Search Results

Search found 909 results on 37 pages for 'ict sector'.

Page 23/37 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

• How to do a hexdump of first track of HDD?

  - by Daniel Gratz

  How would i do a hexdump in Ubuntu for the first track of a HDD? I am looking for a winhex-esque output if that makes sense. The first track has 63 sectors, each 512 bytes long. I tried dd if=/dev/sda bs=1 count=512 | hexdump -C but that only gave me what appears to be the MBR, or first sector of the HDD. I guess i am confused about what bs and count should be. Bs means how many bytes to display and count is how many multiples of bs? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Did Acronis True Image Home 2012 clone operation "lock" my BitLocker disk?

  - by Thomas Eyde

  After trying to clone my primary drive, which requires a reboot to proceed, BitLocker detected that the boot sector had changed and required the recovery keys. Not a good situation to be in on Sunday evening when it is your IT-department who hold the keys. After talking with the guys at IT, I have tree suspects on why BitLocker locked me out: The newly added, second hard drive in my machine. The changed boot-order in BIOS. The changes True Image did in order to do its things on boot. As an end-user, I should never have to end up in situations like these without any warning. I would like to know what really happened, so I can inform Acronis on how they can improve their product to avoid this situation in the future.

  Read the article

• Isolate user from the rest of the system..?

  - by Shiki

  There is a non-techsavvy user, who doesn't want to learn, and can only use Windows XP or 7. The problem is, that the computer is shared which she would like to use, and the computer stores sensitive, important data. Since she clicks on everything, it's quite a russian roulette. How could I isolate her account from the rest of the system? Like having a profile on the computer (it runs Windows 7 now) which would have the files and other stuff sandboxed? I was thinking of having a dual boot system, but that could compromise the files too, or the boot sector (talking about Windows). Linux is not a way, hence ... see the first line. Is there such a software that can set up a sandboxed environment?

  Read the article

• Hypertransport sync flood error

  - by Carl B

  What is it? And what causes it? Is it only for uncorrectable DIMM Errors(Troubleshooting DIMM errors)? When an UCE occurs, the memory controller causes an immediate reboot of the system. During reboot, the BIOS checks the Machine Check registers and determines that the previous reboot was due to an UCE, then reports this in POST after the memtest stage: A Hypertransport Sync Flood occurred on last boot 3 BIOS reports this event in the service processor’s system event log (SEL) as shown in the sample IPMItool output There are what seems to be some suggested answers to include Bad Caps Bios verisons (happens in one version not the other) Graphics card issues Lack of power to the CPU The list of possible generators seems to target everything but the computer case. System Specs: Windows Home Premium 64 Motherboard - MSI790FX-GD70 (MS7577) / Bios v 1.9 (American Megatrensa Inc) Ram - Patriot G Series ‘Sector 5’ Edition 4GB DDR3 1600 CPU - AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition Callisto 3.2GHz Socket AM3 80W (Note: unlocked 2 cores CPU Z ids it as phenom II x4 B55) Graphics - 2 x Radeon 5750 in crossfire PSU - ABS 900w HDDs - 2 Seagate 1.5 TB Sata SSD - 1 OCZ 120 GB Vertex Plus R2

  Read the article

• IBM x260m won't boot from PCI SATA card

  - by syrenity

  Hi. We ghosted our old Windows 2003 drive to a new 1TB one, and connected through new PCI SATA card. The x260m server fails to boot with error 1962: "Boot sector not found." When we connect the drive directly to motherboard, it boots fine, so the problem is probably in getting BIOS to boot from the SATA card. Has anyone encountered and solved such issue? EDIT: We tried disabling the on-board Sata controller (Hostraid/SAS?), but there is no such option - only enable, enhanced and compatible. Tried also to chance boot device priority to all possible choices - no luck. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Finding the file that is on a bad block on a HFS+ volume (debugfs for HFS+)

  - by Blair Zajac

  I have a drive in our iMac that has bad blocks, as booting from an Ubuntu 11.10 live CD and using ddrescue -f /dev/sda /dev/null finds them. I'd like to get the drive to remap them by writing to the blocks, say using hdparm --write-sector, but I don't want to do this without knowing what's in those blocks and finding the file that owns them, so I can restore the file from another source. I found fileXray but don't feel like spending $79 to map a block to a file and hfsdebug has been taken offline. Are there suggestions on a tool or technique to use? I looked at all the Ubuntu HFS+ packages to see if they could provide this info but nothing jumped out at me. BTW, I used Disk Utility to erase the empty space, but it didn't get any of the bad blocks to be remapped, according to smartctl -A.

  Read the article

• Make a file non-deletable in USB

  - by MegaNairda

  Somebody used my USB drive and upon returning it to me, I found a autorun.inf that is undeletable. I tried changing it's file attribute which is only H (not even set as a system file) but it keeps on saying Access Denied. The USB is set on FAT32, upon asking my friend, he told me that he uses Panda USB Vaccine http://research.pandasecurity.com/Panda-USB-and-AutoRun-Vaccine/ How do they do this? Im trying to use some Disk Sector editor but have no idea which hex file they change to make this kind of file and make it deletable again. Formatting the drive removes it, but I'm curious as to how to be able to set those kind of file attribute.

  Read the article

• Why is my mdadm raid-1 recovery so slow?

  - by dimmer

  On a system I'm running Ubuntu 10.04. My raid-1 restore started out fast but quickly became ridiculously slow (at this rate the restore will take 150 days!): dimmer@paimon:~$ cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10] md0 : active raid1 sdc1[2] sdb1[1] 1953513408 blocks [2/1] [_U] [====>................] recovery = 24.4% (477497344/1953513408) finish=217368.0min speed=113K/sec unused devices: <none> Eventhough I have set the kernel variables to reasonably quick values: dimmer@paimon:~$ cat /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_min 1000000 dimmer@paimon:~$ cat /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_max 100000000 I am using 2 2.0TB Western Digital Hard Disks, WDC WD20EARS-00M and WDC WD20EARS-00J. I believe they have been partitioned such that their sectors are aligned. dimmer@paimon:/sys$ sudo parted /dev/sdb GNU Parted 2.2 Using /dev/sdb Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands. (parted) p Model: ATA WDC WD20EARS-00M (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 2000GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 2000GB 2000GB ext4 (parted) unit s (parted) p Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 2048s 3907028991s 3907026944s ext4 (parted) q dimmer@paimon:/sys$ sudo parted /dev/sdc GNU Parted 2.2 Using /dev/sdc Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands. (parted) p Model: ATA WDC WD20EARS-00J (scsi) Disk /dev/sdc: 2000GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 2000GB 2000GB ext4 I am beginning to think that I have a hardware problem, otherwise I can't imagine why the mdadm restore should be so slow. I have done a benchmark on /dev/sdc using Ubuntu's disk utility GUI app, and the results looked normal so I know that sdc has the capability to write faster than this. I also had the same problem on a similar WD drive that I RMAd because of bad sectors. I suppose it's possible they sent me a replacement with bad sectors too, although there are no SMART values showing them yet. Any ideas? Thanks. As requested, output of top sorted by cpu usage (notice there is ~0 cpu usage). iowait is also zero which seems strange: top - 11:35:13 up 2 days, 9:40, 3 users, load average: 2.87, 2.58, 2.30 Tasks: 142 total, 1 running, 141 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.8%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 3096304k total, 1482164k used, 1614140k free, 617672k buffers Swap: 1526132k total, 0k used, 1526132k free, 535416k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 45 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 2:17.02 scsi_eh_0 1 root 20 0 2808 1752 1204 S 0 0.1 0:00.46 init 2 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd 3 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.02 migration/0 4 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.17 ksoftirqd/0 5 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0 6 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0 0.0 0:00.02 migration/1 ... dmesg errors, definitely looking like hardware: [202884.000157] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen [202884.007015] ata5.00: failed command: FLUSH CACHE EXT [202884.013728] ata5.00: cmd ea/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0 [202884.013730] res 40/00:00:ff:59:2e/00:00:35:00:00/e0 Emask 0x4 (timeout) [202884.033667] ata5.00: status: { DRDY } [202884.040329] ata5: hard resetting link [202889.400050] ata5: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0) [202894.048087] ata5: COMRESET failed (errno=-16) [202894.054663] ata5: hard resetting link [202899.412049] ata5: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0) [202904.060107] ata5: COMRESET failed (errno=-16) [202904.066646] ata5: hard resetting link [202905.840056] ata5: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) [202905.849178] ata5.00: configured for UDMA/133 [202905.849188] ata5: EH complete [203899.000292] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen [203899.007096] ata5.00: failed command: IDENTIFY DEVICE [203899.013841] ata5.00: cmd ec/00:01:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 tag 0 pio 512 in [203899.013843] res 40/00:00:ff:f9:f6/00:00:38:00:00/e0 Emask 0x4 (timeout) [203899.041232] ata5.00: status: { DRDY } [203899.048133] ata5: hard resetting link [203899.816134] ata5: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) [203899.826062] ata5.00: configured for UDMA/133 [203899.826079] ata5: EH complete [204375.000200] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen [204375.007421] ata5.00: failed command: IDENTIFY DEVICE [204375.014799] ata5.00: cmd ec/00:01:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 tag 0 pio 512 in [204375.014800] res 40/00:00:ff:0c:0f/00:00:39:00:00/e0 Emask 0x4 (timeout) [204375.044374] ata5.00: status: { DRDY } [204375.051842] ata5: hard resetting link [204380.408049] ata5: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0) [204384.440076] ata5: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) [204384.449938] ata5.00: configured for UDMA/133 [204384.449955] ata5: EH complete [204395.988135] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen [204395.988140] ata5.00: failed command: IDENTIFY DEVICE [204395.988147] ata5.00: cmd ec/00:01:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 tag 0 pio 512 in [204395.988149] res 40/00:00:ff:0c:0f/00:00:39:00:00/e0 Emask 0x4 (timeout) [204395.988151] ata5.00: status: { DRDY } [204395.988156] ata5: hard resetting link [204399.320075] ata5: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) [204399.330487] ata5.00: configured for UDMA/133 [204399.330503] ata5: EH complete

