Search Results

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

Page 23/139 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • MD3200 - 3 to 4x less throughput than MD1220. Am I missing something here?

    - by Igor Polishchuk
    I have two R710 servers with similar configuration. One in my office has MD1220 attached. Another one in the datacenter of my hosting services vendor has MD3200. I'm getting significantly worse throughput from MD3200 at my vendors setup. I'm mostly interested in sequential writes, and I'm getting these results in bonnie++ and dd tests: Seq. writes on MD1220 in my office: 1.1 GB/s - bonnie++, 1.3GB/s - dd Seq. writes on MD3200 at my vendor's: 240MB/s - bonnie++, 310MB/s - dd Unfortunately, I could not test the exactly the same configurations, but the two I have should be comparable. If anything, my good performing environment is cheaper than the bad performing. I expect at least similar throughput from these two setups. My vendor cannot really help me. Hopefully, somebody more familiar with the DAS performance can look at it and tell if I'm missing something here and my expectations are too high. To summarize, the question here is it reasonable to expect about 100MB/s of sequential write throughput per each couple of drives in RAID10 on MD3200? Is there any trick to enable such performance in MD3200 with dual controller as opposed to simple MD1220 with a single H800 adapter? More details about the configurations: A good one in my office: Dell R710 2CPU X5650 @ 2.67GHz 12 cores 96GB DDR3, OS: RHEL 5.5, kernel 2.6.18-194.26.1.el5 x86_64 20x300GB 2.5" SAS 10K in a single RAID10 1MB chunk size on MD1220 + Dell H800 I/O controller with 1GB cache in the host Not so good one at my vendor's: Dell R710 2CPU L5520 @ 2.27GHz 8 cores 144GB DDR3, OS: RHEL 5.5, kernel 2.6.18-194.11.4.el5 x86_64 20x146GB 2.5" SAS 15K in a single RAID10 512KB chunk size, Dell MD3200, 2 I/O controllers in array with 1GB cache each Additional information. I've also ran the same tests on the same vendor's host, but the storage was: two raids of 14x146GB 15K RPM drives RAID 10, striped together on the OS level on MD3000+MD1000. The performance was about 25% worse than on MD3200 despite having more drives. When I ran similar tests on the internal storage of my vendor's host (2x146GB 15K RPM drives RAID1, Perc 6i) I've got about 128MB/s seq. writes. Just two internal drives gave me about a half of 20 drives' throughput on MD3200. The random I/O performance of the MD3200 setup is ok, it gives me at least 1300 IOPS. I'm mostly have problems with sequentioal I/O throughput. Thank you for looking into it. Regards Igor

    Read the article

  • HP DL380 RAID5 Mistake

    - by Eddy
    I had drives fail in both logical drives on a server. When I replaced failed 146GB drive in Raid 5 array with four (4) 146GB drives. On reboot the Smart Array controller asked if I wanted to accept data loss. Guess mistake to choose yes. Can't seem to find a way to get system to repair RAID5 but it seems to want to just create a new partition. Is there anyway I can go back and get the system to restore the data from other three drives now that I said accept data loss?

    Read the article

  • How do I get Windows 7 To Recognize a newly installed RAID 5 volume?

    - by GregH
    I had a previously running Windows 7 (64 bit) system. I added 3 new 1TB Seagate drives that I set up as a RAID 5 volume. I have a Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 motherboard. I installed the drives, set up the BIOS and configured the three drives as a RAID volume through the RAID setup utility that was accessed via Ctrl-I while the system was booting. I rebooted the system and could see the drives during the boot sequence. However, when Windows 7 was starting I got an error (quick blue screen) and then Windows tried to repair itself with no success. Do I need to install RAID drivers in Windows? How do I do it if Windows won't boot? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Installing SATA dvd burner on machine with no spare SATA ports/connectors

