a RAID 5 set. The server is getting rather old at 5 to 6 years, but still seems to function well once the machine sees all drives. So that leaves me with three areas to consider: the motherboard, the SATA RAID card, or the individual hard drives themselves. I am leaning toward the RAID card, but have not had much dealings with RAID cards. What would cause individual drives not to be recognized in the set? If it was the card, I would think that it would be all or nothing. If it were a single drive, is it possible that it would only work sometimes? The only other thing to consider is that that they are different drives (Seagate and Western Digital) but all around 80 GB. SATA RAID controller is 3ware Escalade 8506-4LP Motherboard is a SuperMicro P4SPA+ Am open and available for more details if needed...

  Read the article

• Server drives: 2.5" SCSI less reliable than 3.5" ?

  - by Bill

  Just had an HP 2.5" SAS 10k drive fail on a RAID5 array after about 2.5 years. It made me wonder if this was a fluke or an indication that 2.5" drives are less reliable than 3.5" SAS drives. I've had many 3.5" SAS drives running for many years without any issues (knock on wood). I would think that smaller drives would generate less heat and therefore be more reliable, but couldn't find any evidence of this. I realize all drives will eventually fail and that it's a crap shoot with any particular model, but was hoping someone could point out some related studies or comment on the SCSI drive sizes they've found to be most reliable in servers. Thanks.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >