Search Results

Search found 9608 results on 385 pages for 'flash drives'.

Page 215/385 | < Previous Page | 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222  | Next Page >

• RAID Volume is no longer showing in Raid Controller BIOS and in Windows

  - by Gordon

  Hi all, I have installed some critical Windows Updates yesterday and now my external RAID Volume no longer shows in Windows Vista x64. All updates went through successfully. For their description, I cannot see how they should relate to the issue, but this is the only change that happened, so who knows. Anyway, here is the details: I have an external eSata enclosure that is running on a SiI4726 controller. I can connect to the controller with it's management utility from the computer the enclosure is connected to. The three drives in the enclosure show up as JBODs. I had those drives configured to be one logical RAID5 drive. RAID management is done through a SiI3132 SoftRaid controller. The Raid Management Utility just shows empty channels where it usually shows the Raid Group. In the Windows Disk Manager, I can see an unknown unitialized device. This is fine according to the setup manual. What it doesn't show is my Raid drive. It's gone. Also, when booting Windows, the BIOS of the controller used to show the RAID volume before booting the OS. This is not happening anymore. Updating drivers and firmware did not help. I have made sure the drivers and firmware are compatible to each others. And like I said, it used to work before. Any clues?

  Read the article

• Physical-to-virtual for personal use

  - by Journeyman Geek

  One of my current projects involves reducing the number of old computers lying around. So far, the office systems have been downsized from 5 to 2. One system which had no data on it was dumped entirely, while three other identical boxes were consolidated into to one (I swap hard drives as needed and they just work(tm)). I want to make further cuts. The physical systems in question all run windows xp sp3, and were old Pentium 4s with 256 MB of RAM. Currently, I have got a VirtualBox running on another system. My intention is to migrate all services to that. We can assume that disk space and RAM on the host is not an issue. I'd rather not go with a client-server physical-to-virtual (P2V) method like what VirtualBox uses now. I have a few specific concerns as well - specifically whether I'd need to reactivate or sysprep for dissimilar hardware first. An offline tool for imaging (Windows or Linux) would not be an issue since the drives could be mounted onto another system I have anyway or I could use a LiveCD. What would be my options for P2V conversion, and what would I need to keep in mind when doing this?

  Read the article

• How to configure VirtualBox server for performance at home

  - by BluJai

  I currently have two physical Ubuntu Server 10.10 servers at home: one serves as our firewall/router/DHCP/VPN server and the other performs double-duty as a file server and a VirtualBox host for an Ubuntu Desktop 10.10 machine which I use from remote connections (via NoMachine) for many thin-client purposes which are irrelevant to my question. What I'd like to accomplish is to consolidate the two physical machines into one which is a dedicated VirtualBox host (most likely running Ubuntu Server 10.10). Note that I'd like to stick with VirtualBox (if possible) because I'm most comfortable with it and use it on a daily basis at both home and work. Specifically, I plan to have one VM set up as file server, another as the firewall/router/DHCP/VPN (or possibly split those a bit) and a third, which is the only current VM (already VirtualBox), which is the thin-client host. My question comes down to performance and/or recommendations about the file server VM. The file server hosts about 6 terabytes of data across 4 drives. What I'd like to do is use raw disk access from the VM directly to the existing disks. However, I'm curious what performance advantage/disadvantage that would have as compared to using shared folders from the VM host and basically just have the whole drive served as a shared folder to the VM which would then serve it to the other machines on the network. I don't know if virtual disks would even work in this scenario and I certainly wouldn't want a drive to be filled with just a single file which is 1.5 TB (disk image). To add understanding of context, but not to get additional advice, I want to virtualize these machines because I intend to regularly use the snapshot capabilities of VirtualBox for the system disks (which will be virtual drives) of the VMs and I have some physical space/power needs to address (as I mentioned, this is at home).