  Read the article

• Creating a FAT file system and save it into a file in GNU/linux?

  - by RubenT

  I tell you my problem: I want to create a FAT file system and save it into a so I can mount it in linux using something like: sudo mount -t msdos <file> <dest_folder> Maybe I'm wrong and this cannot be done. Anyway, the problem is this: I'm trying to create the file containing a FAT file system, and I'm running this command: sudo mkfs.vfat -F 32 -r 112 -S 512 -v -C "test.fat" 100 That, accordingly to the mkfs man page, will create a FAT32 file system with 112 rootdir entries, logical sector size of 512 bytes, 100 blocks in total, and save it into "test.fat". But it fails, and the bash tells me: mkfs.vfat: unable to create test.fat What is going on? I think I am misunderstanding how mkfs works and how to use it. It is possible to write a filesystem into a file?

  Read the article

• Why are hard drives moving to 4096 byte sectors, vs. 512 byte sectors?

  - by Chris W. Rea

  I've noticed that some Western Digital hard drives are now sporting 4K sectors, that is, the sectors are larger: 4096 bytes vs. the long-standing standard of 512 bytes. So: What's the big deal with 4K sectors? Is it marketing hype, or a real advantage? Why should somebody building a new PC care, or not, about 4K sectors? Why is this transition taking place now? Why didn't it happen sooner? Are there things to look out for when buying a 4K sector hard drive? e.g. incompatibility? Anything else we should know about 4K sectors?

  Read the article

• HDD bad sectors with OS

  - by Michael Z

  I wonder is that possible for OS to make bad sectors on Hard Drive? Preface: I have bought new HDD on 1Tb WB Caviar Black. I have installed new OS on ext4 partition Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS. After few days S.M.A.R.T. of the Ubuntu's Disk Utility show that my hard has bad sectors! I have checked on S.M.A.R.T. immediately after installing OS - all was OK. During new OS working I have noticed some strange with HDD - all OS was freezed from 20 sec to 1 min and I have heard like HDD's engine restarting. At the dmes I have found something like this: [40085.407947] ata1.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0

  Read the article

• How to determine the best byte size for the dd command

  - by James

  I know that doing a dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdb does a deep hard drive copy. I've heard that people have been able to speed up the process by increasing the number of bytes that are read and written at a time (512) with the "bs" option. People have suggested that the optimal byte size is due to sector size. I personally think it would have something to do with the amount of cache that the hard drive has. My question is: What determines the ideal byte size for copying from a hard drive? and Why does that determine the ideal byte size?