    - by Faheem Mitha
    Greetings. I have the following motherboard Tyan Thunder K8WE S2895A2NRF Motherboard - extended ATX - nForce Pro 2200/2050 - Socket 940 - UDMA133, Serial ATA-300 (RAID) - 2 x Gigabit Ethernet - FireWire - 6-1 channel audio This is part of a computer that was assembled in the winter of 2006/2007. The user manual says the following with regard to SATA Integrated SATAII Generation 1 Controllers (from NForce Professional 2200) Two integrated dual port SATA II controllers Four SATA connectors support up to four drives 3 Gb/s per direction per channel NvRAID v2.0 support Supports RAID 0, 1, 0+1 and JBOD. I just purchased a SATA DVD burner. Here is the page for the product http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B002QGDWLK/ The problem I am facing is that I already have 4 SATA drives installed. I don't want to remove any of them. However, I want the DVD burner above installed as well. The person I am consulting with here (Bombay, India) tells me that my four available SATA ports are filled, and that my only option is to install a SATA card into the one free PCI slot on the motherboard. However, he says that with this setup I will not be able to boot from the DVD drive. Are these statements correct, and what are my other options if any? Even it the statements in the last para are true, I suppose I could use one of the motherboard connectors/ports there are currently being used with the hard drives with the DVD drive, and use the "add-on" connector with one of the hard drives. Not all the 4 hard drives need to be bootable. BTW, despite having read through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#Cables.2C_connectors.2C_and_ports I am fuzzy on the differences between connectors, cables and ports. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • RAID options for a LAMP web server

    - by jetboy
    I'm due to set up a LAMP web server with four drives and a RAID controller to act as a web server. The drives are 146Gb SAS, and the machine has two quad core processors and 16Gb RAM. There will be very few write operations to the MySQL database, and I'll be using as much caching as possible to reduce disk I/O. Question is: Would I be better off splitting the drives into two RAID 1 arrays, splitting up sequential and random disk I/O, or would I get better overall performance putting them all in a single RAID 1+0 array?

    Read the article

  • Raid-1 Western Digital Green AARS, cloning and WD Align Utility

    - by Jaguar
    Hello all, My current setup runs on top of 2x Western Digital 2500KS drives on Raid-1, using the motherboard's 780G raid controller, on WinXP. Everything is fine, but the drives are a bit noisy. I am considering buying 2x WD6400AARS disks which are the 640GB slower 'green' drives, but also feature the Advanced Formatting 4KB sectors. This means that for WinXP the partition will have to be aligned to work properly, else there is a performance penalty. There are 2 questions here: The Green drives from WD are all slower and are (according to WD) susceptible to drop-out's from the controller. Has anyone any experience in this matter? Is there a possibility the controller will drop a drive? If so, can i do anything about it? Secondly, western digital gives a utility to perform the alignment on the partition. The thing is, will the utility see the drives in question as the operating system only sees 1 logical disk? I will be making the transition using a cloning tool (most probably norton ghost) unless i don't find a solution or a clear answer, in which case i'll just buy a win 7 license and make a clean install... thx in advance

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 "Backup completed but some files were skipped"

    - by Andrew Coleson
    I set up Windows 7 Pro to backup my files to a network path (woohoo!) and chose to backup "data for newly created users, libraries", and my user folder (no system image). All went fine (although the first backup took ~12 hours for some ridiculous reason), but at the end it gave me a message that "Your backup completed, but some files were skipped. Click to see which files." I checked and the "files" skipped were my 3 network-mapped drives, which is perfectly fine and reasonable behavior (I certainly don't need it to back up my network-mapped drives as part of my local PC backup), but in the Backup and Restore center it warns me that my Last backup was "Never" and the Action Center now has a permanent "Check your backup results" issue. Is there any way to set up the backup to exclude the network-mapped drives or tell it that I really don't mind that it skipped drives I never asked it to back up?

    Read the article

  • Deleting windows.edb and unchecking Indexing service lead to hard drive file records swapping