  Read the article

• CMS/Wiki to use for a HTML5 video site

  - by Clinton Blackmore

  Greetings. I want to put up a website with instructive screencasts, and allow for people to add comments to them. I would like use the Video for Everybody technique, partly because I dislike Flash and because it helps in a small way to move the web forward [while being backwards compatable]. I recognize that HTML5 is still in draft, and that support for it varies. I do have some hosting space, and can run Perl, PHP, and Ruby on Rails applications, with a MySQL backend. I should mention that part of my working job involves running some web servers, and that I am a programmer by training (with only a limited familiarity with Perl and PHP, and none with Ruby). I should mention why I don't particularly want to go with a video hosting site (like YouTube or Vimeo): Flash Video Resolution and Quality [I'd like to put up 800x600 videos] Videos promote a club that is not stricly non-profit [ie. may fall afoul of Terms of Service] I'm already paying for web hosting, and free video hosting comes with time and bandwidth limits I don't want there to be two locations where you can comment on the video Now, having said all that, I'd be quite comfortable putting up my own HTML pages, except: that's so web 1.0! :) [ie. it does not allow for comments] I also want to do some blogging and possibly put up a wiki; the site will not be entirely screencasts So, can anyone recommend a CMS (or Wiki, or similar application) that I can customise for this purpose?

  Read the article

• Bad sectors, S.M.A.R.T., SpinRite, firmware on platter and drive id questions.

  - by Christopher Galpin

  Is it possible for S.M.A.R.T. to give false readings (say I was fiddling with lots of recovery programs, transfers, so on and so forth) or is it absolutely a read-only direct correlation to the physical status of a drive? Does SpinRite level 5 "recover bad sectors" operate on those marked at the factory? Are they on the same level as your generic bad sector, with SpinRite thus having full access? (Also I'm curious if SMART's bad sector count is zero'd afterward or if it includes factory marked sectors.) The main firmware of some drives, like a WD Passport is stored on the platter. How is it protected? Is it through marking them as bad sectors? If so, I'm wondering if SpinRite's sector recovery could bring about firmware corruption on these drives. Is the failure of a drive to report valid identity information (hdparm -I /dev/xx) consistent with corrupted firmware, or just general disk failure? I may be misunderstanding the role of firmware here. I feel I've read a drive's identity information is on the platter, just like the partition tables and so on. Is this true? (Apologizes if this is more appropriate for SuperUser.)

  Read the article

• How harmful is a hard disk spin cycle?

  - by Gilles

  It is conventional wisdom¹ that each time you spin a hard disk down and back up, you shave some time off its life expectancy. The topic has been discussed before: Is turning off hard disks harmful? What's the effect of standby (spindown) mode on modern hard drives? Common explanations for why spindowns and spinups are harmful are that they induce more stress on the mechanical parts than ordinary running, and that they cause heat variations that are harmful to the device mechanics. Is there any data showing quantitatively how bad a spin cycle is? That is, how much life expectancy does a spin cycle cost? Or, more practically, if I know that I'm not going to need a disk for X seconds, how large should X be to warrant spinning down? ¹ But conventional wisdom has been wrong before; for example, it is commonly held that hard disks should be kept as cool as possible, but the one published study on the topic shows that cooler drives actually fail more. This study is no help here since all the disks surveyed were powered on 24/7.

  Read the article

• Drobo FS vs Lime Technology unRAID vs FreeNAS

  - by elluca

  I already decided to by a drobo fs until I just found these two tests: http://www.digitalversus.com/data-robotics-drobo-fs-p889_9543_487.html http://www.digitalversus.com/lime-technology-unraid-p889_8992_473.html The two cons agains drobo for me: loudness price What disadvantages has the unraid stuff against the drobo fs? Has it also got that ease of use like swapping drives on the go, simply extend capacity by plugging in new drives, notify me of drive errors, disk failure protection, dynamic space of "partitions", better/worse effective capacity, etc. Which is more secure? Am I able to simply replace a bad drive with a new one on unraid? What happens if my pc fails? Lets say the cpu overheats. Since I have a complete pc which is going to be replaced, I only have to pay the software to use unraid. I am going to use my nas for: music library (how well does it integrate with iTunes? ) picture library movie library development (i need to be able to be to use time machine) I am going to use this nas with a MacBook pro. My current disks: 2x 500Gb 1x 1.5Tb 1x 2Tb On a drobo fs I would have 2.26 Tb of space. What would it be on unraid? Is FreeNAS also an alternative?