  Read the article

• Various problems with software raid1 array built with Samsung 840 Pro SSDs

  - by Andy B

  I am bringing to ServerFault a problem that is tormenting me for 6+ months. I have a CentOS 6 (64bit) server with an md software raid-1 array with 2 x Samsung 840 Pro SSDs (512GB). Problems: Serious write speed problems: root [~]# time dd if=arch.tar.gz of=test4 bs=2M oflag=sync 146+1 records in 146+1 records out 307191761 bytes (307 MB) copied, 23.6788 s, 13.0 MB/s real 0m23.680s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.932s When doing the above (or any other larger copy) the load spikes to unbelievable values (even over 100) going up from ~ 1. When doing the above I've also noticed very weird iostat results: Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 0.00 1589.50 0.00 54.00 0.00 13148.00 243.48 0.60 11.17 0.46 2.50 sdb 0.00 1627.50 0.00 16.50 0.00 9524.00 577.21 144.25 1439.33 60.61 100.00 md1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1602.00 0.00 12816.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 And it keeps it this way until it actually writes the file to the device (out from swap/cache/memory). The problem is that the second SSD in the array has svctm and await roughly 100 times larger than the second. For some reason the wear is different between the 2 members of the array root [~]# smartctl --attributes /dev/sda | grep -i wear 177 Wear_Leveling_Count 0x0013 094% 094 000 Pre-fail Always - 180 root [~]# smartctl --attributes /dev/sdb | grep -i wear 177 Wear_Leveling_Count 0x0013 070% 070 000 Pre-fail Always - 1005 The first SSD has a wear of 6% while the second SSD has a wear of 30%!! It's like the second SSD in the array works at least 5 times as hard as the first one as proven by the first iteration of iostat (the averages since reboot): Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util sda 10.44 51.06 790.39 125.41 8803.98 1633.11 11.40 0.33 0.37 0.06 5.64 sdb 9.53 58.35 322.37 118.11 4835.59 1633.11 14.69 0.33 0.76 0.29 12.97 md1 0.00 0.00 1.88 1.33 15.07 10.68 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md2 0.00 0.00 1109.02 173.12 10881.59 1620.39 9.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 md0 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.01 3.10 0.02 7.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 What I've tried: I've updated the firmware to DXM05B0Q (following reports of dramatic improvements for 840Ps after this update). I have looked for "hard resetting link" in dmesg to check for cable/backplane issues but nothing. I have checked the alignment and I believe they are aligned correctly (1MB boundary, listing below) I have checked /proc/mdstat and the array is Optimal (second listing below). root [~]# fdisk -ul /dev/sda Disk /dev/sda: 512.1 GB, 512110190592 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 62260 cylinders, total 1000215216 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: 0x00026d59 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 2048 4196351 2097152 fd Linux raid autodetect Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 * 4196352 4605951 204800 fd Linux raid autodetect Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda3 4605952 814106623 404750336 fd Linux raid autodetect root [~]# fdisk -ul /dev/sdb Disk /dev/sdb: 512.1 GB, 512110190592 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 62260 cylinders, total 1000215216 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: 0x0003dede Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 2048 4196351 2097152 fd Linux raid autodetect Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sdb2 * 4196352 4605951 204800 fd Linux raid autodetect Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sdb3 4605952 814106623 404750336 fd Linux raid autodetect /proc/mdstat root # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 sdb2[1] sda2[0] 204736 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 sdb3[1] sda3[0] 404750144 blocks super 1.0 [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0] 2096064 blocks super 1.1 [2/2] [UU] unused devices: Running a read test with hdparm root [~]# hdparm -t /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing buffered disk reads: 664 MB in 3.00 seconds = 221.33 MB/sec root [~]# hdparm -t /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing buffered disk reads: 288 MB in 3.01 seconds = 95.77 MB/sec But look what happens if I add --direct root [~]# hdparm --direct -t /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 788 MB in 3.01 seconds = 262.08 MB/sec root [~]# hdparm --direct -t /dev/sdb /dev/sdb: Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 534 MB in 3.02 seconds = 176.90 MB/sec Both tests increase but /dev/sdb doubles while /dev/sda increases maybe 20%. I just don't know what to make of this. As suggested by Mr. Wagner I've done another read test with dd this time and it confirms the hdparm test: root [/home2]# dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1G count=10 10+0 records in 10+0 records out 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 38.0855 s, 282 MB/s root [/home2]# dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1G count=10 10+0 records in 10+0 records out 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 115.24 s, 93.2 MB/s So sda is 3 times faster than sdb. Or maybe sdb is doing also something else besides what sda does. Is there some way to find out if sdb is doing more than what sda does? UPDATE Again, as suggested by Mr. Wagner, I have swapped the 2 SSDs. And as he thought it would happen, the problem moved from sdb to sda. So I guess I'll RMA one of the SSDs. I wonder if the cage might be problematic. What is wrong with this array? Please help!