    - by linni
    I followed the instructions listed here:http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/09/18/turn-off-and-disable-search-indexing-service-in-windows-xp/ to free up space on hard drive by deleting the windows.edb indexing file... I also stopped windows search service as mentioned in the comments following the article. In addition to unchecking the "Allow Indexing Service to index this disk for fast file searching" check box on the properties dialog for the C:\ drive, I did the same for two usb connected hard drives (J:\ and I:\ ). I'm not sure why I did that, thought it might shrink the windows.edb file so I wouldn't have to delete it (which sounded a bit risky in my ears at the time). The file of course didn't shrink so I ended up deleting it and freeing up over 3 GB of space, yeehaw. However, as soon as I had done this I could not access the usb connected hard drives anymore. The error I got was "I:\photos is not accessible" "The file or directory is corrupted and unreadable" when I tried to open the photos directory on I:\ Here is where I enter the twilight zone... I try disconnecting I:\ usb hard drive. But XP shows me that instead J:\ drive has disconnected and I:\ is still there. So I disconnect both drives and restart the computer. I then connect one drive, but it lists up the contents of the other drive on root level. I tried connecting the drives vice versa and the same thing happens. I try taking one of the hard drives to another computer and when I connect it there it lists up not its own contents but the contents of the other hard drive and gives the same error as above when I try and access any of the folders (even folders on the root that have the same name as folders on the other drive (e.g. J:\photos and I:\photos)??? And no, this is not a me mixing up my drive letters. Computer Manager - Disk management shows the same result as explorer: The drive size is correct (one is 500GB, the other is 640GB) but the drive name is of the opposite drive, as long as the contents. Also, one drive was full of data and the other almost empty but they incorrectly show their free space status of the other drive. Somehow the usb drives seem to have switched file tables, file records, boot records or something, extremely weird! Even weirder, if I try and create a text file or folder on this drive, it works fine, accessing them, saving, whatever, all good, but accessing any other data on the drive gives me an error. Does anyone have a clue what is going on and more importantly, how I can restore the correct folder listings to access my family photos ??? cheers, linni

    Read the article

  • I flashed my DS4700 with a 7 series firmware, now my DS4300 cannot read the disks I moved to that lo

    - by Daniel Hoeving
    In preparation for adding a number of 1Tb SATA disks to our DS4700 I flashed the controller firmware from a 6 series (which only supports up to 2Tb logical drives) to a 7 series (which supports larger than 2Tb logical drives). Attached to this DS4700 was a EXP710 expansion drawer that we had planned to migrate out to our co-location to allieviate the storage issues we were having there. Unfortunately these two projects were planned in isolation to one another so I was at the time unaware of the issue that this would cause. Prior to migrating the drawer I was reading the "IBM TotalStorage DS4000 EXP700 and EXP710 Storage Expansion EnclosuresInstallation, User’s, and Maintenance Guide" and discovered this: Controller firmware 6.xx or earlier has a different metadata (DACstore) data structure than controller firmware 7.xx.xx.xx. Metadata consists of the array and logical drive configuration data. These two metadata data structures are not interchangeable. When powered up and in Optimal state, the storage subsystem with controller firmware level 7.xx.xx.xx can convert the metadata from the drives configured in storage subsystems with controller firmware level 6.xx or earlier to controller firmware level 7.xx.xx.xx metadata data structure. However, the storage subsystem with controller firmware level 6.xx or earlier cannot read the metadata from the drives configured in storage subsystems with controller firmware level 7.xx.xx.xx or later. I had assumed that if I deleted the logical drives and array information on the EXP710 prior to migrating it to the DS4300 (6.60.22 firmware) this would satisfy the above, unfortunately I was wrong. So my question is a) Is it possible to restore the DAC information to its factory settings, b) What tool(s) would I use to accomplish this, or c) is this a lost cause? Daniel.

    Read the article

  • How do I protect business critical data against fire?

    - by Bill Knowles
    We have 72 hard drives that contain our webcast inventory. The number is increasing. We're located in a frame building and we are afraid of not only fire, but catastrophic fire. I've priced fireproof safes that hold to the required 125F for hard drives. Their price is through the roof. Seems to me if we made backups of each of the hard drives and stored them off-site somewhere, or contracted with an online backup storage company, we might run up a bill buying backup drives that would approach the $7,000 cost of the safe! What's the best way to protect our data from the risk of fire?

    Read the article

  • Deleting windows.edb and unchecking Indexing service lead to hard drive file records swapping