  Read the article

• Software mirroring (RAID1) versus "Fake Raid" for new Windows 7 install

  - by kquinn

  I've just ordered two new hard drives for my main desktop and a copy of Windows 7 Professional 64-bit. I'd like to do a clean install of Win7 onto the new drives (leaving my old XP Pro boot partition around for a while in case something goes disastrously wrong, etc.). I want to have them set up in mirrored (RAID-1) mode. My understanding is that Win7 Pro can do software mirroring, but can I set this up directly at install time? If so, how? Note that I'd like the disk to be split into three partitions (OS/Apps&Data/Bulk data), all of which should be mirrored. Would it be better (more reliable or faster) to use my motherboard's hardware RAID support? My motherboard is an older nVidia nForce 680i SLI, which is not the most stable of motherboards, and I'm not sure how trustworthy its RAID1 configuration might be (or if Win7 could even detect and install onto a hardware-mirrored volume). Also, the performance characteristics of RAID1 are rather different than RAID0 or RAID5, and I'm wondering if Win7's software mirroring might actually be faster than hardware RAID1 (for example, I'm more of a Unix admin when I have to wear the sysadmin hat, and I've had great success deploying ZFS; most hardware RAID1 implementations have to read both disks and compare results to look for data errors, but ZFS can read from only one disk in the mirror and just use the built-in checksum, meaning it can have up to 2x the number of reads in-flight, as long as there's no data corruption). Edit: Okay, my question about whether Windows 7 can do software mirroring has been answered, and it can. I'm still unsure whether Windows software RAID or my motherboard's hardware "fake RAID" function is a better choice, though. Remember, I'm only interested in mirroring -- not the more complicated striping or parity operations that generally show the poor performance of crappy motherboard RAID solutions.

  Read the article

• Dual boot windows 8 pro and windows 7 on XPS 8500 Special Edition

  - by Jesse

  I am trying to install a dual boot with windows 7 premium and windows 8 Pro on an XPS 8500 special edition. I created a new primary partition on my C: drive, inserted the windows 8 install disk, and rebooted my computer from DVD. I select custom install and the dialog box saying "Where do you want to install windows at?" pops up but none of my drives are listed. Please help me determine what is going on. I don't understand why none of my drives are showing up on this menu. Not even the original drive. When I go to load driver and click on the partition I created it tells me "No signed device drivers were found. Make sure the installation media contains the correct drivers, and then click OK." resolved above issue by running setup from the source folder on the install disk instead of booting from DVD. Was able to locate my new partition and start install. It completes the first step of "Copying windows files" just fine but then on the next step "Getting files ready for installation" my computer restarts and attempts to load windows 8 but keeps telling me my pc needs to restart. This keeps going on in an infinite boot loop. Please help, this has been a nightmare!

  Read the article

• CentOS - mdadm raid1 drive won't mount to default location

  - by danny

  I'm running CentOS 5.5, the system, boot, swap, etc. is all on /dev/sda and I have two identical single-partition drives /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 that are configured in RAID1 (using mdadm). It was working fine (configured to mount to /mnt/data in the fstab file) and I recently let yum install a couple of automatic updates without paying attention to what they were, and now it doesn't work. Raid is working fine (dmesg shows it gets loaded correctly). mdstat shows: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sdc1[1] sdb1[0] XXXX blocks [2/2] [UU] unused devices: <none> Additionally, I can mount it anywhere other than its default directory (i.e. the following works, and I can read data off the drives). # mount /dev/md0 /mnt/data2 EXT3-fs warning: mounting fs with errors, running e2fsck is recommended But when I run the following I get: # mount -a mount: /dev/sdb1 already mounted or /mnt/data busy It says nothing is mounted when I try to umount /dev/sdb1 or umount /mnt/data, so I assume it's the second of those errors. However, lsof | grep mnt shows nothing. The weird thing is that I can save files in /mnt/data. So something is obviously mounted there, but when I try to umount it I get the error that nothing is mounted. /etc/mtab doesn't mention any of the partitions or files I am trying to work with, and fstab just has that one line I mentioned above that is supposed to mount my raid partition. Again, it was all working fine until I On Google I've found a few things about dmraid interfering with mdadm after an update, but I yum remove'd dmraid and rebooted and it didn't help. I'm really confused and need to get this working to get on with my work!