  Read the article

• How do I recover files from a corrupt VDI file?

  - by Eric P

  Is it possible to repair a corrupt VDI file? The OS on the VDI (XP) doesn't boot at all, it just hangs at a black screen. I was getting file errors before on its last boot, but now its not working at all. Sector viewer shows 'Invalid partition table Error loading operating system Missing operating system'. I tried mounting the file from the host OS, but it just says that the drive isn't formatted. I don't need to be able to run the VDI, but I do need some files that are on it. Is there any way to recover files from the corrupt VDI file?

  Read the article

• NTFS write speed really slow (<15MB/s)

  - by Zulakis

  I got a new Seagate 4TB harddrive formatted with ntfs using parted /dev/sda > mklabel gpt > mkpart pri 1 -1 mkfs.ntfs /dev/sda1 When copying files or testing writespeed with dd, the max writespeed I can get is about 12MB/s. The harddrive should be capable of atleast 100MB/s. top shows high cpu usage for the mount.ntfs process. The system has a AMD dualcore. This is the output of parted /dev/sda unit s print: Model: ATA ST4000DM000-1F21 (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 7814037168s Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: gpt Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 2048s 7814035455s 7814033408s pri The used kernel is 3.5.0-23-generic. The ntfs-3g versions I tried are ntfs-3g 2012.1.15AR.1 (ubuntu 12.04 default) and the newest version ntfs-3g 2013.1.13AR.2. When formatted with ext4 I get good write speeds with about 140MB/s. How can I fix the writespeed?

  Read the article

• Hardware RAID 0 without OS re-installation

  - by sterz

  I have Ubuntu & Windows 7 installed on my hdd. Can I mirror the image of the hdd to the second identical drive? Is this not recommended (i.e have to re-install every OS)? If it is okay to mirror, is there anything else to do to make hw RAID 0 work? Does RAID 0 have the same risk as a single drive? What sector size would you recommend for read/write/extract video files (mostly each around 2 GB)?

  Read the article

• A complete tool for auditing and archiving emails would be helpful for the community?

  - by Renato Todorov

  Please, don't treat this like a discussion question, I'm looking for direct answers: Yes / No, because... I work on a financial company and I'm needing a tool for email archiving and auditing. The compliance sector is asking for it and I have to provide it. I've searched and found two solutions: MailStore (commercial, Windows only) and Enkive (open source, very poor UI and lack of features). I'm using Postfix as MTA and Courier for IMAP/POP access. I'm almost deciding to write it myself, I have the knowledge needed, but I'm wondering right now if it's worth to put (a lot) more hours to make it open source and user friendly. So my question is, have you ever had the same need? Would this be a helpful solution? Is there any other good tool that I haven't found? Thank you!

  Read the article

• A raw dump from a corrupted large file

  - by Masoud M.

  I have a large .rar file inside partion D (Windows7/NTFS). It's corrupted due to bad sector (I think) and when I copy it to another place (External-HDD) the system freezes after 88% of progress. I even tried to copy it with my Ubuntu and same problem occurred. Also I tried chkdsk and it dosen't fix it. I think my last chance is dump that file with a tool which ignores bad sectors and create a raw copy of it. Then I will repair the file with rar tools. But I can not found a tool to raw dump a specific file. (In linux there is dd tool but it dumps all partition and I can not use it) So, Is somebody know a tool to do a raw dump from a file?

  Read the article

• 4K sectors transition: Why are hard drives moving to 4096 byte sectors, vs. 512 byte sectors?

  - by Chris W. Rea

  I've noticed that some Western Digital hard drives are now sporting 4K sectors, that is, the sectors are larger: 4096 bytes vs. the long-standing standard of 512 bytes. So: What's the big deal with 4K sectors? Is it marketing hype, or a real advantage? Why should somebody building a new PC care, or not, about 4K sectors? Why is this transition taking place now? Why didn't it happen sooner? Are there things to look out for when buying a 4K sector hard drive? e.g. incompatibility? Anything else we should know about 4K sectors?

  Read the article

• Can a power loss break an hard disk?