    - by linni
    I followed the instructions listed here:http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/09/18/turn-off-and-disable-search-indexing-service-in-windows-xp/ to free up space on hard drive by deleting the windows.edb indexing file... I also stopped windows search service as mentioned in the comments following the article. In addition to unchecking the "Allow Indexing Service to index this disk for fast file searching" check box on the properties dialog for the C:\ drive, I did the same for two usb connected hard drives (J:\ and I:\ ). I'm not sure why I did that, thought it might shrink the windows.edb file so I wouldn't have to delete it (which sounded a bit risky in my ears at the time). The file of course didn't shrink so I ended up deleting it and freeing up over 3 GB of space, yeehaw. However, as soon as I had done this I could not access the usb connected hard drives anymore. The error I got was "I:\photos is not accessible" "The file or directory is corrupted and unreadable" when I tried to open the photos directory on I:\ Here is where I enter the twilight zone... I try disconnecting I:\ usb hard drive. But XP shows me that instead J:\ drive has disconnected and I:\ is still there. So I disconnect both drives and restart the computer. I then connect one drive, but it lists up the contents of the other drive on root level. I tried connecting the drives vice versa and the same thing happens. I try taking one of the hard drives to another computer and when I connect it there it lists up not its own contents but the contents of the other hard drive and gives the same error as above when I try and access any of the folders (even folders on the root that have the same name as folders on the other drive (e.g. J:\photos and I:\photos)??? And no, this is not a me mixing up my drive letters. Computer Manager - Disk management shows the same result as explorer: The drive size is correct (one is 500GB, the other is 640GB) but the drive name is of the opposite drive, as long as the contents. Also, one drive was full of data and the other almost empty but they incorrectly show their free space status of the other drive. Somehow the usb drives seem to have switched file tables, file records, boot records or something, extremely weird! Even weirder, if I try and create a text file or folder on this drive, it works fine, accessing them, saving, whatever, all good, but accessing any other data on the drive gives me an error. Does anyone have a clue what is going on and more importantly, how I can restore the correct folder listings to access my family photos ??? cheers, linni

    Read the article

  • HP DL180 G6 P410 8x SATA 1TB, what is the optimal configuration?

    - by Oneiroi
    I have a HP DL180 G6 with a P410 raid controller. Presently this runs using 4x 1TB Samsung Spinpoint SATA drives, in a RAID10 configuration using default settings. I am about to add a backplane to increase the drive capacity from 4 to 12 drives, and I plan to install 4 more 1TB SATA Drives. The drives are matched and have close serial numbers (They arrived together in the Manufacturers pallet). Model HD103UJ 1000GB/7200rpm/32M Rated for 3GB/s I will also be installing RHEL 6.1 x86_64. My question is what would be the optimal RAID settings (stripe etc.) for this configuration? To recap: 8x Model HD103UJ 1000GB/7200rpm/32M Rated for 3GB/s RAID 10 configuration. Thanks in advance. Update for role: Server is to become an iscsi target for an internal openstack deployment currently underway. (Glance) Will also provide virtualisation through KVM

    Read the article

  • mdadm raid5 recover double disk failure - with a twist (drive order)

    - by Peter Bos
    Let me acknowledge first off that I have made mistakes, and that I have a backup for most but not all of the data on this RAID. I still have hope of recovering the rest of the data. I don't have the kind of money to take the drives to a recovery expert company. Mistake #0, not having a 100% backup. I know. I have a mdadm RAID5 system of 4x3TB. Drives /dev/sd[b-e], all with one partition /dev/sd[b-e]1. I'm aware that RAID5 on very large drives is risky, yet I did it anyway. Recent events The RAID become degraded after a two drive failure. One drive [/dev/sdc] is really gone, the other [/dev/sde] came back up after a power cycle, but was not automatically re-added to the RAID. So I was left with a 4 device RAID with only 2 active drives [/dev/sdb and /dev/sdd]. Mistake #1, not using dd copies of the drives for restoring the RAID. I did not have the drives or the time. Mistake #2, not making a backup of the superblock and mdadm -E of the remaining drives. Recovery attempt I reassembled the RAID in degraded mode with mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md0, using /dev/sd[bde]1. I could then access my data. I replaced /dev/sdc with a spare; empty; identical drive. I removed the old /dev/sdc1 from the RAID mdadm --fail /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1 Mistake #3, not doing this before replacing the drive I then partitioned the new /dev/sdc and added it to the RAID. mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1 It then began to restore the RAID. ETA 300 mins. I followed the process via /proc/mdstat to 2% and then went to do other stuff. Checking the result Several hours (but less then 300 mins) later, I checked the process. It had stopped due to a read error on /dev/sde1. Here is where the trouble really starts I then removed /dev/sde1 from the RAID and re-added it. I can't remember why I did this; it was late. mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --remove /dev/sde1 mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sde1 However, /dev/sde1 was now marked as spare. So I decided to recreate the whole array using --assume-clean using what I thought was the right order, and with /dev/sdc1 missing. mdadm --create /dev/md0 --assume-clean -l5 -n4 /dev/sdb1 missing /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 That worked, but the filesystem was not recognized while trying to mount. (It should have been EXT4). Device order I then checked a recent backup I had of /proc/mdstat, and I found the drive order. md0 : active raid5 sdb1[0] sde1[4] sdd1[2] sdc1[1] 8790402048 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU] I then remembered this RAID had suffered a drive loss about a year ago, and recovered from it by replacing the faulty drive with a spare one. That may have scrambled the device order a bit...so there was no drive [3] but only [0],[1],[2], and [4]. I tried to find the drive order with the Permute_array script: https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Permute_array.pl but that did not find the right order. Questions I now have two main questions: I screwed up all the superblocks on the drives, but only gave: mdadm --create --assume-clean commands (so I should not have overwritten the data itself on /dev/sd[bde]1. Am I right that in theory the RAID can be restored [assuming for a moment that /dev/sde1 is ok] if I just find the right device order? Is it important that /dev/sde1 be given the device number [4] in the RAID? When I create it with mdadm --create /dev/md0 --assume-clean -l5 -n4 \ /dev/sdb1 missing /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1 it is assigned the number [3]. I wonder if that is relevant to the calculation of the parity blocks. If it turns out to be important, how can I recreate the array with /dev/sdb1[0] missing[1] /dev/sdd1[2] /dev/sde1[4]? If I could get that to work I could start it in degraded mode and add the new drive /dev/sdc1 and let it resync again. It's OK if you would like to point out to me that this may not have been the best course of action, but you'll find that I realized this. It would be great if anyone has any suggestions.