  Read the article

• Home media storage solution

  - by Dan

  I record lots of personal HD film footage and am looking for a cheap way to store all of this. I take ~120 GB of footage each month, so something expandable would be nice... something that might be able to hold 6+ SATA drives. There is a low load requirement, as there is never more than a user or two... but it should be able to keep up with streaming 2 simultanious HD videos. I don't really want to spend more than $200-$300 on top of the $900 I am thinking of spending for 6X2GB SATA drives@ $150 apiece, but I am willing to pay extra for a quality solution. Should I get a cheap NAS server? a cheap multi-drive external enclosure? should I just get some used systems off craigslist? If it is an independent system I'll probably just throw ubuntu on it since I can maintain that well. Its easy to do a software raid from ubuntu too, if I choose to go that way. Thanks

  Read the article

• Transferring 'Live' Documents to Another Computer

  - by waiwai933

  I was wondering if there was any OS/Application that has some support for transferring a document to another computer without having to save, transfer and then reopen. Basically, is there a way so that if I'm working on my desktop, I can click a button (or something similar) and then have the exact state of that computer/application transferred to another? For example, if I'm writing a document, is there a way to get it to computer B without saving it, putting the file on my flash drive, and having to reopen it? Edit: I just realized that this is possible through the wonderful phenomena known as cloud computing, but this is not the type of solution I'm looking for. Edit 2: I wanted to clarify: By 'save', I meant that I didn't want to have to save it to a special location, be that a (flash) drive or uploading to the web. Saving to the local hard drive is fine (and probably necessary, since technologies such as Bluetooth require the file to be saved somewhere). This is a bit inspired by a scene in Avatar, so I highly doubt that this actually exists... but if it does, I don't want to miss out.

  Read the article

• Abysmal transfer speeds on gigabit network

  - by Vegard Larsen

  I am having trouble getting my Gigabit network to work properly between my desktop computer and my Windows Home Server. When copying files to my server (connected through my switch), I am seeing file transfer speeds of below 10MB/s, sometimes even below 1MB/s. The machine configurations are: Desktop Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 2x WD Green 1TB drives in striped RAID 4GB RAM AB9 QuadGT motherboard Realtek RTL8810SC network adapter Windows Home Server AMD Athlon 64 X2 4GB RAM 6x WD Green 1,5TB drives in storage pool Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H motherboard Realtek 8111C network adapter Switch dLink Green DGS-1008D 8-port Both machines report being connected at 1Gbps. The switch lights up with green lights for those two ports, indicating 1Gbps. When connecting the machines through the switch, I am seeing insanely low speeds from WHS to the desktop measured with iperf: 10Kbits/sec (WHS is running iperf -c, desktop is iperf -s). Using iperf the other way (WHS is iperf -s, desktop iperf -c) speeds are also bad (~20Mbits/sec). Connecting the machines directly with a patch cable, I see much higher speeds when connecting from desktop to WHS (~300 Mbits/sec), but still around 10Kbits/sec when connecting from WHS to the desktop. File transfer speeds are also much quicker (both directions). Log from desktop for iperf connection from WHS (through switch): C:\temp>iperf -s ------------------------------------------------------------ Server listening on TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [248] local 192.168.1.32 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.20 port 3227 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [248] 0.0-18.5 sec 24.0 KBytes 10.6 Kbits/sec Log from desktop for iperf connection to WHS (through switch): C:\temp>iperf -c 192.168.1.20 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.1.20, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [148] local 192.168.1.32 port 57012 connected with 192.168.1.20 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [148] 0.0-10.3 sec 28.5 MBytes 23.3 Mbits/sec What is going on here? Unfortunately I don't have any other gigabit-capable devices to try with.