  - by dag729

  Today I was working when all of a sudden a power loss (in the entire house) occurs. I tried to reboot the machine but it states that there's an "Ebios error"; tried with an Ubuntu 9.04 live cd and while booting it states that there are various I/O errors on the first partition (the one with the boot sector). Now I managed to backup all of my data (using the live cd aforementioned) but I don't know if it'll worth the hassle of a reinstallation (and if it could do something useful) or if the only thing to do is to drop the hard disk as far as possible... Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Windows 2008 Server on VMWare (hardware)

  - by Bill

  I want to setup a single server to run a few virtual servers for our datacenter. I do not have a lot of money to spend so I am trying to gain bang for the buck. My budget is around $2,000. So I was thinking about building the following as the VMWare physical server: Intel iCore 7 950 (LGA1366, 4 cores,8 threads) Gigabyte GA-X58-USB3 LGA 1366 X58 ATX Intel Motherboard 24 GB of Viper II Series, Sector 7 Edition, Extreme Performance DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800) CL9 Triple Channel Memory VelociRaptor 300GB 10,000 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive I am planning on running the newest version of VMWare ESXi (64-bit). On these I am planning on running a few various servers: Windows 2008 Server R2 w/ IIS (several custom built ASP.NET Apps) Windows 2008 Server R2 w/ MS SQL 2008 Database Server Linux Web Server w/ Several WordPress Blogs (XAMPP?) Windows 2008 Server R2 w/ IIS (DEV ENVIRONMENT) Windows 2008 Server R2 w/ MS SQL 2008 Database Server (DEV ENVIRONMENT) In your opinion, will this hardware be sufficient to run the above load with room for possible 2-3 more virtual machines (probably lightweight web servers)?

  Read the article

• Partition and mount my secondary hard drive on CentOS 5.5 64bit?

  - by Andrew Fashion

  I am trying to prepare my second hard drive for user image uploads. Here is the current layout: # sudo parted /dev/sda print Model: ATA WDC WD2500KS-00M (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 250GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 32.3kB 107MB 107MB primary ext3 boot 2 107MB 8595MB 8488MB primary linux-swap 3 8595MB 10.7GB 2147MB primary ext3 4 10.7GB 250GB 239GB extended 5 10.7GB 250GB 239GB logical ext3 Information: Don't forget to update /etc/fstab, if necessary. I am assuming #4 is my secondary drive? How do I partition and mount it so I can begin using it? And how do I add to fstab? I understand if it's to many questions in one, just help me with whatever you can I guess :) Thank you for any help!

  Read the article

• Rebuilding RAID1 in Ubuntu

  - by John Utech

  I had my second HD in my RAID1 come up with bad sectors. So I got another drive and pulled out the bad sector drive and put the new drive in. With the original working RAID1 drive in the computer it failed to boot. I manually copied everything from the old drive over via a Gparted Live CD. Still no booting. Kind of scratching my head here as I can see that both of the drives have data on them but are unable to get either of them to boot. I used a Ubuntu live CD and couldn't even manually mount either of the drives, which I thought was really the odd part. Not sure where to go from here.

  Read the article

• "Disk boot failure" error after installing Windows 7 on SSD

  - by Tony_Henrich

  I have a system with 3 SATA drives which runs fine. Got a new SSD drive and wanted to install a fresh Windows-7 on it. So I removed the boot drive and replaced it with the SSD drive. Installed Windows and when it was done, rebooted and now I get "Disk boot failure. Insert system disk and press enter" error message. I reinstall again and still same message. Removed the SSD and put back the original drive and I got the same message!! I checked the BIOS and things look good. Something is wrong. Two questions: 1- Why isn't the new Windows booting from the SSD? 2- Why isn't the machine booting using the previous working configuration anymore, after removing the SSD? I did connect it during the second Windows installation but it was the last drive in the SATA connector. Would Windows installer mess with its MBR sector?

  Read the article

• Database implementation question?

  - by gundam

  consider a disk with a sector size of 512 bytes, 2000 tracks/surface, 50 sectors/track, 5 doubled sided platters, average seek time is 10 msec. Assume a block size of 1024-byte is selected. Assume a file that contains 100,000 records of 100-byte each is to be stored on the disk, and NONE of the reocd can be spanned 2 blocks. How many blocks are needed to store the entire file?? If the file is arranged sequentially on disk, how many surfaces are required?? Now, i have calculated that 10,000 blocks are needed to store 100,000 records. But i am not sure how to find out the answer of the surfaces required. I only calculated the capacity of track is 25KB and capacity of surface is 50,000 KB But I don't know how to calculate the number of surfaces... Could anyone help me how to get the answer? Thanks a lot!!

  Read the article

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