    Read the article

  • RAID0 array of USB 2 disks, both connected to a single hub. Any benefit?

    - by Josh
    I have two unused USB 2 drives. I wanted to stripe them in a RAID0 configuration for fast disk access for virtual machines. (I find running a VMware virtual machine off a USB2 drive to be painfully slow. Especially Windows Vista) If I have both USB drives attached to the same USB2 hub, will that negate any benefit I gain by creating a RAID0 array? That is to say, is the speed of USB2 the limiting factor or is the speed of the drives? Would I get better performance by attaching one or both drives directly to my computer?

    Read the article

  • How can I determine the sector size on an external hard drive?

    - by sigint
    Hard drives are transitioning from 512 byte to 4096 byte sector sizes, and it looks like Windows XP won't support these newer drives without additional software (such as WDalign from Western Digital) My question is: how does this affect external hard drives? I'll be buying a 1TB USB external drive, and it'll be plugged into a mix of Windows 7 and XP machines. Is there an easy way to tell what the sector size on an external hard drive is?

    Read the article

  • HDD Carrier, like a soda carrier available at McDonalds?

    - by Jason Taylor
    We use external USB drives for backups, and they have to be stored offsite at the end of the week. Right now we have your standard external USB drive inside an enclosure. We were thinking about moving to a USB dock, and dock a bare HDD for backups, rather than having various sized and types of enclosures. If we were to do this, the drives need protection while being transported to/from the safety deposit box. Is there any kind of hard drive carrier that would let us slide two drives into it, and it would provide protection while the drives are carried around by non-technical people? I'm afraid such a product doesn't exist, but perhaps someone knows of something?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 won't show SATA Hard Drive in My Computer

    - by Darth
    I have clean install of Windows 7 x64 with two SATA hard drives. When I open My Computer, I can see only the drive where Windows are installed (and all partitions), but I don't see the other one. When I go to disk manager, I can see that both drives are detected and the one that I don't see in My Computer is also marked as Primary, but when I right click, the Open and Browse are gray. I also checked drives with gparted on live Ubuntu and they both seem to work correctly, the second drive wasn't marked hidden or anything else. Before installing Windows 7, I had Windows XP, where both drives worked properly.

    Read the article

  • How to re-do the hard disks in a WD Word Book Edition II ?