  Read the article

• Changes to grub in ubuntu 10

  - by jdege

  I've been running CentOS 5 for some years. I've decided to upgrade to Ubuntu, and with 10.04 just out, this seemed like a good time. I'm a tad paranoid, so I started off with a new set of drives - one to install on, one to backup to, and one as a spare. I removed my existing CentOS 5 drives, and did an install, and had no problems. I installed the server version, and used the default full-disk LVM installation. Next, I copies my backup scripts over, edited them to work with the new configuration, and did a test backup. That worked fine, as well. Then comes the real test, could I do an install of the backup onto the spare drive? (I won't put anything of importance on a system that doesn't have a reliable backup, and if I've never done a restore, it's not reliable.) I booted from a System Rescue CD (ver 1.5.3), with the spare drive as /dev/sda, and the backup drive as /dev/sdb. I had no trouble in partitioning, configuring LVM, formatting, making swap, or restoring the file systems. But when I got to restoring grub to the MBR, I ran into problems. My restore instructions from CentOS 5 said run grub, then enter two commands: root (hd0,0) setup (hd0) The first command exits with an error: "Checking if /boot/grub/stage1 exists ... no" I did some googling around, and found that the Grub2 included in recent Ubuntus is very different than the Grub 0.97 included in CentOS 5. One site suggested I use: grub-install --root-dir=/mnt/restore /dev/sda That appeared to work, but when I booted from the drive, I ended up at a grub prompt. Any ideas as to what I need to do? It seems like a simple problem, but my attempts at searching out answers on the web are being swamped by references to the old version of Grub. Help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Windows XP error message: "Windows cannot find 'explorer.exe'"

  - by Meysam

  In Windows XP I can open "My Computer" and see all the hard drives. I can also see the explorer.exe process running among other processes in Task Manager. But after opening "My Computer", when I double click on one of the drives to open it, I get the following error message: Windows cannot find 'explorer.exe'. Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again. To search for a file, click the start button, and then click search. Although I could detect and remove several suspicious files using Malwarebytes & Microsoft Security Essentials, the problem still remains. The interesting point is that if I right click on one folder and select Open or Explore from the menu bar, I can open the folder! but if I double click on the folder, it does not open and I get the above error message. How can I fix this problem? Any advice would be appreciated! Update: I formatted the C: drive (NTFS), a deep format, and installed a fresh Windows XP on it. I am not getting this error when I double click on C drive icon anymore. But the same error appears when I double click on other drive names. Maybe I should format them too!

  Read the article

• BTrFS crashhhh?

  - by bumbling fool

  I create a new BTrFS raid10 file system using two 250GB drives and the second partition on a third 80GB drive. I create a subvol and snapshot. I mount the snapshot and start copying 8GB of data to it. It gets to around 1GB and the Desktop disappears and what looks like a non interactive terminal comes up with dump/crash information. I don't have a camera handy or I'd take a picture and post it. It basically looks like stack trace info. CTRL-ALT F7 will eventually bring back the Desktop though but the entire BTrFS portion of the OS is hung and non responsive until I reboot. I've reformated and reproduced this problem 3 times now and I'm about to give up :( I realize it is possible this problem is not entirely BTrFS' fault because I'm on natty which is still alpha. More granular details in case I'm an idiot: 1) Create FS: sudo mkfs.btrfs -m raid10 -d raid10 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc 2) Initial temporary mount: mkdir /btrfs && sudo mount -t btrfs /dev/sda2 /btrfs 3) Create subvol btrfs s c /btrfs/vm 4) Create initial snapshot: (optional) btrfs s sn /btrfs/cantremember.snap.something 5)unmount /btrfs and mount /btrfs/vm sudo mount -t btrfs -o subvol=vm /dev/sda2 /btrfs/vm 6) Copy data to subvolume. 7) Balance data across drives: (optional) btrfs f bal <path> (never get to this step 7...) Am I doing something wrong?

  Read the article

• hard drive recognized by bios but not by windows

  - by tehgeekmeister

  I'm adding a new hard drive (A seagate ST31000340NS; I had links in here but I don't have enough reputation to post them. Interestingly, the bios recognizes it as a ST31000340AS, but it was bought as the other number...) to a friend's hp pavilion d4650e (mobo specs; google the model if you want the rest of the info, can't do more than one link.). Have had a hell of a time with it. Finally figured out that the hard drive needed a jumper set to limit the speed to 1.5gbps so the mobo would recognize it, and the bios DOES recognize it now. But not windows (using windows 7), using add new hardware or diskmgmt.msc. According to my friend, who was at the computer when it first booted after adding the jumper, a new hardware found dealio popped up saying something about raid, but I can't provide more info then that since I didn't see it. Ubuntu livecd recognized the drive before we changed the jumper. Haven't checked since then. XP didn't recognize it, that's the OS we started with. Upgraded to 7 hoping it might fix the problem. The only other info I can think of that might be immediately relevant is that the drive is plugged into the fifth sata channel, and the first channel is empty. Is this a problem? I assume not, because the two other drives (in a raid 0) and the cd and dvd drives are also on channels past the first one, and are recognized. Ask questions and I'll update with info!

  Read the article

• How can I control disk numbering (enumeration) in Windows 7 Disk Management?

  - by tim11g

  A desktop system had two drives (Assigned C and D, which were enumerated in Disk Management as Disk 0 and Disk 1). A new SSD was added as the boot drive, after copying the C drive to the SSD. The SSD was connected to SATA 0 (master) port on the motherboard. The previous C Drive was moved to SATA 2 and is reformatted as a non-booting NTFS partition. The D drive remained on SATA 1. The system boots and everything seems fine. I was able to manually adjust the Drive Letters. However, the list in Disk Management is re-ordered. Disk 0 is the the previous Disk 2 (D Drive) on SATA 1, Disk 1 is the new Boot Drive (now C) on SATA 0, and Disk 2 is the former C Drive (now assigned E) on SATA 2. Does the Disk 0, 1, 2, designation mean anything? I would prefer to have them display in Disk Management as Drives C, D, and E from top to bottom. Is the Disk enumeration based on the SATA port or something else? (If it was based on SATA Port, they should be ordered C, D, E. Is there any way to re-order the Disk number assignments? What actually does determine the Disk number enumeration?

  Read the article

• How to move my data from my old MacBook Pro to my new one?

  - by Tim Büthe

  I just purchased a new MacBook Pro and already got an 2008 model. I wonder how I move all my data over to the new one. My first idea was, to use my Time Machine backup and restore from it, which seems to be a good idea and should work just fine regarding to this link: http://blog.duncandavidson.com/2008/01/restoring-from-time-machine.html. But, since my current MacBook got older Software on it, like iLife '08 instead of iLife '09 I would have to upgrade this afterwards. Is this correct, or does Time Machine does some magic to exclude well known software? And is it possible to reinstall or upgrade iLife with the included installation DVDs? My second idea is, to just swap the hard drives instead of using the Time machine backup. If it is not too complicated to remove the hdd, this should be the fastest way. This also has the benefit, that the 2008er MacBook then contains a brand new installation and I don't have to remove all my stuff or reinstall Mac OS before I give it away. My question on that second idea would be: does snow leopard handle this stuff correctly? I reboot with the new hardware and all just works fine? So in a nutshell: What would you do: restore from backup or swap drives? And what about the new software?

  Read the article

• ffmpeg: converting an avi to a reduced, shareable flv/mp4...

  - by meder

  I recently followed a guide and recompiled my ffmpeg so x264 is enabled. I used some generic settings to convert my 700 MB avi file to a mp4 file, the result was a 407MB mp4 file. The original avi file's settings: Codec: DX50 Resolution: 704x304 Frame rate: 23.976023 Stream 1 Codec: mpga Type: Audio Channels: 2 Sample rate: 48000 Hz Bitrate 179 kb/s Command I used: ffmpeg -i input.avi -acodec libfaac -ab 128k -ac 2 -vcodec libx264 -vpre hq -crf 22 -threads 0 output.mp4 The settings of the output file (output.mp4): Codec: avc1 Resolution: 704x304 Display resolution: 704x304 Frame rate: 11.988011 Stream 1 Codec: mp4a Type: Audio Channels: 2 Sample Rate: 48000 Hz Bits per sample: 16 Bitrate: 1536 kb/s The quality of the output mp4 is pretty nice, it seems as if it's pretty much the same as the original source. However, I'm trying to reduce the filesize and I'm not really sure whether I should go with an flv format or keep it mp4. The advantage the flv would have obviously is that it would be playable with a flash player ( I have come across some swf players which take a flash parameter to play an flv file ).. but maybe I could use the video element, as I'm only going to be displaying this video privately so I don't have to worry about supporting legacy browsers such as IE. Can someone recommend some settings to specify in order for the filesize to be around ~100-150MB or so? I don't mind a reduction in quality, nor do I mind resizing it - I was going to do it initially but I wasn't sure what the guidelines were ( if any ) for dealing with resolution.. since this video's is 704x304 would it still be ok if I forced it into one that isn't perfectly fit for the aspect ratio? I have no clue about that part. I realize that I could have probably specified 28 instead of 22 for the CRF, I'm not sure if I should do that as opposed to maybe specifying smaller resolution, which might make it smaller as well?

  Read the article

• Windows7 shows a drive as full in summary but files, including backup folder, shown on drive are ver

  - by Rob

  I have a drive partitioned so it is seen by Windows as 2 drives: C:\ and D:\ Windows7 shows D:\ as full up in the graphical summary in 'My Computer' summary of all the drives, e.g. the bar graph indicates full and nearly all of the drive's capacity, 108Gb, is full. So I go into the D:\ drive to look at the files, I see several folders. I select them all and the right click menu Properties to count their size, expecting the value to be about the same as what Windows reports in the summary, i.e. nearly 108Gb. But the properties shows the files are very small, Kbs and Mbs, nowhere near 108Gbs. One of the folders is a backup, but its size is very small. I've checked the folder options to show all system files and hidden files too - and counted these in the properties. Something invisible is holding the space. What is happening here? I'm afraid to delete anything if it removes valuable backups. Have I got huge backups here? Why can't I see them? How do I see them?

  Read the article

• How to choose the most optimal RAID settings on PE2950

  - by javano

  I have some Dell PowerEdge 2950's with 4x 15k, 150GB Cheetah SAS drives in them. They are going to be VM hosts, CentOS running ESXi with Windows Server 2k8 guests. Some guests will be hosting IIS servers, and others MSSQL servers. I am trying to set the RAID virtual disks settings and can't decide which is more optimal given this situation; Read Policy: Out of Read-Ahead, No-Read-Ahead and Adaptive Read-Ahead, the default is Read-Ahead. I will be making large sequential writes initially, writing out blank images for virtual machine hard drives (lets say 30GBs from /dev/zero for example) so Read-Ahead seems good at first. But within the virtual machines reads could be random from anywhere within their file systems as they are IIS and MSSQL servers, so perhaps No-Read-Ahead is a better idea? Now I think Adaptive Read-Ahead would be better then as a compromise but I don't know much about this option, how does it compare in performance to the others? Write Policy: write-back caching, write-through caching, the default is write-back caching. The default of write-back caching is safer than write-through caching but at a performance expense. My thinking here is that in the event of power loss for example, it seems more likely in my head (this is why I need some clarification!) that damage will occur to a guest VM with write-back caching enabled, so I should favour write-through? I have searched around and there is obviously no definitive answer, so I would like to find out what is best for my situation.

  Read the article

• what is the fastest way to copy all data to a new larger hard drive?

  - by SUPER user

  I was certain this would have been covered before, but I cannot find an answer amongst all the almost-duplicates that come up; sorry if I've missed something obvious. I have a full 320gb disk inside my machine, a new 1tb disk to replace it, and a USB 2.0 chassis. It is only data on a single partition, no OS/apps involved, and the old drive will be kept somewhere as backup (no secure wiping etc). The simple option would be to put new disk in USB chassis, copy files, then swap them over. But for USB pen drives, reading is around 4x faster than writing. If the same is true for a USB SATA chassis (is it?) then it would be significantly faster to swap the drives first and read from the old drive over USB, right? Then the other consideration is that copying lots of files is usually slower than a single file of equivalent size. Is Windows 7 smart enough to do everything in a single lump like that, or is there specialised software that should be used instead? (Even if SATA-SATA copying is faster than involving USB, knowing what to do when it isn't an option is useful information.) Summary: Does a USB SATA chassis suffer from a read/write inequality? (like a USB pen drive does, but unlike a direct SATA connection) Can Windows 7 do sequential access? (I can't find confirmation if Robocopy does this.) Or is it necessary to use a bootable CD/USB with something like Clonezilla to achieve sequential copy speeds?

  Read the article

• Installing Windows 7 from USB on a Thinkpad T61

  - by Halik

  I am trying to install Windows 7 Professional from USB 3.0 flashdrive, on a Thinkpad T61. The problem is, Thinkpads BIOS will not detect the flash drive as bootable medium, and won't allow to boot from it. What I did: Enabled USB BIOS Support in BIOS (it was on by default) In startup menu, added USB HDD to boot order (it has '-' sign in front of it) Created Windows 7 install media with UNetbootin, WinUSB (linux tool) dd and Grub4DOS. As you can tell, currently, I only have access to Linux machine to make the flashdrive. What happens: The T61 BIOS shows '-USB HDD' in boot order menu. The '-' sign suggests that the plugged flash drive is currently not bootable. The same flashdrive (with the same Windows image on it) is booting without any problems on a Dell D430 and Lenovo Y550. Also, Ubuntu 12.04 install USB created with Unetbootin shows as bootable ('+' sign in BIOS boot order menu) and boots from the F12 boot menu. Additional info thinkwiki.org says that some Thinkpad BIOSes do not use MBR on flashdrives. It suggests using Extended-IPL boot loader, but the provided links are broken and there seems to be no mirrors. Solution: http://superuser.com/a/430186/54970

  Read the article

• Win7 Ultimate 64bit not finding my SSD, any ideas?

  - by Jakub

  So I am trying to install Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit on my new SSD (Kingston SNVP325-S2/64GB) and I have unplugged my other drives (for the install only). The SSD is detected by BIOS, I am running the latest Firmware for my motherboard P5N-E SLI (775 socket). Upon getting the Windows 7 install screen, it gives me a 'no drives detected'. I have tried Load Driver and downloding nForce drivers (latest for Win7 64bit signed WHQL) results in a message of (something like) "To continue please click Load Driver and load 32-bit and signed 64-bit drivers... blah blah" ... basically it does NOT accept my nForce SATA drivers, nor my 2ndary SATA drivers (JMicron? can't recall the exact name now). I have tried F8 at loading to 'disable driver signing' in hopes that it was an unsigned driver, however nothing works. The SSD is not detected by the Windos 7 installer. I wasted 4 hours on this last night, and gave up, and got nowhere. Anyone heard / ran into this issue before? How can I get the drive detected? Some more details: - Kingston SNVP325-S2/64GB V+ SSD - ASUS P5N-E SLI MOBO - 8GB RAM A-DATA (memory is checked out and fine)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222  | Next Page >