    - by jfmessier
    I recently purchased a WD World Book II, a 2 TB one. I call it the "White Box". It has those 2 1TB drives, and they were in this RAID 1 config, only giving me about 1 TB. I could not delete the raid array, and I took the drives in a Linux box. But I also deleted the entire partitions of the disks, and I cannot even et the existing RAID array on this WD White Box. The drives are fine, but I cannot get them to work on the WD White Box. My goal was to get back to a real 2 TB storage space. If I cannot get those drives back in the White Box, I can re-use them elsewhere, but this would mean a waste of the firmware and network connection. After the fact, I read that, anyway, the network performance is rather poor. Thanks :-)

    Read the article

  • Understanding the Linux boot process, subsystem initialization, & udev rules?

    - by quack quixote
    I'm creating UDEV rules for automounting external drives on a headless server, much in the same way as Gnome-VFS does automounting during a user session. I'm concerned with the rule's behavior at boot-time. There's a good chance one of these drives will be connected during a boot, and I'd prefer any connected drives get mounted in the right place. The drives might be either USB or Firewire, and they are mounted from a shell script fired off by UDEV on detecting an "add". Here are my questions: When UDEV runs the mount for these devices at boot, will the system be ready to mount it? Or will the script get triggered too early? If it's too early, what's a good way for a script to tell that the system isn't ready yet (so sleep a while before checking again)? The UDEV rule matches ACTION=="add". Does this event even fire at system boot?

    Read the article

  • How I can determine the sector size on an external hard drive?

    - by sigint
    Hard drives are transitioning from 512 byte to 4096 byte sector sizes, and it looks like Windows XP won't support these newer drives without additional software (such as WDalign from Western Digital) My question is: how does this affect external hard drives? I'll be buying a 1TB USB external drive, and it'll be plugged into a mix of Windows 7 and XP machines. Is there an easy way to tell what the sector size on an external hard drive is?

    Read the article

  • USB flash drive unreadable after a few minutes on Windows 8

    - by B Sharp
    I recently got a new computer with Windows 8. I a have a number of large backup files I am moving from my old PC to my new one. I was able to successfully copy the files to a couple 16 GB flash drives. When I try to copy the files to my new computer, the process starts just fine but after copying about 4 GB of files, the copy stops. If I look at the drive in explorer, the drive is there, but I just get a busy cursor that stays indefinitely if I click it. If I unplug the flash drive and plug it back in, everything is fine again... for a couple minutes. I've tried copying from both flash drives with the same result. I've also tested this on the USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports on my motherboard with the same result (the drives are USB 2.0) It's also puzzling that this is happening since I previously used one of the same flash drives to install Windows 8 on this computer in the first place without any difficulty.

    Read the article

  • Can I trick Carbonite into backing up an external hard drive?

    - by Brian
    I use Carbonite to back up my PC (Windows XP). We were running low on disk space on our home PC (down to 15 GB), so I went out and purchased an external hard drive. However, Carbonite will not back it up. Is it possible to set up Carbonite to backup an external hard drive? I just want the external drive to be extra disk space. From their FAQ: The current version of Carbonite backs up only the files that reside on permanent hard drives on your computer. It will not back up network drives, external drives, and NAS (network accessed storage) drives. If there are files on a remote drive that you wish to include in your Carbonite backup, you should copy the files to a folder on your local hard drive. If the files are on a shared network drive, you could install Carbonite on the computer on which the network shared drive physically exists, and back the files up directly from that computer. Check back soon for a Carbonite service plan that will allow you to back up your external drives.

    Read the article

  • How to index filenames, size and basic informations for every file on a network?

    - by Antoine
    I have several machines, most of then are Linux and one of them is under Mac OS X. Each machine has several internal hard drives, and I also have a few external hard drives. How can I reliably find files with setup ? External drives are not always plugged, but the files don't move often. Ideally I would like to be able to search the metadata given with the 'file' command, and move files over the network.

    Read the article

  • Recommended Setup

    - by Chris Ryan
    I have been running into issue with my MSSQL Database setup with speed. Here is my scenario. About 100M Rows Average: 1k Updates Per Second Hard Drives: RAID 10 SSD MDF --Active Time: 0 Log Drives: 1 SSD LDF - Simple Recovery --Active Time 99.9 --Queue: 8 I do not need a back up of the log so it is set to simple recovery but my bottleneck is still at my log. I get high WAITLOG times and thus it can not update any faster. I can't do bulk updates/transactions and each update needs to be one at a time. Is my only option to increase write performance of the log drives, add a RAID drives? Any suggestions on increasing the performance?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >